How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Huba]

 

[c3k]

14 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Overall I agree, but wars are political in nature and this one certainly has a lot of politics involved.  If it's relevant to the war then I'm inclined to allow it to some extent.

I would ask that you examine your own approach to politics discussion here.  By that I mean you don't appear to have a problem with criticism of other nation's politics or their leadership.  The mention of Trump was in response to my mention of Berlusconi, yet you only singled one out.  I've also not seen you objecting to discussion of Macron, Sholtz, or others who have not been portrayed in a positive light (to say the least) hundreds of times in this thread.

This is an international Forum with a large array of opinions.  It is not in the interests of this Forum, this thread, or us as individuals for me to selectively censor in order to protect one specific group of people in one specific country. 

Steve

Indeed, I have not objected to, nor supported, any viewpoint on foreign politics because I realize that all I would bring would be a distorted American perspective. I have no basis for getting into those discussions...either pro or con or trying to tamp them down to prevent spiraling off-topic.

 

I see a lot of blame put on former President Trump for this invasion. Funny how Putin only invaded AFTER President Trump left office...

1. The Russian Hoax has been explicitly proven to be a forgery created by the Hillary Clinton campaign. All the "Russia Russia Russia" hysteria in the US media has been conclusively shown to be a political ploy by the DNC, supported by the Mainstream Media.

2. President Biden is on tape bragging about corrupting Ukraine to protect his son, Hunter, from a criminal investigation by the authorities in Ukraine. He used his position as vice president under President Obama to wield a $1 Billion dollar stick over Ukraine. This is on tape.

3. The debacle of the US withdrawal from Afghanistan occurred under President Biden. Whether that withdrawal was warranted or not is immaterial: the process of the withdrawal was a total fustercluck. How much weakness did this signal to Putin?

China...by sending wealth to the Biden family via Hunter...has shown the world what the Biden family cares about.

Putin obviously thought that Biden was weak and would not involve the US in this invasion. (Due to corruption, lack of leadership, and international weakness.)

Whoever in the US administration began leaking Russian invasion plans was trying to stop this...but it was too late. These things have a certain momentum or inertia. Putin thought he had the measure of Biden.

So...does President Biden have a share of the blame in "allowing" (<- via the signaling I mentioned above) Russia to think they could get away with this? Or, is it all Trump?

 

 

Again, I will stay away from any opinions on foreign domestic politics. I will say that I am heavily disappointed in the lack of support Germany is providing. Is that due to Scholtz? I have no idea...it could be far more complex and nuanced than "that guy is a Stasi wannabe" or whatever the complaints are against him.

Ditto Switzerland blocking ammo supplies. Is it one of cantons that is doing that? Shrug. All I know is that Switzerland thinks it is safe behind the mountains and that any future armament purchasers better think about how they will source their ammo and other logistics.

Should Macron be praised for the Ceasars? I don't know, but FRANCE is sending some good equipment.

If you look at my posts, I am very careful to point to the COUNTRY involved, not any individual. (Zelensky excepted, because, damn, talk about the right man at the right time.)  I have tried to do the same with the US.

[Butschi]

27 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Using your logic, you would have supported Hitler in 1939.  Do you have family members that lived under German occupation that you can ask about the wisdom of this?

Correct.  There's plenty of blame to go around.  And while Europe is not directly responsible for Ukraine, it is culpable because it facilitated Russia's ability to attack Ukraine in broad and specific terms.  For example, French Thales dodging sanctions to sell Russia it's best thermal optics.

Many would say "yes" to that.

As an American, I say "yes" to that.  I'll go beyond that.  I've personally sent quite a lot of my own money to Ukraine in the past few months.  I've sent a good chunk of money to a Polish relief organization to help Poland too.  I understand that Russia needs to be defeated for the sake of my country (specifically) and the world (generally). 

This war absolutely affects my country and I am glad the current political establishment understands that.

Thank you for making my point   Assad and ISIS were about to get snuffed out by even the weak, inadequate response of the US and Europe to the civil war there.  Then Russia stepped in and the US/Europe pulled out.  Russia deliberately engaged in behaviors that sent refugees to Europe.  In fact, Russia did this deliberately because it knew that it would fracture and burden the EU.  This is not debatable.  Belarus even directly facilitated refugees getting to the Polish border and then pushed them across until Poland put a stop to it.

Europe is going to pay for Russia's misbehavior one way or another.  As with most things, putting it off has made it more expensive and tragic.  Just like the Yugoslav civil war.

Steve

We (the West) all profited from tade with Russia to some degree. Even the eastern european countries (including Ukraine) either received Russian oil or gas or profited from transfer tariffs. We are mainly to blame for the illusion (although I don't think most people involved really believed in it, it was just a convenient excuse) that trade somehow leads to everyone with whom we trade will want to join our club of capitalistic democracies.

ISIS was a direct consequence of the mess the USA made in Iraq. On the other hand also we Europeans didn't want to get our hands dirty and didn't care about Syria as long as the refugees could somehow be kept out or conveniently drowned in the Mediterranean.

Anyway, I think it is an illusion (yet another one) that the EU is going to pay for building up Ukraine and whatever else may need to be payed for in the future. Even if Ukraine will join the EU the price will be paid by the net receivers. The net payers will not significantly raise their payments and so what is there will have to be devided amongst more receivers. Maybe the EU will raise some dept financed funds but I doubt it. We will help, possibly via something like development aid and guarantees for investments but not too much beyond that. That is sad but I don't see EU citizens voting to sacrifice their prosperity for a war started by someone else. The whole fallout of having to look elsewhere for cheap energy is a different thing and that is our own fault for being so short sighted.

 

[Desertor]

Finally I begin to believe that some kind of Internacional brotherhood is possible, we just needed the kind of horrible common enemy that rusia makes...

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

So there is: what happened, what is happening and what will happen.  Everyone is interested in the last one and never spend enough time on the first two.  In reality good analysis should focus primarily on the first two and they are incredibly hard enough to get right. 

Yup.  I've been trying really hard to emphasize this point in my "predictions".  All I can do is say "the historical conditions for X now exist, therefore it is possible X might happen".  Historical examples might hint at rough orders of magnitude, but even then it's usually something that comes about rather suddenly.

Case in point is that I predicted that Russia's efforts around Kyiv would fail to the point of having to retreat.  They lasted a few weeks more than I expected, but ultimately they did retreat.  And I did not predict they would abandon the rest of their northern effort at the same time, but when I looked at it again I saw that it was the logical move and probably should have predicted it.

So, incorrect on the specifics of "what is happening" and "what will happen", even though overall my understanding of what MIGHT happen was spot on.

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

The problem with a war, particularly one like this is that all analysts have are assumptions at the beginning of it.  These assumptions become the foundational what happened that they build their entire framework upon.  Then they tend to ignore counter-factuals as outliers and select information that supports their framework - I lost count how many times in Mar I heard "Ukrainians are putting up a spirited defence but this war is still going to end in Russian victory".  That is human nature, but one has to be aware it is happening.

Yup.  Personally, I have two advantages over the experts.  First, my assumptions were fundamentally correct before the war started, therefore I was able to immediately build upon that instead of having to tear down a huge mental framework and rebuild it from scratch.  Second, my job doesn't rest on my opinions about this war.  Unlike the experts, who got paid to make bad analysis, I don't have to protect my imagine.  As long as I make games you guys want to buy, I'm going to do fine.  I have the freedom to express opinions without worrying about losing my job.  That's a very good thing

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

The other problem I have seen in this war's analysis is a serious lack of expertise in those holding the microphones.  I have seen the gambit of western GOs, some with pretty impressive resumes, on mainstream news and then the slick haired "combat bros" who served in the SEALs/Green Berets/Marine Recon/Rangers pushing their "analysis" via social media.  The reality is that as legitimate as these people are, or are not, none of them have a clue about what they are talking about - none of us really do.  Why?  Because the people who actually would recognize this type of war, and they would even find some aspects very odd, are in their 80s-90s. 

Yup.  This is why historians have had a better track record than some of the guys who have done multiple combat tours.  This gets to a couple of very good post by FancyCat and Calamine Waffels on Page 908... how did the academic experts get this so WRONG?  Did they not have a broad enough view of military history to understand how important things like economics, will to fight, corruption, etc. come into play?  It seems they did not.  Which is astonishing.

Personally, when I want my car fixed I go to my local garage and accept the advice they have to offer me.  But do these guys know much about how they are made, the economics, the politics, etc?  Oh, they have plenty of opinions, however they aren't very well informed.

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Finally, analysts are a social group whether they want to admit it or not.  As such, a lot of normalization and peer-pressure occurs that naturally suppresses outliers.  Steve would have been laughed out of the room of "serious military analysts" in early Feb, written off as some amateur enthusiast who clearly did not understand the deeper nuances of modern warfare.  The mainstream analysts are trapped in the same box as those they analyze for and outliers get filtered out all the time.  This creates a self-reinforcing loop of agreement as everyone references each other as the "collective expertise".  This forms an incredibly powerful collective "norm" where advising power as on outlier is very risky because the first hand raised is going to say "well that is not what I heard from {insert pundit rock-star of the day}".

Heh.  I have to say I never thought of myself as an "expert" on Russia or its ability to wage war.  Informed?  Yes, for sure, but I don't do this sort of analysis for my day job, only as a part of my day job.  But starting in March I began to wonder if the traditional concepts of "expert" and "amateur" might not be as meaningful as perhaps we all thought.

Some might think that I'm happy about being "right" about this war so far.  I am not.  Instead I am very upset that the people paid to know more than me, the ones who advise policy makers, seem to be so "wrong".  I am definitely NOT the smartest guy in the room, so it bothers me that we have some sort of dynamic that leads the smarter ones down the wrong path.  That is not good for anybody.

Funny aside.  I had a nearly 1:1 opportunity to speak in person with a US Senator who sits on the Intel committee.  This was a few years ago.  He had recently made some statements about the threat of Russia, so I told him about how we were working on Black Sea at the time Russia invaded.  I gave him a few details about our backstory.  He joked that maybe I should be on the committee with him.  I laughed because I didn't consider myself worthy.  Now I wonder if maybe it wasn't such a bad idea

Steve

[sross112]

11 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

We must avoid our own Western baggage with respect to casualties and war because the framework we use to make those assessments does not apply here.

A lot of the things talked about the last day or so need to be looked at in a similar way. We look at everything through our personal lenses that are constructed by what we know. This forum is populated by a bunch of really smart people with lots of experience and input in so many interesting and informative areas, however a lot of what we look at is from a wargaming/military history nerd perspective. Two cases to illustrate the point.

Analysts. Well, they sure did get a lot wrong and there were a couple outlier voices that were closer to reality but weren't in the main stream media. Luckily there are amazing Monday Morning Quarterbacks and Armchair Generals to point all of it out now. But did anybody really know? Did anyone know how bad the soft factors of the Russian Army were? How much corruption there was and to the extent that it crippled the RA? How their Air Force wasn't going to be able to dominate the skies? How their Navy would be ineffectual at best and a liability at worst? This wasn't supposed to be a near peer conflict. It was supposed to be a 1st class huge military versus a 2nd/3rd class underdog using Cold War equipment. No one had seen the RA in a big conflict since WW2 and everyone believed the Russian rhetoric about how awesome they were, mostly because there was no real evidence to the contrary involving a conflict of this size and intensity to base any other assumptions on. The closest comparisons that the western analysts had were probably Desert Storm and Iraq 2003; superpower vs outdated regional power. They didn't know it was actually outdated regional power vs. middleweight contender of the year. So I'm pretty forgiving of their mishaps, plenty of historical examples out there of analysts getting it wrong before the first shots are fired. At the same time I'm with @The_Capt and @FancyCat with the frustration of most of them refusing to rethink their analysis, come up with a little humility and try to put forth a more accurate analysis based on contemporary and existing facts. 

The second one is the assumption that the Russians can not win. Now, bear with me. A military full conquest is out of the question. Full destruction of the UA is out of the question. A Dnepr line is out of the question. But, do any of us have a wire tap on the Kremlin and know what they consider a "win". A win for the Kremlin doesn't have to look like a win to us. A political win can come from what we would consider a military defeat. If Putin's original goals are out the window, which I believe they are, and he decided that control of Luhansk and Donetsk are the goal where he can announce a win to the Russian people then it is still possible for them. Severdonetsk is the last bite of Luhansk. It is a political objective not a military one. Think of it like Stalingrad for Hitler. Even though the RA controls 99% of Luhansk they have to take the city in order to declare control of the whole province. The river becomes the line and forces are shifted south to Donetsk. Grind away again with as much arty as they can bring and take a small bite at a time until they control Donetsk. Then Putin can declare the war is "won", totally switch to the defensive and play the victim every time the UA kicks the RA in the nuts. The RA will be a smoking dumpster by the time it is over but that actually helps Putin stay in power. He doesn't care about his pixel truppen the way we do so it is hard for us to wrap our mind around what we see happening. 

If nothing significant changes on the ground this could be a real outcome in 6 months. Neither side has the capability to overcome the other in a meaningful way and restore mobility to the battlefield. Both sides are eating the elephant one bite at a time because whenever they mass they get hammered. If the UA breaks in the RuAF pummels them. The mobility is determined by fire support at this stage and the battlefield moves at a WW1 pace. Both sides are missing pieces to the puzzle that allow the operational mobility that we are used to seeing. I don't believe the RA will be able to get those pieces due to attrition, sanctions and time. The UA can because of western support but the opportunity is controlled by the western powers. 

It is frustrating to watch and more frustrating because we really don't know what the west has up its sleeve or in the pipeline. A lot of people have referred to the western arty as game changers, but they really aren't. Better arty and missile arty will increase RA casualties and make life more difficult but arty doesn't take ground or solve the problem of getting your breakthroughs bombed. It just makes it a deadlier WW1 battlefield. If the west wants the UA to take back the lost ground and push the RA out they will need to supply it with the capabilities to either totally deny the airspace to the RuAF or gain air superiority. Denial capability is much easier, faster and cheaper than the superiority option and the Gepards are a good start. Is there more missile AA systems in the pipeline that aren't announced yet? Rolands or similar? Something to protect the mobile battlegroups? If not the status quo on the ground is unlikely to change.  

Which goes back to the above quote from @The_Capt. If the UA has to rely on lots of infantry and artillery to make their gains it results in a LOT of casualties. Can and will it be done? Probably, but it will be danged hard for us to watch.

[Degsy]

 

Boris's visit today to Kiev.

British MoD announcement about UK led training for Ukrainian soldiers.

"....Each soldier would spend three weeks on the training course, learning battle winning skills for the front line, as well as basic medical training, cyber-security and counter explosive tactics.

Alongside the training offer, the leaders also discussed how the UK can play a pivotal role in ending the blockade of grain..."

I hope it's two way training because I suspect we've got a lot to learn from them as well.

[billbindc]

3 minutes ago, c3k said:

I see a lot of blame put on former President Trump for this invasion. Funny how Putin only invaded AFTER President Trump left office...

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/16/trump-administration-broke-law-in-withholding-ukraine-aid.html

I'm sorry but that's an absurd statement. Russia didn't decide to invade because Biden was weak kneed on Ukraine. In fact, Biden has been seen as a hawk in DC on the topic since at least 2008 or so. Russia invaded because before his administration Putin had successfully out maneuvered Bush and Obama while Trump was fairly actively his acolyte. The good times were over, American military aid was about to ramp up and the Ukrainian government was no longer as amenable to pressure. In short, Ukraine was about to become much harder to swallow up (if not as easy as the FSB imagined).

 

[DesertFox]

8 minutes ago, c3k said:

I see a lot of blame put on former President Trump for this invasion. Funny how Putin only invaded AFTER President Trump left office...

I don´t think it has much to do with Trump. My theory is that the pull of the allied forces from Afghanistan and Kabul in 08/2021 was the trigger which was interpreted by Putin as a sign of weakness of the west and made him think he could get through with an invasion of Ukraine without the west significantly supporting Ukraine. Anyways it´s just my theory. Putin is a madman, so I could be totally off with my assessment.

[Huba]

44 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Well said. Nothing to add. Personally I hope this will be the beginning of a more united EU, in which all countries start to think more as Europeans, instead of Dutch, Poles, Germans, Greeks, French and so on. Another positive factor is that Europe and the US showed more unity in the past few months than has been seen in a long time. 

And if we are talking maximalist UA victory scenario, we get to the subject of reparations. I'm not sure what are the technicalities of confiscating of frozen RU central bank reserves, but it would very rightfully put the burden of rebuilding Ukraine on Russia. 

 

[Aragorn2002]

56 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is one of the things that upsets me the most.  As a historian I find it highly objectionable that we can't objectively, even mildly, examine 4 years of US foreign policy simply because it might upset someone.  NOT examining the past might not doom us to repeating the mistakes, but it sure as Hell increases the chances of it.

And for the record, Obama screwed up way more than Trump did in terms of heading off this war we are in now.  The 2014 invasion happened on his watch and he had far more time to deal with it than Trump did.

But hey, I suppose I can't be critical of Obama either

Steve

That. Everything is politics nowadays, that's the problem. Left, centre or right, we all made mistakes in judging Putin and Russia. And we rather use it as a weapon to silence each other than to unite in our common shame and stupidity. Putin counted on that.

What frustrates me more than anything else is that those politicians who year in, year out cut into the defense budget are now once again presenting themselves as the champions of freedom and democracy. Even the left wing parties, who would have preferred to transform the dutch army into the army of salvation, suddenly demand that all available arms are send to Ukraine.

Than again, I guess this war will change us all more than we now realize.

 

 

Edited June 17, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[keas66]

17 minutes ago, Butschi said:

We (the West) all profited from tade with Russia to some degree. Even the eastern european countries (including Ukraine) either received Russian oil or gas or profited from transfer tariffs. We are mainly to blame for the illusion (although I don't think most people involved really believed in it, it was just a convenient excuse) that trade somehow leads to everyone with whom we trade will want to join our club of capitalistic democracies.

ISIS was a direct consequence of the mess the USA made in Iraq. On the other hand also we Europeans didn't want to get our hands dirty and didn't care about Syria as long as the refugees could somehow be kept out or conveniently drowned in the Mediterranean.

Anyway, I think it is an illusion (yet another one) that the EU is going to pay for building up Ukraine and whatever else may need to be payed for in the future. Even if Ukraine will join the EU the price will be paid by the net receivers. The net payers will not significantly raise their payments and so what is there will have to be devided amongst more receivers. Maybe the EU will raise some dept financed funds but I doubt it. We will help, possibly via something like development aid and guarantees for investments but not too much beyond that. That is sad but I don't see EU citizens voting to sacrifice their prosperity for a war started by someone else. The whole fallout of having to look elsewhere for cheap energy is a different thing and that is our own fault for being so short sighted.

 

See that's the sort of attitude which someone on the extreme Right in the US political system would  use as a lever to   once again look to cut  ties with Europe /NATO  if they regain power - The US bears the costs/burden to  keep the Europeans safe  , secure and  wealthy   , and the Europeans just want to sit back and  let the US/UK  pay for the reconstruction of Ukraine and the expansion of NATO .

What European Governments should be doing is continuing to step up to the plate and committing themselves and their tax base  to long term  support of  NATO expansion and Ukraine rebuilding .

Any backing away from this approach would be a disaster in my opinion .

[dan/california]

4 hours ago, FancyCat said:

The ability of Russian officers to keep being corrupt and evasive is quite admirable. I wonder if the lies started pre-war, and in order to avoid being persecuted, they must continue the lies on the field?

We must be careful about Ukrainian numbers. I saw someone tweet that some of the spouted wounded/Kia numbers didn't make sense. Ukraine has a balancing act to walk, early-war, they needed to demonstrate the ability to survive and wage successful attacks on Russia, now they need to emphasize without further Western aid, they risk causing prolonged conflict, and part of emphasizing the need is illustrating significant damage to Ukrainian forces. Not to say that Ukraine isn't suffering heavily in numbers but independent verification is hard and Ukraine has goals that may prioritize a small fib over the truth.

Now I've been saying that it is essential the liberation of Kherson be undertaken as the first objective. Anyone have counters to pursuing that? I know diluting the pincers across the sailent in Donbas is essential, but I think the movement of Caesar artillery here rather than Donbas indicates Ukraine wants Kherson sooner than later.

Politically, they need to counter Russian narrative that they are pushing successfully or that stalemate is possible, the loss of Kherson oblast would be a deathblow for that narrative.

A whole lot of Russian officers have been telling too many lies for too long to quit now. I am sure there is an entire racket built on getting soldiers they never had "KIA" in order to explain their absence when someone finally comes to check. I fully expect there is a secondary scam to collect the death benefits for these soldiers that never existed.

Taking Kherson back as the number one priority makes sense for a LARGE number of reasons. The three simplest being that it is the only Russian presence on that side of the river, It is the largest Ukrainian population under Russian control, and it brings the Ukrainians much closer to Crimean land bridge.

3 hours ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Even without replacement they could be send. Air superiority of NATO is total, also over Poland. Calculated risks will have to be taken to give Ukraine the tools to finish off as many Russians as possible. This is not the time for good deals.

I also think Leo1's and Marders must be send to that coureagous Ukrainian army. Putin can't do a damn thing about it and the Ukrainians need them. F*** escalation!

Aragon2002 has come around! 

3 hours ago, Harmon Rabb said:

That's true. I understand the practical issues that would arise from Ukraine getting say the Abrams tank.

I'm more curious about the logic from the fear of escalation crowd why a weapons system like an M777 would not escalate the conflict but an M1A1 would.

There is no logic, the Russians aren't escalating because even they can do math and it says they either they don't have an army in three days, or they don't have a country in a week. Tens of thousands of Russian casualties is inflicted with NATO supplied weapons all the casus belli any country in history has ever needed, if they wanted one. They clearly don't.

2 hours ago, Bearstronaut said:

Iran-Iraq War?

Yes, but real analysis of it English is EXTREMELY lacking. For that matter neither of the regimes involved were noted for their introspection.

12 minutes ago, Huba said:

 

Boris has a PANAMAX cargo ship worth of flaws. But I will give him this, he understands that once you have picked a side the best answer is to ensure that they actually bloody win.

32 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is one of the things that upsets me the most.  As a historian I find it highly objectionable that we can't objectively, even mildly, examine 4 years of US foreign policy simply because it might upset someone.  NOT examining the past might not doom us to repeating the mistakes, but it sure as Hell increases the chances of it.

And for the record, Obama screwed up way more than Trump did in terms of heading off this war we are in now.  The 2014 invasion happened on his watch and he had far more time to deal with it than Trump did.

But hey, I suppose I can't be critical of Obama either

Steve

I am going to let the politics of the last twelve years go, for now. The inexcusable mistake that the entire civilized world has been making since AT LEAST 1973 is the refusal to bite the bullet and do what is necessary to quit buying hydrocarbons from absolutely awful regimes/governments. Oil and natural gas consumption could be less than half its current level if rational polices had been implemented decades ago. We have not been willing to take the short term economic pain of doing it rationally, So we are caught in doom loop of crises when these god awful regimes do something god awful. And then we learn NOTHING. Bleep me I hope this time is different....

[akd]

18 minutes ago, c3k said:

2. President Biden is on tape bragging about corrupting Ukraine to protect his son, Hunter, from a criminal investigation by the authorities in Ukraine. He used his position as vice president under President Obama to wield a $1 Billion dollar stick over Ukraine. This is on tape.

This is a lie. You know the level of knowledge about Ukraine present here.  Can’t believe you would try and trot this out in front of this crowd. Since everything else is just Fox News talking points also, I doubt there is any reason to address this in detail, but broadly:

-Biden worked to end corruption in Ukraine, carrying out the policy of the US and our European partners, including putting pressure on Ukraine to fire the prosecutor who WAS NOT actively pursuing an investigation of Burisma (which concerned issues predating Hunter Biden’s term on the Burisma, and so COULD NOT have been an investigation of H. Biden).

-Trump tried to extort a fake investigation of H. Biden by Ukraine for purely domestic US political purposes by threatening to withhold military aid, in direct contravention of US foreign policy.

If you don’t think the latter display of complete contempt for Ukraine on the part of the US didn’t play into Russia’s plans in Ukraine (which did not start out of the blue in Nov 2020), then I don’t know what to say.

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, c3k said:

Indeed, I have not objected to, nor supported, any viewpoint on foreign politics because I realize that all I would bring would be a distorted American perspective. I have no basis for getting into those discussions...either pro or con or trying to tamp them down to prevent spiraling off-topic.

We've actually managed to keep the criticism of other leaders pretty much on-topic.  I want to note that you just did the exact opposite... a one sided, sometimes counter factual, partisan driven political rant.  More to the point, it is the only one I can think of in several hundred pages.

I could refute every single one of your points as being factually wrong or, more often, extremely selective (e.g. calling attention to Biden's corruption and ignoring Trump's, not mentioning Trump illegally withholding military aid to extract personal political benefit, etc.), but this is EXACTLY the discussion we should NOT be having here.  So please note that you are the one taking this thing off the rails, not others.

This one pint of yours I will respond to...

6 minutes ago, c3k said:

Whoever in the US administration began leaking Russian invasion plans was trying to stop this...but it was too late. These things have a certain momentum or inertia.

Russia's interests in invading Ukraine go back hundreds of years, before the US nation even existed.  That is the "certain momentum" that is why Russia is in Ukraine at all, but specifically it is because is what Putin has been working towards for 30 years.  To think it all hinged on Biden or Trump is extremely naive and American centric to a harmful degree.

The exact reasons why Putin decided to do this war now have yet to be firmly established.  However, knowing what we know about the FACTS that exist, I am confident that Putin would have launched this war in 2022 or at the latest 2023 no matter the mix of Western political leadership (Trump included).  This is because, in your words, there was a "certain momentum" behind it.

Why not earlier?  We can only speculate, but I believe one reason is he thought he could get what he wanted without war through appeasement.  He had already grown frustrated by the lack of progress in that direction even with what he viewed as favorable political climate.  It was clear that this frustrating has been building for several years now.  Add this to other factors, perhaps critically his health, and war was inevitable regardless of who was heading Western countries.

6 minutes ago, c3k said:

Again, I will stay away from any opinions on foreign domestic politics. I will say that I am heavily disappointed in the lack of support Germany is providing. Is that due to Scholtz? I have no idea...it could be far more complex and nuanced than "that guy is a Stasi wannabe" or whatever the complaints are against him.

Ditto Switzerland blocking ammo supplies. Is it one of cantons that is doing that? Shrug. All I know is that Switzerland thinks it is safe behind the mountains and that any future armament purchasers better think about how they will source their ammo and other logistics.

Should Macron be praised for the Ceasars? I don't know, but FRANCE is sending some good equipment.

If you look at my posts, I am very careful to point to the COUNTRY involved, not any individual. (Zelensky excepted, because, damn, talk about the right man at the right time.)  I have tried to do the same with the US.

These points you just made stand in stark contrast to the political diatribe that preceded it.  If we had a rant like that every time a world leader's name was mentioned this thread would be a mess.  Fortunately, it seems the group as a whole is able to mention leaders' names without flying off the handle one way or the other.

Steve

[keas66]

Just now, akd said:

This is a lie. You know the level of knowledge about Ukraine present here.  Can’t believe you would try and trot this out in front of this crowd. Since everything else is just Fox News talking points also, I doubt there is any reason to address this in detail, but broadly:

-Biden worked to end corruption in Ukraine, carrying out the policy of the US and our European partners, including putting pressure on Ukraine to fire the prosecutor who WAS NOT actively pursuing an investigation of Burisma (which concerned issues predating Hunter Biden’s term on the Burisma, and so COULD NOT have been an investigation of H. Biden).

-Trump tried to extort a fake investigation of H. Biden by Ukraine for purely domestic US political purposes by threatening to withhold military aid, in direct contravention of US foreign policy.

If you don’t think the latter display of complete contempt for Ukraine on the part of the US didn’t play into Russia’s plans in Ukraine (which did not start out of the blue in Nov 2020), then I don’t know what to say.

And this is why c3k is on my block list - I suggest you do the same  . Posting this sort of blatant propaganda in this  forum/thread is really just a sign of disrespect for the rest of us .

[Battlefront.com]

Guys, can we please stop it.  I find it extremely saddening that we can have hundreds of pages of on-topic political discussions directly related to the war, but pretty much one mild mention of Trump provokes a completely off-topic political fight that has NOTHING to do with this war.

C3K, you say you don't want this thread to devolve into political bickering, yet you are the one that is taking us down that path.  I am asking you to please realize that you are acting against your own stated wishes for this thread.

I am already late for something because of this, which does not make me happy.  I've giving Elvis some instructions to monitor and vacation anybody that keeps things going off track.

Steve

[Aragorn2002]

I truly hope the war in Ukraine will have the same uniting influence upon the American people as it has on Europe (well, that process is still going on, but we'll get there). Especially since your differences in the eye of a European such as myself are so minor, that it's bewildering to see how they can tear you apart like this. 

I've been an idiot at this forum more than I care to admit, but looking back at it, it's just not worth it. 

Edited June 17, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[dan/california]

19 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Why not earlier?  We can only speculate, but I believe one reason is he thought he could get what he wanted without war through appeasement.  He had already grown frustrated by the lack of progress in that direction even with what he viewed as favorable political climate.  It was clear that this frustrating has been building for several years now.  Add this to other factors, perhaps critically his health, and war was inevitable regardless of who was heading Western countries.

I am strongly of the opinion that the situation in Belarus heavily influenced the timing of the war in Ukraine. Putin only got real and effective control of Belarus in the last couple of years. It was being able to start the invasion a hundred miles from Kyiv that convinced Putin he could pull off the coup/decapitation fast enough to avoid a truly large western reaction.

Edited June 17, 2022 by dan/california
dropped a word

[Aragorn2002]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

There it is.  I knew there was one out there but outside the western sphere.  Although if you take into account burn rate over time (that war took 8 years) this one is higher intensity right now.

The problem is that even if Ukraine can push the Russians back across the border, they can not invade Russian territory without losing Western support. And yet that's the only way to really convince the Russian people that they've lost the war. 

[Haiduk]

2 hours ago, Artkin said:

Lol so now Ukraine uses Bayraktar over the sea? I assume this is out of range for any ground based EW. I also assume the RF ships don't have as much of a or any drone-based EW suite. 

Naval forces had own TB2 already before a war. They participated in sinking of Moskva, they hit targets on Zmiinyi island and hit several boats around the island. At least one naval TB2 was shot down over the sea

Edited June 17, 2022 by Haiduk

[Aragorn2002]

7 minutes ago, dan/california said:

I am strongly of the opinion that the situation in Belarus heavily influenced the timing of the war in Ukraine. Putin only got real and effective control of Belarus in the last couple of years. It was being able to start the invasion a hundred miles fro Kyiv that convinced Putin he could pull off the coup/decapitation fast enough to avoid a truly large western reaction.

Yeah, I bet he was expecting a lot more from being able to attack from Belarussian territory.

We all make mistakes, Vlad, just not as devastating as yours.

Edited June 17, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[BFCElvis]

Just hanging out.....my itchy banning finger hasn't been used in a while. I have it on standby.

[dan/california]

3 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Naval forces had own TB2 already before a war. They participated in sinking of Moskva, they hit targets on Zmiinyi island and hit several boats around the island. At least one naval TB2 was shot down over the sea

Sinking that Russian tugboat/supply ship is big deal. It could turn Russias attempt to fortify Snake Island into an ugly trap for a bunch of their AA/EW assets.

[Aragorn2002]

5 minutes ago, BFCElvis said:

Just hanging out.....my itchy banning finger hasn't been used in a while. I have it on standby.