How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

44 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

You speak English, but what you just said is gibberish.  Care to use practical language and say what it is you have to say instead of beating around the bush?  Remember also that there are many readers here that do not speak English as their first or even second language.  Trying to be cute and clever with your wording isn't helpful.

Really?  You don't think that the long history of governments taking shortcuts and its leadership opening their pockets to financial benefits applies here?  Interesting.

Yeah, except it was all BS at the time and it is now proven BS.  There's probably a few hundred posts in this massive thread debunking this sort of flawed logic.  In fact, the US warned Germany back in the 1950s or 1960s that becoming reliant upon Soviet Union petroleum products would put them at risk of having to choose economic self interests over the good of Europe, and that was exactly what happened. 

Using your terminology, their insistence on appeasement and self interests is what "provoked" this war into happening.  If Europe, as a whole, had stood up to Russian aggression in 2008-2014 instead of giving into economic blackmail and financial payoffs this war would not have likely happened.

Appeasement has never worked and this war is exact evidence of it.

More gibber jabber.  Drop the pseudo intellectual claptrap phrasing and use English for as a means of communication instead of trying to sound smart.

My goodness.  What does ANY of this have to do with the war being fought right here and right now?

Look, if you're going to dodge answering simple questions, please just dodge.  Typing up a dozen paragraphs of political jargon and quotes from long dead people isn't helpful to anybody but yourself.

Steve

I think a lot of this springs from a sort of ignorant entitlement mentality.  The world is just supposed to keep the US on top because it is the US.  This completely misses the sacrifices and decades of work it took to position it on top - and frankly everyone in the western world should be happy it worked out that way.  But no, the US should be able to simply “Let it be” and somehow the world will keep spinning the way it has - this is beyond ignorant and is heading to dumb.

Here is a crazy thought for all the Russian apologists, isolationist, Cro-Magnon-adventists who try and frame this war as anything than it is: Some wars are worth fighting, and this is one of them.

”Oh if we had only…[insert upside down theory]”. Well we did not. Russia invaded a nation that was minding its own business and is killing innocent people in a naked power grab.  I do not care if Russia wigged out because NATO - so freakin what?  We use our words not poorly aimed cruise missiles.  

This entire war is not the result of anyone’s foreign policy other than Russia and Putin.  Every nation that joined NATO did so of its own free will - you know, the thing we are supposed to be protecting?  Anyone who suggests that we should live in a world where we let regional dictators pull of nonsense like this war - “to avoid war” is deluded.  Or, as I suspect is in this case, is that kid in the class who is just clever enough to be contrary and get attention but has no real solutions to offer.

Edited April 5, 2023 by The_Capt

[billbindc]

6 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I think a lot of this springs from a sort of ignorant entitlement mentality.  The world is just supposed to keep the US on top because it is the US.  This completely misses the sacrifices and decades of work it took to position it on top - and frankly everyone in the western world should be happy it worked out that way.  But no, the US should be able to simply “Let it be” and somehow the world will keep spinning the way it has - this is beyond ignorant and is heading to dumb.

Here is a crazy thought for all the Russian apologists, isolationist, Cro-Magnon-adventists who try and frame this war as anything than it is: Some wars are worth fighting, and this is one of them.

”Oh if we had only…[insert upside down theory]”. Well we did not. Russia invaded a nation that was minding its own business and is killing innocent people in a naked power grab.  I do not care if Russia wigged out because NATO - so freakin what?  We use our words not poorly aimed cruise missiles.  

This entire war is not the result of anyone’s foreign policy other than Russia and Putin.  Every nation that joined NATO did so of its own free will - you know, the thing we are supposed to be protecting?  Anyone who suggests that we should live in a world where we let regional dictators pull of nonsense like this war - “to avoid war” is deluded.  Or, as I suspect is in this case, is that kid in the class who is just clever enough to be contrary and get attention but has no real solutions to offer.

And of course, Ukraine was nowhere close to getting into the EU much less NATO. Put another way, you don’t get to invade someone because they fruitlessly aspire to join a defensive alliance that would protect them from you and get to claim that you’ve been wronged. 

[kimbosbread]

30 minutes ago, poesel said:

A question about the argument: sending arms to Ukraine diminishes the ability of the US to fight China in Taiwan.

Given that a fight for Taiwan would mostly be a Navy & Air force thing (for the US) and the stuff sent to Ukraine is mostly for Army use - how is the above an argument? (that is really a question, not a backhand argument in itself ).

Sealift + airlift + logistics personnel + training + ISR assets in air and space + missles like ATACMS. It's a safe assumption that a lot of this equipment would get blown or used very quickly, and any of it in Ukraine would be hindering an effort in the Pacific.

[billbindc]

1 hour ago, Seminole said:

I don't think the neocons looks upon their efforts as a diversion, but US involvement is truly discretionary.  We're bringing the eggs to this breakfast, Ukraine is the one bringing the bacon.

You already agreed that Germany and France opposed Ukraine's NATO ascension because they accurately perceived the risk of war it generated.  There wasn't any other reason.  You lambasted them for wanting 'cheap gas', but ignore that they accurately recognized the threat to their 'cheap gas' was provoking a war.

I don't think even the uber-protectionist, Buchananite wing of paleo-conservatives wants 'isolationism' as the interventionists like to frame it.

The non-interventionists are happy to follow Washington's parting advice:  'The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.'

To be truly accurate, it's the interventionists who are always trying to cut our trade and interaction with this or that corner of the globe.

'Involvement in the broader planet' isn't what the non-interventionist oppose.  You're being coy, and it's illuminating that you feel the need.

Non-interventionists concur with what John Quincy Adams observed, "Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force...."

To me, this is the face of neocon policy:

When I look in their wake, at their results, I wonder, what is there to boast about?

1. Ukraine wasn’t anywhere near getting into NATO. 

2. We are bringing both the eggs and the bacon. Ukraine is supplying the staff, setting the table and cooking the meal.

3. Yes…US involvement is discretionary. But only in the sense that France/Britain’s was after the invasion of Poland.

4. Actually the Buchananites were/are largely protectionists. To claim they are free traders is pretty amazingly wrong.

5. Which is why ‘interventionists’ have the ability to impose sanctions. They promote trade and so have trade to sanction.

6. John Quincy Adams also said: 

“When (an advocate) is not thoroughly acquainted with the real strength and weakness of his cause, he knows not where to choose the most impressive argument. When the mark is shrouded in obscurity, the only substitute for accuracy in the aim is in the multitude of the shafts.”

Finis

 

[Battlefront.com]

6 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I think a lot of this springs from a sort of ignorant entitlement mentality.  The world is just supposed to keep the US on top because it is the US.  This completely misses the sacrifices and decades of work it took to position on top - and frankly everyone in the western world should be happy it worked out that way.  But no, the US should be able to simply “Let it be” and somehow the world will keep spinning the way it has - this is beyond ignorant and is heading to dumb.

I have found this sort of half backed theorizing in all corners of policy arguments.  It is, as I love to frame it, the Underpants Gnome way of thinking:

Step 1 - stop international military activities

Step 2 -

Step 3 - world peace

The reason why Step 2 is left blank is because the person doesn't have any idea what should be there, yet wants to arrive at Step 3 anyway.

6 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Here is a crazy thought for all the Russian apologists, isolationist, Cro-Magnon-adventists who try and frame this war as anything than it is: Some wars are worth fighting, and this is one of them.

”Oh if we had only…[insert upside down theory]”. Well we did not. Russia invaded a nation that was minding its own business and is killing innocent people in a naked power grab.  I do not care if Russia wigged out because NATO - so freakin what?  We use our words not poorly aimed cruise missiles.  

This entire war is not the result of anyone’s foreign policy other than Russia and Putin.  Every nation that joined NATO did so of its own free will - you know, the thing we are supposed to be protecting?  Anyone who suggests that we should live in a world where we let regional dictators pull of nonsense like this war - “to avoid war” is deluded.  Or, as I suspect is in this case, is that kid in the class who is just clever enough to be contrary and get attention but has no real solutions to offer.

The logic that Seminole puts out there is the same sort of logic advanced by men for years.  Hey, what happens inside a man's castle is his own business.  If he wants to make his wife's face look like a bunch of raw hamburger, who are we to object.  In fact, let's not talk about it because it might provoke him to do it again.

Yup, that's some fine thinking.

Steve

[Fenris]

This operator got skillz

[Battlefront.com]

46 minutes ago, poesel said:

It didn't take 8 years. It took three days in Feb '22. In the 8 years before, nobody relevant thought one tiny bit about it (at least in Germany, and that includes myself ).

Heh.  Well, ignoring or being oblivious to a problem does interfere with learning lessons  

But you are not really giving Germany credit.  When Putin launched the 2014 war there was a lot of talk between NATO members and related trading partners about what to do.  The point was made then, and not for the first time, that Russia's aggression was going to get worse.  Which it did.

40 minutes ago, poesel said:

A question about the argument: sending arms to Ukraine diminishes the ability of the US to fight China in Taiwan.

Given that a fight for Taiwan would mostly be a Navy & Air force thing (for the US) and the stuff sent to Ukraine is mostly for Army use - how is the above an argument? (that is really a question, not a backhand argument in itself ).

The presumption is that Chinese land forces will engage in a long and protracted land war on Taiwanese soil at a minimum.  Worse case is that China mimics Japan in 1941 and decides it has to fight a much larger scale war in order to get what it wants.  Attacking Vietnam (again), Japan, US bases in the Philippines... you name it.  The specifics of the scenario dictate what is needed for the response.  Since all of this is unknown, the best strategy is to have as much of every capability ready to go.

Steve

[The_Capt]

1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:

The logic that Seminole puts out there is the same sort of logic advanced by men for years.  Hey, what happens inside a man's castle is his own business.  If he wants to make his wife's face look like a bunch of raw hamburger, who are we to object.  In fact, let's not talk about it because it might provoke him to do it again.

Yup, that's some fine thinking.

Man that really highlights the issue at play here.  The US is more than a nation of 360-odd million.  It is an idea.  An idea that despite it flaws, contradictions and even occasional hypocrisy that the western world signed up for because it resonated.  We all took the idea and made it our own.  It was bigger than a political system.  It spoke to themes of liberty, representation, security, justice and equality.  We built a global order to oppose Communism around this big idea.  That is what this war is really about - the defence of that idea.  

Supporting Ukraine is simply the right thing to do.  It is about pushing back a genocidal bully and declaring to any and all that would think about trying this “Hey, this is our idea and we are going to defend it.  You are not attacking Ukraine, you are attacking our idea”.

[Beleg85]

Destruction of Russian small radar, work of 30 brig.

 

18 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I have found this sort of half backed theorizing in all corners of policy arguments.  It is, as I love to frame it, the Underpants Gnome way of thinking:

Step 1 - stop international military activities

Step 2 -

Step 3 - world peace

The reason why Step 2 is left blank is because the person doesn't have any idea what should be there, yet wants to arrive at Step 3 anyway.

 

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Phil003 said:

This is my first post here, so before I start, let me thank you all for the enormous amount of info and analysis found in this thread, I've read hundreds of pages of this discussion and I really learnt a lot.

Welcome!  It is always nice to hear from a lurker.  However, you are now our official source of information for all things Hungarian

1 hour ago, Phil003 said:

So, finally a topic where perhaps I can contribute a tiny bit! Being 'lucky' to be a citizen of Hungary, I would say it's quite likely that Hungary will approve the NATO membership of Sweden as soon as Erdogan decides to do the same.

I have seen this opinion expressed by foreign policy experts too, so it is interesting you see it the same way from your (hopefully) comfortable chair in Hungary.

1 hour ago, Phil003 said:

Quite interestingly, it seems that in addition to the usual stuff behind Orban's 'trouble making' in connection to the war in Ukraine (showing loyalty to Putin, trying to look internally as if Orban/Hungary would be a significant player in the EU, portraying Orban as a "rebel" against the west, etc.) there is some kind of 'Turkish connection' behind delaying the approval of the Finnish and Swedish NATO membership.
So even though for 8 months Hungary delayed the approvals with the exact same excuses for both countries, pretty much immediately after Erdogan announced publicly his support for the Finnish membership, the leader of the Fidesz (Orban's party) faction in the parliament announced that they will support the NATO membership of Finland during the vote in the parliament, and suddenly the schedule of the vote was moved to an earlier date than originally planned (which might happened to make sure that the actual formal voting would happen sooner than in Turkey, thereby avoiding the situation where Hungary approves formally as the last one among the NATO members). The announcement was made by the faction leader, because the latest excuse was that even though Orban and his cabinet supports the memberships of both countries, there is some disagreement (LOL) among the members of the the Fidesz faction because of some disrespectful statements from Finnish and Swedish politicians regarding Hungary in the past, and you know, in a democracy members of the parliament are free to vote according to their best judgement (LOL) and they need some additional time to carefully consider the situation to make the best decision possible...
Regarding Sweden the excuse remained the same, without any sort of clear expectations about what they should do to change our mind. Also there was no real explanation why the wise members of the Fidesz faction suddenly forgave the similar statements from the Finnish politicians.
As an interesting additional detail (even though obviously it is not possible to tell if there is a causal relationhip between the two topics) Erdogan announced around the same time that using the TANAP pipeline Turkey will do everything to help the gas import to Hungary.
I guess if Erdogan will lose the election in May without approving the membership of Sweden previously, the situation will probably change

Thanks for these comments.  It makes perfect sense to me.  Paraphrasing your words, official Hungarian policy is to not be the only one out there opposing NATO expansion.  Probably because it draws too much unwanted attention.  Much better to let Turkey draw all that negative attention, then change positions at the last minute to make sure Hungary doesn't get singled out.

This is shrewd politics, however I don't think it will be useful for Orban in the future.  When a poker player bluffs too much people tend to notice

Steve

[NamEndedAllen]

14 hours ago, Butschi said:

I agree. In order to retain western support Ukraine needs provide a clear perspective that winning in the near future is possible.

and it is clear to me that continued support for Ukraine requires them to prove they can end this in closer to 1-2 years than 10-20.

In addition they need to prove that after all the fuzz the Leopard 2s can make a change and not just evaporate if they want more tanks or even talk about aircraft.

My brother in law just died a needlessly horrible drawn out death, today. He fought for decades in a variety of ways to defend the USA. One person was directly responsible for how it went down. My sister is heartbroken, and enraged at what happened. I am in more than a foul mood. So my thoughts right now are colored in a certain way by this tragedy. Not particularly with distance, nuance and diplomacy. What happens when you are inside the box, not outside. My apologies if you don’t like them. I don’t either.

Lot of talk lately about Ukraine has GOT to produce big battlefield wins, now. Trying to put myself within Ukraine’s box:

1. Your country was suddenly invaded by one of the largest monsters in the world, ravaging your cities, raping and killing civilians. That is awful. We condemn it. You will collapse in three days.

2. We are NATO. We are a hugely powerful military alliance designed  to defend ourselves against that very same horrible monster.  Because we all fear trying to do so alone. Like you. Too bad you aren’t in NATO.

3. There won’t be any cavalry coming to your rescue, on land, sea, or air. But good luck, we support you brave people. Here are a lot of supplies and defensive short range weapons. You go fight the monster. We’ll cheer you on. 

4. OK, you have been doing a great job! Well done. Even with most of your cities and power grid regularly under missile and drone attack in the winter,  thousands of casualties, and smashed into rubble cities, you are still standing! Great job! Here are some more weapons, and one with a little longer range. It works really well so you can continue to not only survive but make some progress. Not too much progress though. Might be dangerous. So, no to your other requests for planes and long range weapons. We can’t risk getting attacked by the monster.. But we will open war crimes investigations into the massacres, rapes and civilian killings and targetings.

5. Hey, you haven’t won yet! We don’t think you can win although the monster has obviously already lost. You have really fracked up his army good. By the way, our patience is growing thin and you haven’t defeated one of the world’s largest military powers yet. After a whole year.  We are the richest group of countries ever on Earth.  We have awesome military capabilities beyond belief. And lots of nuclear weapons. If we lose interest and get tired, you probably will have to negotiate away big chunks of your country you fought and died for. If you only achieve a stalemate against the monster. Unless you defeat that monster, real soon now. Here’s a few older tanks we made a long time ago. And a handful of rusty old Soviet/Russian jets, some don’t work though. Please don’t complain. It’s ungrateful.

6. Oh, hey. Go out there as soon as the ground is firmed up and really tear apart the monster, the monster we are definitely not wanting to get any madder at us. No pressure, but if you don’t defeat the monster right now, you are pretty much up a creek because we’re tired and have real problems here in our nice undamaged, heated homes. By the way, we are worried about you defeating the monster. What will happen to the him? He might hurt us. But don’t forget, the monster has already lost.

7. I mean, yeah, the monster just threw a few hundred thousand troops at you and you survived and all. Well, most of you. But hey, they weren’t well-trained. And we all know the monster has already lost (as far as threatening us over here in NATO - yay).  So you better defeat this monster by yourself, Right now. We gave you a LOT of equipment so you should be able to do this on your own. We can’t get involved. But here are a few more old jets. Don’t work so good right now, but…

8. We just got Finland into NATO!  Mostly thanks to you!). Now we are even stronger, and NATO makes sure none of us have to try to defeat the monster on our own. Like you. Because we don’t think we could. We can’t give you more powerful offensive weapons because it would have taken you all last year to learn how to use them. And then you might have defeated the monster. And we are really really worried because that might be bad. For us. You understand. So go out there NOW and defeat the monster. Or we will probably have to reduce our support for you. Like, if things get really bad for you. Not winning. We might not be there. As much. Or something. Hard to tell. But go win. Now. OK? 

PS. I really am pleased at how the West has helped out. I just don’t think it’s been soon enough with enough of the right stuff to end it before the political rot sets in. So I’m ventilating how it might feel. While I am grieving.

[Fenris]

Mildly interesting thread re bribes to avoid being sent to UKR

 

[Fenris]

22 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

Destruction of Russian small radar, work of 30 brig.

 

 

Here's another one of these that was posted today, wiki says "Aistyonok is a portable counter-battery radar system developed and produced by the state-owned Almaz-Antey corporation for the Russian Armed Forces"

 

[NamEndedAllen]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Here is a crazy thought for all the Russian apologists, isolationist, Cro-Magnon-adventists who try and frame this war as anything than it is: Some wars are worth fighting, and this is one of them.

Bravo! Nominate the last sentence as the revised name of this thread.

[kevinkin]

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/bill-clinton-reveals-blames-himself-211859904.html

A good idea that just needed much better support. I think the US forgot that they actually took the nukes after a few years. Or that supporting Ukraine's security without them was critical. And when they did think about it, the powers that be did not want to piss Putin off thinking they could bring Russia into the fold with enough time. 

[Harmon Rabb]

5 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/bill-clinton-reveals-blames-himself-211859904.html

A good idea that just needed much better support. I think the US forgot that they actually took the nukes after a few years. Or that supporting Ukraine's security without them was critical. And when they did think about it, the powers that be did not want to piss Putin off thinking they could bring Russia into the fold with enough time. 

Here is a clip of him making the statement.

 

[chris talpas]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

 

The presumption is that Chinese land forces will engage in a long and protracted land war on Taiwanese soil at a minimum.  Worse case is that China mimics Japan in 1941 and decides it has to fight a much larger scale war in order to get what it wants.  Attacking Vietnam (again), Japan, US bases in the Philippines... you name it.  The specifics of the scenario dictate what is needed for the response.  Since all of this is unknown, the best strategy is to have as much of every capability ready to go.

Steve

This war game has China doing just that

[keas66]

44 minutes ago, NamEndedAllen said:

Bravo! Nominate the last sentence as the revised name of this thread.

I must be made of weaker stuff than a lot of folks here . Seminole was added to my block list after I read a couple of his posts .... along with many others who parrot the same sort of advice/wisdom of mind your own business/  look the other way / Always blame the US/NATO/The West .

[NamEndedAllen]

Speaking of Finland: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/finland-buys-israels-davids-sling-for-huge-air-defense-upgrade

NATO’s newest member, Finland, announced Wednesday it will procure the David’s Sling medium-range air defense system from Israel. This is the first export customer for the system. The system, which fires the unique “dolphin”-nosed Stunner interceptor, is a joint venture between Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and Raytheon. The Stunner interceptor, which became operational in 2017, can be used to shoot down short-range ballistic missiles, aircraft, drones, cruise missiles and large artillery rockets. It is the mid-to-long-range part of Israel’s layered air defense system, slotting in between the Iron Dome anti-rocket and artillery system and the Arrow ballistic missile defense system, with the Patriot system sitting somewhere in between. Each launcher can carry up to 12 interceptors, which are launched in a vertical orientation.

[paxromana]

5 hours ago, Haiduk said:

On LostArmor somebody writes he spotted first BTR-50s near frontline. Despite old age, Russians in whole say this vehicle is better that MTLB, because can embark more people.

More mobiks in a metal coffin!

[MSBoxer]

Deleted - already covered

 

Edited April 6, 2023 by MSBoxer

[dan/california]

 

Quote

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/03/world/europe/ukraine-war-counteroffensive.html?action=click&algo=bandit-all-surfaces-variants-shadow-lda-unique-diversify-time-cutoff-30&alpha=0.05&block=trending_recirc&fellback=false&imp_id=358464375&impression_id=c40da13f-d416-11ed-9dc8-63cf2af84eff&index=9&pgtype=Article&pool=pool%2F5bffce26-a993-4ed4-af7d-8894fdf413ca&region=footer&req_id=674681647&shadow_vec_sim=0.13502061488935074&surface=eos-most-popular-story&variant=0_pers_bandit_diversified

Thoroughly reported article that attempts to take every possible point of view on the upcoming Ukrainian counter offensive. There is a fascinating bit about a veteran of Mariupol with a prosthetic arm who is a senior trainer. I am betting he gets very little crap.

[Doc844]

Hmmm let russia do what it wants in Ukraine to avoid a bigger war.  Really.  Quick history lesson.

"Peace in our time" 1938. 

Appeasement of Mr Adolf, fast forward 7 years, 60 million dead. 

Whoooops.

And I'm not being flippant, just flabbergasted.

 

[dan/california]

12 minutes ago, Doc844 said:

Hmmm let russia do what it wants in Ukraine to avoid a bigger war.  Really.  Quick history lesson.

"Peace in our time" 1938. 

Appeasement of Mr Adolf, fast forward 7 years, 60 million dead. 

Whoooops.

And I'm not being flippant, just flabbergasted.

 

Which is why I saw strategic ambiguity on Taiwan has Run its course. Put enough of a U.S. military presence on the island to make things crystal clear. 

[alison]

8 hours ago, FancyCat said:

Better to give Ukraine what it needs to achieve decisive results. Whether it's fear of being too bold in supporting Ukraine, or keen not to "escalate", if Putin is intent on winning a long term fight, like the short term fight, the West must show Putin he cannot win. Instead of conceding defeat and coming to the peace table, Putin doubled down.

There have been several posts here recently like this. But there have also been posts from military specialists expressing uncertainty around how quickly a NATO-like force could resolve a war of this sort because they have never fought one. I am curious to find out what exactly the AFU is lacking right now that would allow them to turn the current situation into "decisive results". Maybe the first point is to define what "decisive results" means. Let's say it means getting back to February 2022 borders during the summer campaign of 2023. What kinds of military assets are a) not existing in Ukraine right now, b) able to be delivered immediately from the West, and c) can immediately be put into service in order to achieve these results?

I am not opposed to providing more material support to Ukraine in principle, I am just finding it difficult to understand exactly what the "more support" contingent expects. Is there really a list of kit that could be procured by this military - or any military - that would result in the ability to immediately push back a still-numerous opponent that is dug in and throwing everything they have at you? Most wars that happened in my own lifetime have been measured in years, not in months. Granted, some wars involving the West were on the shorter end of things - like the Falklands War or the Gulf War - but they are still outliers, and were over much smaller pieces of land than what we are now dealing with. I know that war sucks and it is frustrating to see so many people dying thanks to the whims of a dictator, but I also am not sure that - outside of WMD or top secret wunderwaffe - there is any kind of asset that could resolve it overnight. If there was, I believe it would have been deployed already, because nobody wants a war to drag on.