How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[kraze]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Ok then, well good luck with that then.  So you plan is for the west to support until Russia shatters and then Ukraine ride it out as a lone state?  Unfortunately Ukraine does not appear in the Bible so I am not sure western support will last.

We won't be accepted into NATO because Germany and Hungary (and I'm sure many other countries) will block it - because having Ukraine in NATO means a constant threat of war with Russia which is hell bent on taking it at all cost - a lot simpler and safer to just play a support role. Same as with Israel.

Not to mention Hungary still wants to grab some territories and is pissed it failed to do so due to russians messing it all up.

So I'm just being realistic here. We will be a lone state, at least for a few more decades - if Russia finally ceases existing. NATO is just a pipe dream even if Ukraine does every single thing it is required to do to join.

Quote

“A shattered Russia with an unsecured nuclear arsenal vs a lone state in a sea of people who can only agree on the fact that they hate you.” Is not a geopolitical solution.  Neither is hoping that making their dysfunction worse or them being pushed deeper into crisis will somehow lead to them forgetting you.

They will never forget about us. But they sure won't be able to do anything about it. Having nukes matters a lot more when you have conventional means to protect them or yourself, but when you are a small remnant with awful defense infrastructure - nah. Sure you can fire one off - but you'll be smashed really fast on the ground.

We already accepted Russia will do everything it can to destroy us - with all the tools it has. But reaching Moscow is a lot harder than reaching some Sheettown, the capital of West Fartstate 200km away. Remnants of Russia not having a shared border with us will be much less inclined to fight because they will have another "separatist" enemy in between.

Quote

Your proposed strategy will have set conditions for long term direct threats to your nation without any real mitigating mechanisms against increasing regional insecurity.  This is extremely bad for business, so western economic investment is going to be very difficult.  Reconstruction is also at risk, as you note terrorism will be a significant threat in your country.  If these conditions create enough significant humanitarian crisis you could waves of former-Russian refugees try and get into Ukraine - which you can of course turn away by force, completely losing any strategic narrative high ground you have.

Right now there's a huge empire invading us and obliterating every critical infrastructure object it can reach. It mobilizes an army of million rapists and torturers with an intent of murdering all of us once and for all. Some local terrorism  possibly threatening reconstruction somewhere down the road being a worse option? Really?

Russian "refugees" are already not welcome in any EU country that borders them and I don't see much drama about it - I think we will manage just as well. Especially since not letting in proven rapists and murderers that happily did genocide on us is "moral high ground"-free card in itself.

Quote

I have to say that your isolationist entirely uncompromising view of the future sounds a lot like the narratives coming out of Russia itself, just pointed in the other direction.

Not Russia, Israel. The key difference is that russian existential threat is made up, while Israel's is very very real.

Edited September 27, 2022 by kraze

[Butschi]

15 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Nations should send what they have available.  Germany has mothballed Marders and even Leo1s, so far nothing has been sent.

I agree with much of what you said but you mildly ignored my main point a bit. No other western MBTs and IFVs. Why? Yes, of course Germany has mothballed stuff Ukraine could put to better use, I totally agree.

But, honest question, why don't the other countries supply western MBTs and IFVs? It looks to me that others are just as reluctant as we are about this topic and are happy that Germany makes such a good job of presenting a target for criticism.

[TheVulture]

3 minutes ago, Grigb said:

Map update

• As I suspected there was Southern UKR push (right bottom corner). Rybar claims road is under UKR fire and cannot be used by RU any more
• Also, UKR pushed their light mobile forces/recon to Yampil and Torske
• According to Rybar there is only one road left for Lyman defenders - Lyman-Terny-Makiivka-Svatove
• UKR continue to push South from Nove (center)
• UKR push North at Maliivka and Vyshne Solone most probably happens closer to the river - UKR claim they captured Pisky-Radkivsky. Given RU claims they control Borova most likely this is where the push is aimed
• No update regarding UKR push to Makiivka or Borova-Svatove highway

 

From the various different sources all appearing to broadly give the same picture, it's starting to look a lot like Ukraine have thoroughly broken the Russian defense line that ran from Oskil through Lyman and towards Severodonetsk; created gaps in multiple places and are more or less roaming in the Russian operational rear, at least as far as Lyman  is concerned.

 

Are we on the verge of a local Russian collapse back to the Zherebets river or further now, or is that getting too far ahead of reality. Although with the push north from Bilohorivka already being on the other side of the Zherebets, maybe Russia will have trouble holding muchwest of Krasna river and be pushed back to e.g. Kremina and Svatove in short order.

[Huba]

1 minute ago, Grigb said:

Map update

• As I suspected there was Southern UKR push (right bottom corner). Rybar claims road is under UKR fire and cannot be used by RU any more
• Also, UKR pushed their light mobile forces/recon to Yampil and Torske
• According to Rybar there is only one road left for Lyman defenders - Lyman-Terny-Makiivka-Svatove
• UKR continue to push South from Nove (center)
• UKR push North at Maliivka and Vyshne Solone most probably happens closer to the river - UKR claim they captured Pisky-Radkivsky. Given RU claims they control Borova most likely this is where the push is aimed
• No update regarding UKR push to Makiivka or Borova-Svatove highway

 

Thanks for the map, definitely my favorite visualization from all the available! Definitely the most interesting development is the alleged RU retreat from the forest north of Bilohorivka - if that is confirmed, it not only means that Lyman is now in cauldron, but also that UA will probably soon push RU from all the territories west of Lysychansk, especially the Pryvila salient. 
If RU haven't already retreated from Lyman, I think we are finally about to witness a proper crushing defeat with rows of POWs, perhaps even tomorrow.

s

[The_MonkeyKing]

54 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Why did we not act quicker in Yugoslavia then? It's not only about military spending but about culture. The losing countries of WW2 have big cultural taboos about using their armies abroad. Germany and Japan were to never become threats to others again.

Good point. 

[Battlefront.com]

34 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

 

Maybe it's mainly a semantic thing, because we agree on Europe's dysfunction / reliance on US for security issues and that that's a problem for Europe/EU. On that note it is good to also realize (which I'm sure you do) that the EU != Europe. 

Yes, which is why I use "Europe" instead of the "EU".  When an issue affects all of Europe, it is reasonable to expect that all of Europe will work together to solve the problem.  Even more true today with the UK being out of the EU and the most capable domestic military force within Europe.

34 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

However on the 'soft power' scale the USA has had more irons in the fire in Ukraine than any other European country. After UK there was probably very limited involvement from European countries.
I happen to remember a certain US political figure having been recorded saying '**** the EU' with regards to developments in Ukraine around maidan. 
Summarizing the USA had interests in the way Ukraine developed itself and acted on that interests before and after the war. I think it's incomplete to look at this whole subject just from the geographical perspective, as I think that Ukraines relationship with Russia played quite a large role in the way that the USA saw it's interest in Ukraine, if you get what I mean.

Oh, I get it.  And it is why the US is contributing so much.  However, Europe has even MORE interests at stake here long term, so by the same logic Europe should match this with action.  It is not doing so evenly.  Though, honestly, I've seen more support out of Germany for taking action than I expected it would.  Sadly, I had completely counted them out of this war before it started, based on their addiction to Ostpolitik.

34 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

Anyway I do think it would be in Europe's best interest to solve the security issue and in some way or form produce a joint security policy, from soft to hard power (so not only an army). And yes peace in the whole of Europe should be part of the strategic goals of that power.

Long story short: Europe is divided. Divided we will NEVER be able to match US on a concentrated effort in most subjects even apart from defense. So obviously all little brothers can't match big brother ;-).

This is acknowledged.  With some exceptions from the extreme US right wing political arena (aka the Isolationists), the US is largely OK with this lopsided security arrangement because, in the end, the US feels it comes out at least even if not ahead.

34 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

At the same time being big brother is probably part of USA's global strategy to remain the defacto leader (which I personally support, the alternative is China and no thanks). So there's various US interests involved in this whole matter as well, one of which is to be the leader in the suppor for Ukraine which it want's to be and defacto is.

Anyway, I'm not saying USA should be the one to shoulder this (for the majority). I was mainly reacting against others stating that Germany / Europe has 'broken it' and now must pay up.

The two are not mutually exclusive.  The US can pursue it's national interests and also expect Europe to do the same.

34 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

To be frank I think 'this' should be a cooperation, which until now works quite well imo. And of course the future of Europe's defense policy should also be a subject on the table at the EU, especially post Ukraine. But that shouldn't be in the way of the current support operation.

And if anything I think Ukraine should be happy with the support they are getting. I'm all for it, but it isn't 'automatic' nor was there any obligation for anyone to do so. 

Yes, and Ukraine needs to be reminded of this every so often.  Support for Ukraine will drop, perhaps quickly, after the war if Western donors think Ukraine is going down the wrong path.  Fortunately, I am NOT worried about Ukraine after this war.  Quite the contrary, I think it is going to achieve great things.

34 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

Not that long ago we had discussions on this forums that modern wars are 'come as you are', while Ukraine has certainly been able to trump that and have improved their army while fighting a large scale war against a numerical superior enemy.

Fortunately for Ukraine, it has access to what the West has.  Otherwise we'd be looking at a long term insurgency instead of the biggest outright military defeat of a major military power since WW2.

Steve

[Grigb]

4 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

OK, back to the military situation

It looks like the hastily organized Russian second line of defense against the Kharkiv offensive is rapidly headed towards a conclusion.  Ukraine is making advances in at least 4 areas right now:

• Towards the Russian border in the north of Luhansk.  It looks like they are about to completely clip logistics from Belgorod.
• What appears to be a pincer move towards Savatove from Kupyansk and the bulge east of Izyum.  This cleans up a lot of territory fast, even if it doesn't net a lot of prisoners and equipment.

As far as i know these two moves (I mean break outs from bridgeheads) are not happening yet. Or we do not have info about them. I do believe they are about to happen though.  

[acrashb]

42 minutes ago, billbindc said:

I will admonish, no more. But the above should be admonishment itself.

39 minutes ago, Holien said:

Both France and Germany should be ashamed and called out on this total lack of support...

Overall, not singling out a specific country, the EU is the world's 2nd-largest economy and could be doing more.  Should, based on geographic proximity and imminent threat.  Since I can remember most NATO countries have ridden the US taxpayer's back (including, I'm sorry to say, Canada).  Every president spoke on this, Trump raised it (rudely and erratically, but with some effect) to a new level, and with the Russo-Ukraine war we're seeing significant new commitments across the board.  Actual dollars flowing, and effective dollars, is another matter, but I think there will be an improvement.

18 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said:

If he’s a Russian citizen, he can be mobilized and sent to the front! Nobody likes a Turncoat.

Snowden is an interesting case, and divisive.  There were many positives from his info-dump - such as the revealing and shuttering of some programs that should not have existed and the general increase of interest in encryption as a norm - and many negatives, all well documented.  I'm not sure where the net benefit lies.  I am sure that he violated his oaths and could have been a whistle-blower without all of the negatives.

And yes, it would be amusing to see him captured by Ukraine forces.  It would highlight the chaotic nature of the mobilization.

[Grigb]

Mashkovets

Quote

The main difference between the Ukrainian and Russian armies in this war is that the former is WarFighting, and the latter is "fighting", according to a fairly accurate dictum of Kremlin propagandists...

Good afternoon, dear...!!!

I do not know who exactly commands the Russians at e Svatove direction, but I should note that this person has obvious choleric signs of his character.

At least, this is evidenced by the haste and nervous intemperance with which the enemy began 3 days ago to throw the last reserves of his Svatove group haphazardly and separately into counterattacks under the Lyman, just to hold the Liman-Yampol line at any cost.

The result is already known...

The AFU simply refused a frontal assault on the Lyman and bypassed it to the north [Karpivka-Ridkodub-Nove]... and now they have to take half a step to ensure that the entire structure of the Russian defense command is "along Oskil" and between the Lyman and the Kreminna... collapsed...

I think the remnants of two "mob battalions" of the 2nd AK, which are now trying to hold their positions in the Lyman area... and "company tactical groups" that the BTGrs of the 20th CAA turned into (who tried to "counterattack" the forward units of the AFU in order to throw them back to the Rubtsy-Krymki-Alexandrovka–Yarovaya line) will be very "happy" with this development of the situation...

The situation for the Russian command in the Svatove direction and in a general sense is beginning to acquire, let's say, a certain "negative dynamics". The fact is that north of the Lyman they not only fail to push AFU back, but also fail stop the advance of the AFU... and [they] in general [fail] to preserve their already ghostly "defense on the Oskil"...north of this [Lyman] section.

Yes, I mean the events that take place on the segment between Lozov and up to the Russian border on the left bank of the Oskol.

There, now, in several places at once, the AFU crossed this river and not only held small bridgeheads, successfully repelling a number of sporadic counterattacks of the 1st Tank Guards and a number of "attached" remnants of the 11th AK, but also began to actively expand them during the last 2 days... And if this process continues at the same pace that I am observing now, then all this "heroic defense" of the Liman-Yampol line by Russian troops risks losing operational and tactical meaning...

Of course, in the Russian headquarters everyone understands this... In particular, in the headquarters of the 20th CAA and the 1st guards, which, according to the plan of the Russian command, should form the basis of a new powerful group "Svatovo". Apparently, the units of the latter army have been given an unambiguous task - to prevent the development of the AFU offensive to the west and northwest of Svatovo.

 

[kraze]

2 hours ago, Butschi said:

Would you kindly elaborate what you mean by that? What would you have done differently?

Germany lost the war but it wasn't occupied (or at least completely isolated) to ensure it won't go about it again. Naturally you had Germans wishing for revenge and giving all the power to the first guy screaming about restoring the imperial glory and avenging Germany. That ended with Germany being one of the key starters of WW2.

Next time the mistake wasn't repeated and Germany is what it is now.

Similarly Russia wasn't punished for starting WW2 in an alliance with Germany and stealing half of Europe which led to Cold War and a lot of suffering for many many many countries. Granted there were absolutely objective reasons for that (way way too many casualties to start another major war). But in 1991 it was possible to finally end Russia - instead not only it wasn't ended - but even USA itself tried to keep USSR intact - and now we have a new Hitler screaming about restoring the imperial glory and avenging Russia.

The only good thing is that this Hitler is an absolutely atrocious clone that is too incompetent to become like his role model.

The next one may not be - if the mistake is repeated again. Empires have to end and this is the last one.

Edited September 27, 2022 by kraze

[Battlefront.com]

7 minutes ago, Butschi said:

I agree with much of what you said but you mildly ignored my main point a bit. No other western MBTs and IFVs. Why? Yes, of course Germany has mothballed stuff Ukraine could put to better use, I totally agree.

But, honest question, why don't the other countries supply western MBTs and IFVs? It looks to me that others are just as reluctant as we are about this topic and are happy that Germany makes such a good job of presenting a target for criticism.

I did address it and, in fact, defended Germany on this point.  The degree of mechanical logistics that are necessary to keep MBTs and IFVs in action has increased with every generation.  Expecting Ukraine can go from Soviet era stuff to the top-of-the-line equipment overnight while fighting a high intensity war is not smart.  This is why I have advocated, from the start, supplying Ukraine with things they are most familiar with and incrementally improving from there.  Personally, I do not think Ukraine is ready to support Leo2 and Abrams.  I'd have that be top of the ToDo List for when this war is over.

Steve

[A Canadian Cat]

On 9/26/2022 at 5:26 AM, Haiduk said:

UKR HIMARSed Russian Shahed/Mohajer base in Chulakivka village, Kherson oblast, were personnel and Iranian instructors as if were deployed.

Another example of the Ukrainian army picking sensible targets that actually benefit them on the battlefield. As opposed to the disorganization and random civilian targets the Russian army chooses.

[The_Capt]

6 minutes ago, kraze said:

We won't be accepted into NATO because Germany and Hungary (and I'm sure many other countries) will block it - because having Ukraine in NATO means a constant threat of war with Russia which is hell bent on taking it at all cost - a lot simpler and safer to just play a support role. Same as with Israel.

Not to mention Hungary still wants to grab some territories and is pissed it failed to do so due to russians messing it all up.

So I'm just being realistic here. We will be a lone state, at least for a few more decades - if Russia finally ceases existing. NATO is just a pipe dream even if Ukraine does every single thing it is required to do to join.

They will never forget about us. But they sure won't be able to do anything about it. Having nukes matters a lot more when you have conventional means to protect them or yourself, but when you are a small remnant with awful defense infrastructure - nah. Sure you can fire one off - but you'll be smashed really fast on the ground.

We already accepted Russia will do everything it can to destroy us - with all the tools it has. But reaching Moscow is a lot harder than reaching some Sheettown, the capital of West Fartstate 200km away. Remnants of Russia not having a shared border with us will be much less inclined to fight because they will have another "separatist" enemy in between.

Right now there's a huge empire invading us and obliterating every critical infrastructure object it can reach. It mobilizes an army of million rapists and torturers with an intent of murdering all of us once and for all. Some local terrorism  possibly threatening reconstruction somewhere down the road being a worse option? Really?

Russian "refugees" are already not welcome in any EU country that borders them and I don't see much drama about it - I think we will manage just as well. Especially since not letting in proven rapists and murderers that happily did genocide on us is "moral high ground"-free card in itself.

Not Russia, Israel. The key difference is that russian existential threat is made up, while Israel's is very very real.

So we are pretty much going to have to agree to disagree - I think your view of things is a little overly binary.  We seem to disagree on "worse".  Your position is that a functioning Russia is worse for Ukraine, of which there is ample evidence.  My view is that a reduced and boxed in, but functioning Russia with Ukraine within NATO (we took Turkey for fewer reasons than Ukraine currently has) is the way ahead.

Based on your posts, it appears you are arguing that imperial aggressiveness is deeply embedded within Russian culture, which may have some kernels of truth - I personally think you are way over simplifying the Russian cultural construct and are very broadly painting every Russian with the same brush, so to speak.

However, where I think we definitely part ways, and frankly I suspect it will also cause a major rift between a post-war Ukraine and the west is your solution: cultural genocide.  This is very odd because while I do not believe that Russia has the way and means, or even ends to conduct a physical genocide of Ukraine - even the worst horror stories coming out of the formerly occupied areas pale in comparison to other examples of systemic physical ethnic cleansing, such as demonstrated in Rwanda.  However, I do think there is a very strong case that Russia has every intention to conduct a cultural genocide of Ukraine and erase that identity to make the entire population "Russian" in the long run.

Much of what you are proposing is the exact same thing back onto the Russian people - a collapse that erases their identity.  We can go around the trees on this but in the end, my opinion does not matter - what does matter, very much is reconstruction of Ukraine after at this wat that will run well into the hundreds of billions.  Now asking western liberal democracies to invest in a nation that is actively supporting and working towards a counter-cultural genocide - even of a nation as problematic as Russia - is a non-starter.

Your cold-blooded quote here is very telling:

"Russian "refugees" are already not welcome in any EU country that borders them and I don't see much drama about it - I think we will manage just as well. Especially since not letting in proven rapists and murderers that happily did genocide on us is "moral high ground"-free card in itself."

So many of those refugees are going to be elderly and women/children.  It would appear your position is to group them in with the "murders and rapists" and let them freeze to death along the Ukrainian border.  This is very tough talk but you can see my point here (or perhaps cannot, which is the problem); however, in my experience, more atrocities do not make things better.

I do not support your position on a Russian cultural genocide, and I am pretty sure very few in the western political halls of power, nor the voters will either. Ukraine has gained enormous positive momentum on the strategic narrative, your government has brilliantly dominated this arena and it is seeing returns in massive support.

Your narrative that you are putting on this forum only serves an end state that will wash all that good away - likely when you need it most.

[Splinty]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I did address it and, in fact, defended Germany on this point.  The degree of mechanical logistics that are necessary to keep MBTs and IFVs in action has increased with every generation.  Expecting Ukraine can go from Soviet era stuff to the top-of-the-line equipment overnight while fighting a high intensity war is not smart.  This is why I have advocated, from the start, supplying Ukraine with things they are most familiar with and incrementally improving from there.  Personally, I do not think Ukraine is ready to support Leo2 and Abrams.  I'd have that be top of the ToDo List for when this war is over.

Steve

I 100% agree. It can take a few weeks to train a tank or IFV crew, and in the case of IFVs, Ukraine has plenty of battle hardened infantry to be dismounts. BUT it can take months to train the mechanics and techs to keep the things running. If the US and/or EU had provided them on February 24th, they'd still be only coming on line around now.

[Battlefront.com]

10 minutes ago, Grigb said:

As far as i know these two moves (I mean break outs from bridgeheads) are not happening yet. Or we do not have info about them. I do believe they are about to happen though.  

Yeah, I'm looking at this more from a planning standpoint than confirmed actions on the ground.  However, I think it's pretty clear that the push out of the bridgeheads has already started and the one north of Lyman is quickly developing into a major push.  Whether it goes straight east and south (very probable) or also north (logical) is what I'm less sure of.  I think it depends on what Ukraine has for forces and if Russia has managed to put anything but old men with rusty AKMs into the fight there.

Steve

[TheVulture]

Getting on to more abstract military theory, this seems like one of those situations where it always seemed to me that maeouverists and attritionists were in violent agreement (i.e. arguing with each other but saying the same thing, because they can't get past their straw man of the others position).

The maneouverists would point to the wisdom of not assaulting Lyman head on and trying to force the battle there, but rather attack weaker points, encircle Lyman and render the Russians there irrelevant, meaning that they can be captured or mopped up for virtually no cost later on.

The attritionists would say that this is attrition warfare, encircling the enemy in order to destroy them, rather than chasing off after some pie in the sky maneouverist goal of targeting the mythical 'center of gravity' that would destroy the Russian's will to fight.

So they both end up advocating the same thing (because it is pretty obviously the most sane course of action) while misrepresenting what the other school of though would do.

Same applies to Kherson - I'm sure Ukraine would rather avoid street by street fighting in Kherson if at all possible, and simply cut off any Russian forces that stay there, and then wait them out. Unless there is a pressing reason to do otherwise.

[A Canadian Cat]

On 9/26/2022 at 6:46 AM, Taranis said:

The FSB reports that 261,000 men have left Russia since the announcement of the mobilization
 

Source : Le Monde

So, they nearly reached thier stated goal of 300 000 mobilized and sent to the front already. Seems like mobilization is proceeding smoothly.

Oh wait that didn't say they went to the front lines in Ukraine

[Battlefront.com]

13 minutes ago, acrashb said:

Snowden is an interesting case, and divisive.  There were many positives from his info-dump - such as the revealing and shuttering of some programs that should not have existed and the general increase of interest in encryption as a norm - and many negatives, all well documented.  I'm not sure where the net benefit lies.  I am sure that he violated his oaths and could have been a whistle-blower without all of the negatives.

He was a Russian asset, perhaps unknowingly at the start.  He is, therefore, a traitor rather than a whistle blower.  Which is why he is in Russia.

Steve

[Butschi]

4 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I did address it and, in fact, defended Germany on this point.  The degree of mechanical logistics that are necessary to keep MBTs and IFVs in action has increased with every generation.  Expecting Ukraine can go from Soviet era stuff to the top-of-the-line equipment overnight while fighting a high intensity war is not smart.  This is why I have advocated, from the start, supplying Ukraine with things they are most familiar with and incrementally improving from there.  Personally, I do not think Ukraine is ready to support Leo2 and Abrams.  I'd have that be top of the ToDo List for when this war is over.

Steve

Ah, ok, I admit I didn't fully see that as an answer to my point. I was more under the impression that noone wants to send that kind of equipment in order to not escalate the confluct further. I dismissed infrastructure and logistics as an excuse for that. More so because it has do be done in Poland anyway for all the M1s they are going to receive.

[Aragorn2002]

1 hour ago, Huba said:

This whole WW2 trauma is DE to deal with, internally and in silence. Taking it out on anyone else and expecting understanding and special treatment, especially from Nazi victims in eastern Europe is absolutely despicable.

Germany isn't 'taking it out' on others, nor 'expecting understanding and special treatment'. Talking about nazi victims in this respect is absolutely despicable and typical for the victim role Poland is still playing against an entirely changed and decent modern Germany. 

So stop that please. I'm surprised no moderator is preventing this kind of insulting and low remarks about a country which has such higher standards than, let's say Poland.

And stop saying you're not busy with 'Germany bashing' because that's precisely what you are continuously doing.

Edited September 27, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[Huba]

Just now, Aragorn2002 said:

Germany isn't 'taking it out' on others, nor 'expecting understanding and special treatment'. Talking about nazi victims in this respect is absolutely despicable and typical for the victim role Poland is still playing against an entirely changed and decent modern Germany. 

So stop that please. I'm surprised no moderator is preventing this kind of insulting and low remarks about a country which has such higher standards than, let's say Poland.

Please read the post I was answering to and then come back and repeat your rant.

[Battlefront.com]

10 minutes ago, TheVulture said:

Getting on to more abstract military theory, this seems like one of those situations where it always seemed to me that maeouverists and attritionists were in violent agreement (i.e. arguing with each other but saying the same thing, because they can't get past their straw man of the others position).

The maneouverists would point to the wisdom of not assaulting Lyman head on and trying to force the battle there, but rather attack weaker points, encircle Lyman and render the Russians there irrelevant, meaning that they can be captured or mopped up for virtually no cost later on.

The attritionists would say that this is attrition warfare, encircling the enemy in order to destroy them, rather than chasing off after some pie in the sky maneouverist goal of targeting the mythical 'center of gravity' that would destroy the Russian's will to fight.

So they both end up advocating the same thing (because it is pretty obviously the most sane course of action) while misrepresenting what the other school of though would do.

Same applies to Kherson - I'm sure Ukraine would rather avoid street by street fighting in Kherson if at all possible, and simply cut off any Russian forces that stay there, and then wait them out. Unless there is a pressing reason to do otherwise.

The more and more I've studied warfare, the less difference I see between maneuverists and attritionalists.  In the end they both advocate destroying the enemy's forces, both advocate doing it using every means available.

What I have seen in this war, however, is what happens when one side loses the ability to maneuver.  Russia's offensive activities in the Donbas have been really instructive.  Attritional warfare doesn't seem to work very well without at least tactical maneuver capabilities.  The whole thing about Russia being able to blow a hole in the Ukrainian lines but then struggling to keep the attritional fight going emphasizes that pure attritional thinking just doesn't work in the real world.

Likewise, the Russian advances in February illustrate, vividly, that maneuver without an attritional capability is also an indication that pure maneuver warfare doesn't work in the real world.

You know, it's just like Russia to show us two very important lessons of what not to do all in one conflict.  They seem to excel at screwing up.

Steve

[Lethaface]

1 hour ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

• France and Germany largely handled the Minsk agreements. 
• Europe made the decisions not to sell weapons to Ukraine after 2014. (US did sell some)

Good points. Although if those would be the main ingredient for the mess, it's still a German/French/European mess. And where was the rest of the world in the 'agreements'?

 

1 hour ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

• Europe chose its energy strategy against the wish and recommendation of the USA

This isn't a good argument imo. Europe should always choose it's energy strategy independently of the USA, especially given the interests USA itself has. Let's not forget everything which has happened before this war. Becoming strategically dependant on the USA for gas isn't a good alternative now and especially not when the plans for the pipelines were developed.
Now the way everything has materialized is certainly unfavorable towards the chosen strategy (probably relying on a single partner was stupid anyhow and why doesn't the EU does more collectively on this subject?).

1 hour ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

• Europe chose to run down its military capability against the wish and recommendation of the USA

If I was Europe I'd care first about my own vision on our own defense / military capability, **** what the USA wishes for us ;-). 
Anyway we sure as hell neglected those. Although USA wasn't really overly concerned with it imo, sometimes on the contrary... Although things have changed since mainly Trump and that's for the better imo.
NATO should be more strict in it's 2% rule. 2% or your out.

What did actually happen was many countries seeing / thinking that USA is so happy building up their MIC, we'll just free ride along in exchange for vocal support at the UN / wherever, trades and a couple of F-35 sales. Win win.
Which was stupid, but not because it was against the wishes of the USA (imo of course).

 

1 hour ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

European policy lead us to where we are today. Policy that was often contested by the USA. But just like with US running its show in North America Europe runs its show in Europe and US respects that. 

It is only fair that Europe carries the main burden. And US cannot do too much against the will of European countries(example Germany doesn't want long range missiles or western MBT/IFV to Ukraine). USA should not bail-out Europe in this. Especially if Europe is unwilling and unwilling to pay the price.

So European policy has caused the war?  I don't follow.

Also, USA can and will do anything it likes without the support of European countries. Let's be real. 

Maybe we should agree to disagree on this. We're still on the same side ;-).

 

[Aragorn2002]

9 minutes ago, Huba said:

Please read the post I was answering to and then come back and repeat your rant.

Read your own post and decide who's ranting here. Would you like to read how anti-semetic and fascist pre-world war Poland was? No. So stop bashing the Germans. Leave the past alone. The German members of this forum deserve that.

Edited September 27, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[Butschi]

6 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

He was a Russian asset, perhaps unknowingly at the start.  He is, therefore, a traitor rather than a whistle blower.  Which is why he is in Russia.

Steve

Now that is harsh. He was never going to get a fair trial in the US and who else was willing to shelter him? He would happily have gone to Germany for instance. He asked for sanctuary here. But we told him that while we are totally interested in his information to investigate illegal NSA activity in Germany, we would rather question him in Russia because we'd have to hand him over to the US if he'd come to Germany.