How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

4 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I'm not the guy you're asking, but couldn't help but chime in here..

Why should fear and intimidation go one way? It doesn't necessarily, but in Russia, it all comes down to what one single guy thinks, and whether that single guy is intimidated or not. While over here in the West, someone like Biden can't just decide to play hardball because he feels like he's old anyway and has nothing to lose.

We are a lot who all have a lot to lose, and since we don't live in a dictatorship, our opinions matter - at least collectively.

Well the I guess we had better grow the same spines as our grandparents then.  Because if we stand back and fail to defend the system we built we will lose those “mattering opinions”.  Since when did democracy = weak?  We won three global wars and built the damned system.  We can at least hold onto it.

Or is that how the “US put Ukraine in a shredder?”  Is US bashing and democracy-bad doing double duty?  Dictatorships are incredibly fragile and brittle because they rest on the shoulders of a few people.  History is filled with autocracies that collapsed due to single points of ruler failure.

[Bulletpoint]

6 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Since when did democracy = weak?

Depends on the definition of strength and weakness.

Who is more likely to win in a game of chicken, you know that traditional American pastime where they drive cars towards each other out in the desert and see who will swerve away in the last possible moment...

The sensible family dad or the coke-sniffing drunkard with prison tattoos on his neck?

[The_Capt]

5 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Depends on the definition of strength and weakness.

Who is more likely to win in a game of chicken, you know that traditional American pastime where they drive cars towards each other out in the desert and see who will swerve away in the last possible moment...

The sensible family dad or the coke-sniffing drunkard with prison tattoos on his neck?

If that coke fiend is going to go after the kids next?  My money is on the minivan Dad.

[Bulletpoint]

4 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

If that coke fiend is going to go after the kids next?  My money is on the minivan Dad.

Nice twist

But the kids are safe back in the gated community that dad built with his buddies.

Edited December 14, 2023 by Bulletpoint

[The_Capt]

1 minute ago, Bulletpoint said:

Nice twist

It is why BFC pays me so well....

[Beleg85]

Interesting interview by Butusov about small drones and infantry tactics.

 

Edited December 15, 2023 by Beleg85

[Butschi]

1 hour ago, dan/california said:

 

What had to happen to day, happened. That is plenty good enough. 

Not at all, it is f*cking disgusting. I don't begrudge the Ukrainian this turn of events but the EU folding to Orban is just tragic. Orban has been playing his game of establishing his corrupt autocracy, blaming EU for everything while happily taking the money and laughing in our faces for so long now. Finally the EU managed to come up with a weapon by linking payments to actual compliance with democratic standards. Orban blackmailed us and got away with it. Now he knows there is nothing for him to fear because he can always do the same thing again.

 

[dan/california]

1 minute ago, Butschi said:

Not at all, it is f*cking disgusting. I don't begrudge the Ukrainian this turn of events but the EU folding to Orban is just tragic. Orban has been playing his game of establishing his corrupt autocracy, blaming EU for everything while happily taking the money and laughing in our faces for so long now. Finally the EU managed to come up with a weapon by linking payments to actual compliance with democratic standards. Orban blackmailed us and got away with it. Now he knows there is nothing for him to fear because he can always do the same thing again.

 

Hopefully Putin will be unhappy enough to send him some very special tea.

[FlemFire]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Ok now you have my full attention.  So to answer your first question - no, it was a terrible idea but here we are.  We did not “push” Russia into anything - unless you subscribe to the John Kettler school of international policy.  They did fall into it.

I think what I find most offensive about your position now that is becoming clear is that somehow this entire war is Ukraines fault because they pissed off Russia.  So small powers should basically all fall in line to neighbouring greater powers and the freedoms and will of their peoples do not count?  This is where oversimplification get us.

We stationed western troops, including Canadians in the Baltics.  But we should back off because we wouldn’t want to make Russia angry.  Beyond your definitive tone you also appear to get pretty high on your own opinion.  Chinas status as a superpower is debatable:

https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/03/02/china-superpower-us-new-cold-war-rivalry-geopolitics/
 

https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-emergence-superpower

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2023/08/25/why-chinas-bid-to-become-a-superpower-is-doomed-to-failure/?sh=651d400d1d0e

https://thehill.com/opinion/international/3936751-china-a-great-power-but-not-a-superpower/

So glad another expert could come and tell us how it really is.

 

 

You misunderstand a lot of things here. We didn't push Russia into it -- we pushed Ukraine. That's the whole point. Russia is acting in its own interests and their response could be -- and was -- predicted. Wars do not fall out of the bloody sky. Many things have to happen for them to occur, and childish kool-aid drinking nonsense that pits this as some sort of Good vs. Evil crap might be suitable for the superhero Marvel fanboys, but it isn't suitable for analyzing international relations. Just a second ago someone tried to seriously inquire when and where the West should step in for human rights and decency, while the West's boy toy Israel is massacring civilians on the daily. Yes, I'm sure the United States and Friends mean well. That's why the U.S. lied to its own people to start a re-construction of the Middle-East, right? They're totally the good guys right?

 

And yes, I will tell you how it is. Who has actually been correct? You or me? Last time I was in this thread I asked how is it even remotely feasible that Ukraine militarily wins this war. The response I got was, "Ukraine already is." Sure are taking their sweet time, yeah? Thousands dead and now outcome-independent people cheer on thousands more for, frankly, some bizarre bloodlust to avoid reality. How is it possible that a forum of grognards cannot see the war for what it is? The Ukrainian counter-offensive evaporated. They didn't take a solitary inch of anything worth a damn, but they criminally massacred their own people in modern day Pickett's Charge reenactments. The sanctions? Didn't work. Not only did not work, but clearly more and more countries are circumventing them. Political isolation? Failed. Moral isolation? Failed. Prestige hit? Yeah, probably a little. Is Russia being in China's corner a good thing? Oh China isn't a superpower so this question is not worth pondering. Of course it isn't worth pondering, right? You think a country conscripting grey beards to go stand in trenches before a 20:1 artillery disadvantage is a winning move. Half the people in here still think more American monopoly money is an actual difference maker. Questions of international tension concerning a very large and very nationalistic nation might as well be a conversation happening on Mars compared to that.

[Twisk]

4 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

snip

While this thread is generally off the rails recently your whole post is just absolutely weird.

 

10 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

but they criminally massacred their own people in modern day Pickett's Charge reenactments.

So you just clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Thanks and adios

[FlemFire]

Yes it's alright. I already got an explanation from a resident grognard how assaults across open ground sans air supremacy or any air cover at all into the entrenched teeth of minefields and pre-sited artillery zones is not at all suicidal or even irresponsible. Another informed me that it was all a matter of probing and that they would soon probe their way to a weakspot. I took this as eschewing common sense. After all, probing by fire is a thing, but doing so via entire mechanized battalions is not a version of it I've seen before. While you are all educating me, please inform me how 40-year old Ukrainians being conscripted off the streets are going to win a war now. Can you name the last conflict won operating with this strategy? Just as a reference point.

[Twisk]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

It is a fair point.  If we abandon Ukraine a whole lotta other nations will start opting out of the whole “international community” will protect me.

I honestly am at the point where I am not sure we can ever give them enough.  We might be at the “keep them able to hold the line” because offensive warfare might have just taken a smoke break.

As long as the war remains an expeditionary one by Russia we can continue falling back to killing more Russians. Reading anything by Ukrainian troops the big take away I get from Western armor/IFVs are critical because they edge the attrition rate in Ukraine's favor bit by bit. A BMP-1 gets hit and the entire crew is lossed while a Bradley being hit is often just the vehicle being damaged.

But looking at Krynky we can see how Ukrainian superiority in drones can pay dividends and that might be the the most reasonable option for the west. Produce more and better kamikaze drones that allow Ukraine to increase the gray zone and make maintaining the frontline increasingly costly for the Russians. Combine this with Ukrainian bite and hold infantry tactics and supplies of PGMs and Ukraine could be in a situation to out attrition Russian troops. Especially at the far edges of occupied Ukraine.


An article on sanctions that is interesting.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/russia-economic-sanctions-putin/676253/

 

For everyone's benefit here is the ignore page https://community.battlefront.com/ignore/

Edited December 15, 2023 by Twisk

[The_Capt]

20 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

And yes, I will tell you how it is. Who has actually been correct? You or me? Last time I was in this thread I asked how is it even remotely feasible that Ukraine militarily wins this war. The response I got was, "Ukraine already is."

Ok, lets put all the rest of that uncited nonsense to the side.  I mean your theory of us "pushing" Ukraine into this war is frankly breathtakingly obtuse and directly from the red-hat camp.  I mean after this you can go back to whatever conspiracy websites you call home.

But let's just pull on this one singular thread.  So for once, I am calling on you...the kevinkin replacement we seem to get in various versions on this forum to actually prove your point beyond your own keyboard.  You state opinion like it was fact and frankly are spewing pro-Putin lines as though they are gospel.

"How is Ukraine losing this war?"  "How is Russia winning it?"  Feel free cite MacGregor.  Your position is that Ukraine has somehow "lost" by not achieving goals set out in the Summer '23 offensive.  What were those goals?  How do those goals determine the outcome of the war?

The Ukrainian military has already won this war.  Unlike whatever HBO/Hollywood narratives you subscribe to, wars rarely end in totals.  Victory parades and Johnny marching home.  The end somewhere in the middle.  In this case we have outlined repeatedly how Russia totally failed to achieve both their stated strategic objectives, and their most likely true ones.  Ukraine has achieved it major strategic objective...it still exists and is able to resist.  It retook roughly the same area of land as the size of freakin Ireland from what was supposed to be the second largest army in the world.

The Russian military is in tatters.  Blown all to hell.  They are still twitching but until I see an actual RA offensive that does not look like glorified leg humping, they are basically only good for holding the line.  NATO got Finland and will get Sweden.  Ukraine is in talks to join the EU.

So basically the Macgregor crowd - of which I am placing you - are now crowing because the UA was unable to re-take back those last few acres of the strategic corridor.  That is not only incredibly sh#tty given the loses they took in that effort, it is desperately trying to rejuvenate a broken narrative.  This war could freeze right where it is.  Ukraine could become like Korea, split.  And history will judge this a major Ukrainian victory.  

Actually, change that.  Don't even bother to try and prove your point because I already know what you are going to say- I have heard it a dozen times over now.  "Ukraine lost (yay!), we were right all along about US isolationism and the world will be such a better place if we stayed out of it altogether.  Oh and look who is blocking funding to Ukraine to keep them in the fight and then blaming everyone else because 'they are losing the war'"

Ok, we are done here...ignore.  

[The_Capt]

11 minutes ago, Twisk said:

As long as the war remains an expeditionary one by Russia we can continue falling back to killing more Russians. Reading anything by Ukrainian troops the big take away I get from Western armor/IFVs are critical because they edge the attrition rate in Ukraine's favor bit by bit. A BMP-1 gets hit and the entire crew is lossed while a Bradley being hit is often just the vehicle being damaged.

But looking at Krynky we can see how Ukrainian superiority in drones can pay dividends and that might be the the most reasonable option for the west. Produce more and better kamikaze drones that allow Ukraine to increase the gray zone and make maintaining the frontline increasingly costly for the Russians. Combine this with Ukrainian bite and hold infantry tactics and supplies of PGMs and Ukraine could be in a situation to out attrition Russian troops. Especially at the far edges of occupied Ukraine.


An article on sanctions that is interesting.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/12/russia-economic-sanctions-putin/676253/

 

For everyone's benefit here is the ignore page https://community.battlefront.com/ignore/

I agree on all point except the IFV/AFVs...I am still not entirely convinced.  That is a lot of expensive hardware that needs to be maintained.  I mean, yes, they are going to need some mech/armor.  Particularly for c-moves but I would prioritize unmanned systems, engineer and infantry training, PGMs of any and all sorts....and the guns. 

All of this is Defensive and Denial though.  I honestly do not know what offensive operations look like now.  As a min one would have to clear RA UAS from the sky and then somehow deal with their ATGMs and sniping vehicles.  And then breach the minefields.  I mean the whole thing looks and feels stuck.  I think the RA can bleed but they won't bleed out enough to collapse without a major UAS campaign.  The cost to the RA to throw human waves in and hold ground behind minefields is too low right now.  Force ratios must just be insane.  Deep strike is a must but unless the RA can be induced to collapse...well we might be stuck.  If things are stuck.  Dig in and let Russia break its hands.  My bet is that Putin will suddenly become more amiable to some sort of ceasefire (it will be a BS one but may buy some time) come March after he gets re-elected.  And then will spark things up again late summer and into the fall of '24 to try and influence the US election.

What grinds my gears, is the US far right who point blame and fingers, while at the same time actually sabotaging the war itself.  I can agree with most Republicans who want accountability and good stewardship. But trying to lose a war while blaming someone else for it is just really low.  

[FlemFire]

1 minute ago, The_Capt said:

Ok, lets put all the rest of that uncited nonsense to the side.  I mean your theory of us "pushing" Ukraine into this war is frankly breathtakingly obtuse and directly from the red-hat camp.  I mean after this you can go back to whatever conspiracy websites you call home.

But let's just pull on this one singular thread.  So for once, I am calling on you...the kevinkin replacement we seem to get in various versions on this forum to actually prove your point beyond your own keyboard.  You state opinion like it was fact and frankly are spewing pro-Putin lines as though they are gospel.

"How is Ukraine losing this war?"  "How is Russia winning it?"  Feel free cite MacGregor.  Your position is that Ukraine has somehow "lost" by not achieving goals set out in the Summer '23 offensive.  What were those goals?  How do those goals determine the outcome of the war?

The Ukrainian military has already won this war.  Unlike whatever HBO/Hollywood narratives you subscribe to, wars rarely end in totals.  Victory parades and Johnny marching home.  The end somewhere in the middle.  In this case we have outlined repeatedly how Russia totally failed to achieve both their stated strategic objectives, and their most likely true ones.  Ukraine has achieved it major strategic objective...it still exists and is able to resist.  It retook roughly the same area of land as the size of freakin Ireland from what was supposed to be the second largest army in the world.

The Russian military is in tatters.  Blown all to hell.  They are still twitching but until I see an actual RA offensive that does not look like glorified leg humping, they are basically only good for holding the line.  NATO got Finland and will get Sweden.  Ukraine is in talks to join the EU.

So basically the Macgregor crowd - of which I am placing you - are now crowing because the UA was unable to re-take back those last few acres of the strategic corridor.  That is not only incredibly sh#tty given the loses they took in that effort, it is desperately trying to rejuvenate a broken narrative.  This war could freeze right where it is.  Ukraine could become like Korea, split.  And history will judge this a major Ukrainian victory.  

Actually, change that.  Don't even bother to try and prove your point because I already know what you are going to say- I have heard it a dozen times over now.  "Ukraine lost (yay!), we were right all along about US isolationism and the world will be such a better place if we stayed out of it altogether.  Oh and look who is blocking funding to Ukraine to keep them in the fight and then blaming everyone else because 'they are losing the war'"

Ok, we are done here...ignore.  

 

I mean, I can cite George Kennan. Is the guy who wrote the Cold War policy of containment too red hat for you? Would you like me to throw in other names? How about the current head of the CIA? To state it is conspiracy when there is historical record of people warning about this West-Ukraine-Russian relationship is insulting to yourself. It demonstrates a total lack of knowledge about a war you are cheerleading. I would personally feel compelled to FULLY understand every nook and cranny of a conflict if I was to, on the sidelines, usher and support the carnage that unfolds from it.

 

 

 

Quote

The Ukrainian military has already won this war. 

 

I'm going to take this as a point of frustration as in your very next comment:

 

Quote

I can agree with most Republicans who want accountability and good stewardship. But trying to lose a war while blaming someone else for it is just really low.  

 

How can they lose a war that is already won?

 

Shame to put me on ignore. I won't respond in kind or else I might miss out on the most insightful reasoning around.

[Blazing 88's]

53 minutes ago, kevinkin replacement said:

.......I won't respond in kind ....

You can try kevinkin replacement, (.....)

However, you will not succeed in that endeavour.

 

[FlemFire]

1 minute ago, Blazing 88's said:

You can try kevinkin replacement, (.....)

However, you will not succeed in that endeavour.

 

Heh, thought some might enjoy a bit of humor.

 

And yes, that is why I did not bother responding to much of anything. I do not understand why one would list out a screed then ignore any response. This is not the nailing of a manifesto to a wooden door. This is supposedly a conversation. I believe I have asked a number of very reasonable questions. For example, is Russia and China being pushed into alignment a good thing for the world? Or how do 40+ year old Ukrainians find the means to win the war at this stage? Ping-ponging an, "Aha, but you see, Ukraine has already won!" while the war is ongoing is, to me at least, not a sufficient answer. Because the war is ongoing, you see.

[chris talpas]

7 hours ago, JonS said:

The state of Russian civil aviation suggests that sanctions are being rather effective.

I think the fact that the civil aviation industry (Boeing, AirBus, engine manufacturers, for instance) also do a fair amount of business with Western governments strongly influences their desire to be seen as complying with sanctions 

[cesmonkey]

 

[FlemFire]

Quote

You state opinion like it was fact and frankly are spewing pro-Putin lines as though they are gospel.

 

Here's a response, btw:

 

I am only asking questions which relate to details that can be observed. Also, can we cool it with the red scare crap? Not to repeat myself, but I have repeatedly made clear that Putin is a totalitarian dictator who literally kills his enemies in broad daylight. And if you'd like to know, I personally know someone who died in this conflict, so you should perhaps keep this "pro-Putin" type stuff firmly in your own throat. My concern is and always has been with limiting the loss of life. My judgments come from the same intentions I'd apply to any conflict. So these nasty assertions? Retreads. I was there in 2003, saying the stated reasons for war against Iraq did not make a lick of sense and were, very clearly to anyone who had studied the region, untrue. I never got any apologies from the waves of people who were hoodwinked back then, either, so I'm probably barking up the wrong tree now anyway.

 

 

Quote

"How is Ukraine losing this war?"  "How is Russia winning it?"  Feel free cite MacGregor.

 

I don't follow McGregor. I did listen to about two YouTube clips of him with the Italian guy with the slick back hair (I repeat myself). I did not get the feeling he knew what he was talking about. Most people don't know what they're talking about when it comes to warfare. Too much fascination with maneuver, too much clinging to technology. Surface level analyses don't really grab me, but that's about all you'll get from media heads. I don't watch T.V. Most of my information comes from books. I prefer texts that predate conflicts so I can situate myself into the thinking before all the emotionality muddies the waters. I've also read all the major books on realism and idealism from the past 100 years. I've read all of Kissingers books (that toad). Most of George Kennan's work. etc. etc. I consider myself well-read and not easily fooled by someone like some dime-a-dozen YouTube grifter.

 

Quote

Your position is that Ukraine has somehow "lost" by not achieving goals set out in the Summer '23 offensive.  What were those goals?  How do those goals determine the outcome of the war?

 

I stated a long time ago (I'm not being negative here, just refreshing) that my perception of this conflict was an economic one. That is to say, the way Ukraine wins is for Russia's economy to fall apart. That is the lens through which I see this conflict. My metrics of victory then follow more closely what is going on within Russia than what is going on in some trench in eastern Ukraine. When the sanctions did not send Russia reeling, I knew Ukraine was in major trouble and that the West as a whole had made a significant misstep. The isolation of Russia from Europe being countered by a swelling of economic throughputs going directly to Asia has alarmed far, far more people than your 'betters' are putting on. You just won't see that on the news cause it's distressing to the ruling class and, like most international matters of economics, it's boring.

 

Quote

The Ukrainian military has already won this war.  Unlike whatever HBO/Hollywood narratives you subscribe to, wars rarely end in totals.  Victory parades and Johnny marching home.  The end somewhere in the middle. 

 

Every war I have seen that "ended in the middle" was a war lost by one side who, thereafter, operated a procedure of protecting their prestige. Democracies and dictatorships are weirdly similar in this behavior, by the way.

 

 

Quote

In this case we have outlined repeatedly how Russia totally failed to achieve both their stated strategic objectives, and their most likely true ones.  Ukraine has achieved it major strategic objective...it still exists and is able to resist.  It retook roughly the same area of land as the size of freakin Ireland from what was supposed to be the second largest army in the world.

 

Yes, Russia invaded with a shock force intended to Georgia-fy the Ukrainians. And we now know that peace was indeed in talks until the West intervened and headed it off. At this juncture, again as I've said before, we actually don't know Russia's war goals anymore. Of the land the Ukrainians kicked them out of, I am not of the belief the Russians had any intention of actually occupying. I don't think the Russian military wing is particular competent, but they are not 150,000 men occupying the entirety of Ukraine incompetent, either. This is a matter of disagreement on ground foundations, so it's hard to get past so I'll move on:

 

Quote

The Russian military is in tatters.  Blown all to hell.  They are still twitching but until I see an actual RA offensive that does not look like glorified leg humping, they are basically only good for holding the line.  NATO got Finland and will get Sweden.  Ukraine is in talks to join the EU.

 

Russia has had 1 mobilization which does not indicate to me an armed force "in tatters." When it comes to materials: pre-war, we know that Russia had a significant portion of labor already dedicated to arms production and their method of sales receipts on the global stage was to target quality missiles and "quantity" everything else. At this stage, the %-of labor dedicated to the task is going to be higher. I'm well aware that the West's GDP and industrial capacity outweighs Russia by a considerable sum. What people don't seem to grasp is that little of that GDP is on a war footing. A smaller GDP on a war footing is going to produce more material than 10x the GDP that is... not on a war footing. Again, I've pondered a couple of times now that if the West was really dedicated to winning this war, the economic slack to do so is still unused and yet there is no urgency in changing that. I find this contradiction astounding, yet nobody seems to care. This is why I refer to these cash agreements as monopoly money. Ukraine does not need funny money and a vomiting of parts. They need what Russia is doing: an established replacement stream. Because, look, things run out. You can only exhaust a stockpile so much when you do not have it being actively replaced. How it is that such a reality flies over peoples heads is beyond me. Either you are in a war to win it or you are not. I would think we could all agree that half-measures in any given conflict only permit the extending of a conflict's worst elements.

 

 

Quote

are now crowing because the UA was unable to re-take back those last few acres of the strategic corridor.  That is not only incredibly sh#tty given the loses they took in that effort, it is desperately trying to rejuvenate a broken narrative.  This war could freeze right where it is.  Ukraine could become like Korea, split.  And history will judge this a major Ukrainian victory.  

 

My qualm with the counter-offensive is that it was a turkey shoot that need not have happened at all. I've said elsewhere, way back in January in fact, that Ukraine should play maneuver defense because 1) Russians lose cohesion almost instantly when on the move; and 2) without air supremacy the defending side will have advantages of extreme magnitudes a la 1915. I was "proven" correct. I put "proven" in quotes because any basic military theory dating back a 100 years could have told you this would've been the outcome. Why or how the Ukrainians were led into that slaughter anyway is beyond me.

 

Quote

 "Ukraine lost (yay!), we were right all along about US isolationism and the world will be such a better place if we stayed out of it altogether.  Oh and look who is blocking funding to Ukraine to keep them in the fight and then blaming everyone else because 'they are losing the war'"

 

I have never celebrated any aspect of this war. My concerns are actually heavily with Ukraine, but they are two-faceted. Yours is one-faceted: Russia. Mine is Russia and the West. I do not see just cause to trust the West's intentions at all. Again, I do not really care for placing these words in my mouth. The war is a WWI-esque tragedy to me and, just like WWI actually, I'm beginning to suspect the conflict is setting up bigger implications that will lead to something far, far worse.

My perception of American politics is that it is simply 1-party firmly captured by moneyed interests. So if you think blaming one side or the other is a fruitful venture, by all means be my guest. It's just a discussion very beyond me.

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, kevinkin replacement said:

Yes, Russia invaded with a shock force intended to Georgia-fy the Ukrainians. And we now know that peace was indeed in talks until the West intervened and headed it off.

Care to cite some sources for this?  Because that's not how I remember it happening.  After Russia failed to heed the West's attempts to head off the war before it began, Ukraine immediately sought a way to get it to stop.  Russia laid out its terms (the same ones Putin just reiterated yesterday) and Ukraine rejected them because acceptance would mean ceasing to exist.  Then, very quickly, it became clear to Ukraine that Russia wasn't going to win quickly or easily, and so it continued to fight.

1 hour ago, kevinkin replacement said:

At this juncture, again as I've said before, we actually don't know Russia's war goals anymore.

Sure we do.  Putin just restated them, including that all of Ukraine should be a part of Russia.  Anybody that has paid even the smallest amount of attention to Russia's actions over the past 20 years would know this even if Putin didn't say this out loud.

1 hour ago, kevinkin replacement said:

Of the land the Ukrainians kicked them out of, I am not of the belief the Russians had any intention of actually occupying. I don't think the Russian military wing is particular competent, but they are not 150,000 men occupying the entirety of Ukraine incompetent, either. This is a matter of disagreement on ground foundations, so it's hard to get past so I'll move on:

Again, what war have you been watching?  Because the war that actually happened was pretty clear.  Putin intended on collapsing the Ukrainian government, taking the entire Azov and Black Sea coasts, and having another Yanukovich take over (and his name is Medvedchuk, BTW) to keep the rest of Ukraine firmly in Russia's control.  Like Belarus.

Just because the plan didn't work doesn't mean these weren't the goals.  I mean, if you're going to go down that route then why not conclude Hitler didn't really intend on taking Russia because the size of the Wehrmacht was woefully inadequate for the task, did not plan on the war lasting more than a few months, and there were zero provisions for carrying the war into the winter.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, cesmonkey said:

 

Looks like he wasn't bribed enough.

Steve

[Ts4EVER]

In my view kevin is right that, much like in WW1, both side's initial plans have failed. The Russians failed to blitz Ukraine, the West failed to strangle Russia's economy and have Ukraine win the war with donated pre-war stock. So now that the war is in limbo, it is a good point to ask how to proceed (and if to proceed, in some cases).

[paxromana]

1 hour ago, Ts4EVER said:

In my view kevin is right that, much like in WW1, both side's initial plans have failed. The Russians failed to blitz Ukraine, the West failed to strangle Russia's economy and have Ukraine win the war with donated pre-war stock. So now that the war is in limbo, it is a good point to ask how to proceed (and if to proceed, in some cases).

Well, it took from 1914-1918 to strangle the Germans in WW1 and from 1939-44 to do the same in WW2. Economic warfare simply isn't an overnight thing.

Note, however, the copious evidence that Russian airlines and their stolen aircraft are in free fall, operational numbers wise. And that the Kremlin spent more on thingsa  military this year than their whole budget for everything ... and it won't get better next year.

Even Dictatorships can't do deficit spending forever ... that's one of the reasons WW2 broke out in 1939, Hitler's Germany was fast reaching the end of its ability to rob Peter to pay Paul and the next four years were the Nazis raping the economies of each of their conquests to fuel their economy. Putin hasn't got any conquests to rape.

[Zeleban]

6 hours ago, kevinkin replacement said:

While you are all educating me, please inform me how 40-year old Ukrainians being conscripted off the streets are going to win a war now. Can you name the last conflict won operating with this strategy? Just as a reference point.

The Second World War. 40-year-old Ukrainians conscripted from the streets captured Berlin in 1945