How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, billbindc said:

The fallacy that you are pointing out is one we see with cold fusion, self driving cars, etc. I can't count the amount of times in the last 10 years in which someone says "Well, Silicon Valley (or VC money, or the USG, or China...take your pick) is going all in on X so it's certain to be resolved". That's not how it works. Challenges of that scale and complexity don't just evaporate with money and attention...especially in a case like drones where the challenge hasn't even reach the capabilities we can already see coming around the next iterative bend. 

The blithe dismissal of the issue with a blank assertion that big militaries with enormous physical and mental investment and successful track records in old ways of making war reminds of me a certain application of élan vital with a result that's more than likely to be similar.

No thanks. 

In the end when things don’t work out these types politicize and blame the “other guy” for failing to see it in time, or claim “they” stood in the way.  Never do they recognize their own failures, which makes them useless at best, dangerous at worst.

[FlemFire]

31 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

So what exactly have I been wrong about?  Further how have I been so wrong that my professional credentials as to the future trajectory of warfare is in question?  And further more where have you been "right" in contrast whereby you credentials and judgement should outweigh my own.  Shall we hold a community vote?

NMame one Revolution in Military Affairs that did not dramatically shift military power balances globally?

 

Sure. I said from the start that Ukraine had zero military avenues to winning this war. How's that looking? To me, this war is an economic fight between the West and Russia, with Ukraine holding court for as long as that war takes to settle the economic one. I stated that if this was the objective, then Ukraine should not engage in trench warfare, but instead a war of maneuver where Russians are demonstrably bad. I stated long ago that if Ukraine was looking out for its own neck, it should take positions of advantage and sue for peace, because they risk losing more the longer the war drags out. How's that looking now? I think giving Ukraine a trickling of weapons serves no purpose other than to fight the war, but not win it. I think this is literally evil and getting many Ukrainians killed by luring them out with false hopes. I think Ukraine fielding an army of middle-aged men on repeated mobilizations w/ women starting to appear on frontlines is a surefire sign that their casualties are far worse than the media is letting on. I think Russia having a vastly bigger firepower pool on the frontlines of an attrition war matches this end result just as it would in any other theater of war. I think Russia is run by a dictator, has a history of accepting suffering, and will therefore withstand more 'punishment' to win the war as they see fit. This makes them a very formidable enemy, not one to poke fun at or take lightly. I think this sort of foe would require NATO boots on the ground to actually deliver a military defeat.

 

My only concern going forward is that I think this war might have had a knock-on effect of endangering the world -- that Russia's economic survival was a live-fire test for decoupling from the West, and it concerns me that such an experiment is now on paper for China to look at and shed itself of some uncertainties. I think this has made the world more dangerous than it ever has been and most people just don't realize it yet. As an American (edit: well, dual-national), this war does not concern me outside of geopolitical considerations and some personal fascination. I bought into the idea that the U.S. should fund Ukraine (far more than it is now), but I now think that this might have had had a terrible snapback effect.

 

I'm not interested in a vote by a community who aligns with your observations, which is to flounder around repeating pithy propaganda, giving outstretched credit to music video kill cams, seeing suggestions of tactical intrigues where there are none, and blindly pursuing wunderwaffen that will magically turn the day in a war measured by inches. The willfulness alone to stare at a frontline of Ukrainians with whitebeards and creased foreheads and think nothing is wrong is in and of itself completely staggering to me. I mostly come here to read the hot takes, understanding full-well that this is a pro-Ukraine echo chamber that would, apparently, be content seeing the entire male Ukrainian population pulverized to show Russia what-for. I'm pro-Ukraine as well, but I'm also pro-reality and I've seen this horse-and-pony show before and it does not end well for "American allies."

 

Not going to bother with the 2nd question. Like I said, if you think we're doomed to live on Planet Drone, so be it. I find the whole argument constrained considering I was a huge believer in drones as the future of warfare to begin with, I just don't imagine them as wunderwaffe like some seem to, what a horror. Nor for billbindc, who only did me the favor of pointing out counter-measures already in place, suggesting the process of iteration is already underway. Thanks, bill.

 

 

 

Edited February 21 by FlemFire

[billbindc]

5 hours ago, FlemFire said:

Pro-immigration propaganda is also running out of gas, as fifty years of stagnated wages isn't matching the rose-colored theories of the economists (the economists paid by the industrialists making the most buck off said migrants, what a shocker).

Also, you are wrong about, inter alia, your premise that anti-immigrant feeling is based on wage stagnation. That's a rather common and boring canard. 

https://www.aei.org/articles/have-wages-stagnated-for-decades-in-the-us/

And I'm done. 

[billbindc]

4 minutes ago, FlemFire said:

 

Sure. I said from the start that Ukraine had zero military avenues to winning this war. How's that looking? To me, this war is an economic fight between the West and Russia, with Ukraine holding court for as long as that war takes to settle the economic one. I stated that if this was the objective, then Ukraine should not engage in trench warfare, but instead a war of maneuver where Russians are demonstrably bad. I stated long ago that if Ukraine was looking out for its own neck, it should take positions of advantage and sue for peace, because they risk losing more the longer the war drags out. How's that looking now? I think giving Ukraine a trickling of weapons serves no purpose other than to fight the war, but not win it. I think this is literally evil and getting many Ukrainians killed by luring them out with false hopes. I think Ukraine fielding an army of middle-aged men on repeated mobilizations w/ women starting to appear on frontlines is a surefire sign that their casualties are far worse than the media is letting on. I think Russia having a vastly bigger firepower pool on the frontlines of an attrition war matches this end result just as it would in any other theater of war. I think Russia is run by a dictator, has a history of accepting suffering, and will therefore withstand more 'punishment' to win the war as they see fit. This makes them a very formidable enemy, not one to poke fun at or take lightly. I think this sort of foe would require NATO boots on the ground to actually deliver a military defeat.

 

My only concern going forward is that I think this war might have had a knock-on effect of endangering the world -- that Russia's economic survival was a live-fire test for decoupling from the West, and it concerns me that such an experiment is now on paper for China to look at and shed itself of some uncertainties. I think this has made the world more dangerous than it ever has been and most people just don't realize it yet. As an American, this war does not concern me outside of geopolitical considerations and some personal fascination. I bought into the idea that the U.S. should fund Ukraine (far more than it is now), but I now think that this might have had had a terrible snapback effect.

I'm not interested in a vote by a community who aligns with your observations, which is to flounder around repeating pithy propaganda, giving outstretched credit to music video kill cams, seeing suggestions of tactical intrigues where there are none, and blindly pursuing wunderwaffen that will magically turn the day in a war measured by inches. The willfulness alone to stare at a frontline of Ukrainians with whitebeards and creased foreheads and think nothing is wrong is in and of itself completely staggering to me. I mostly come here to read the hot takes, understanding full-well that this is a pro-Ukraine echo chamber that would, apparently, be content seeing the entire male Ukrainian population pulverized to show Russia what-for. I'm pro-Ukraine as well, but I'm also pro-reality and I've seen this horse-and-pony show before and it does not end well for "American allies."

Not going to bother with the 2nd question. Like I said, if you think we're doomed to live on Planet Drone, so be it. I find the whole argument constrained considering I was a huge believer in drones as the future of warfare to begin with, I just don't imagine them as wunderwaffe like some seem to, what a horror. Nor for billbindc, who only did me the favor of pointing out counter-measures already in place, suggesting the process of iteration is already underway. Thanks, bill.

 

You know, couldn't I just read David Sack's tweets and get all this in 140 characters or less? 

[FlemFire]

1 minute ago, billbindc said:

You know, couldn't I just read David Sack's tweets and get all this in 140 characters or less? 

 

You speak like someone who uses Twitter, so perhaps you should.

[The_Capt]

39 minutes ago, FlemFire said:

If you wish to continue thinking counter-measures won't come, that's your business. No point in going in circles and cluttering up the thread for others just be weirdly contrarian about how military technology and adaptation works.

Ok, enough banter.  Time for serious talk. You have probably noticed that you are not that popular here?  Now I am sure you are telling yourself is is because you are “too real” and enjoy flying by to shake up the “liberals and Europeans”.  But that isn’t why people don’t like you.  No, they don’t like you because you really don’t add anything to the discussion.

You see, people here do a lot of things.  Some are really good at collecting information very quickly.  Others ask really good questions and some of us try and make sense out of this whole crazy thing because we have spent decades in the war business and can contribute that experience - and I do not just mean military vets, I mean dedicated wargamers who are all historians, theorists and philosophers to some extent.

So what this thread is trying to do is understand better.  Before when I poked you to find examples of me “being wrong” about a prediction, well it was a trick question.  I rarely ever make firm predictions because frankly things are simply too dynamic.  I see trends, big ones.  Trends that are becoming unavoidably large and looming.  These trends point to the fact that we are very likely within an RMA right now.  It started back in the early 90s and has been progressing for 30 years.  The effects that information technology, miniaturization and energy density - along with dozens of others, all have on warfare is emerging with increasing speed and impact.  So when I say “unmanned systems are not a temporary thing” well you can take it or leave it but that judgement is based on about 35 years of observations on the changes within military affairs.

Your problem is that you do not come with new information.  You do not come with good questions.  You don’t even come with good analysis and arguments to back things up.  You come with opinion and positions.  And the come on this thread like an evangelist - this is not discourse, it is preaching.  You are trying to make a lab into a chapel and it just makes people angry.

But we should be about forgiveness.  So here is a fun thing we can try: what don’t you know?  What questions do you have about this war that you do not understand?  Maybe we can start there and help you understand better.  Because right now it really looks like a lot of very uninformed “well let me tell you college boy” BS.  You want to make an argument that unmanned systems are a flash in the pan? Why not go out and find some actual analysis that supports that.  We have got hundreds of pages of social media videos, professional analysis links and expertise that disagrees with you.  But do some proof of work and come back with some solid analysis and assessment and we can discuss.

If not, well there are a lot of other forums on the internet where everyone will agree with you, or really lose their minds if that is your kink.

Finally as to the point at hand…the issue is not “counter-drone gear”.  Of course counter-systems will be introduced, and the  counter-counter systems as we will see primacy shift back and forth.  The issue is that this competition will profoundly change how we wage war, it already has.  Data superiority, AI superiority, Silencing, deception, redesign of land units and formations for the first time since WW2…these are all on the table.  We cannot assume dominance based on where we were..we will need to earn that dominance and frankly accept that we won’t always have it.  This will mean hard fights and harsh calculus.  The lazy days of air supremacy are likely over as a minimum. Bilindc noted that one would need to “Deny ISR”, he is right, and I have no idea how to do that on the modern battlefield.  And trust me, if I don’t, you don’t either.  So we can discuss how that could happen or you can keep hand waving and going “aw shucks…airplanes”.  Or you can keep getting tossed onto everyone’s ignore list until Steve comes along and chases you away again.

[Sequoia]

47 minutes ago, cesmonkey said:

Retired General Wesley Clark weighs in again:

He holds nothing back in criticizing the failures in the American response from before the war to the present.

 

Edited February 21 by Sequoia
never mind -wanted to delete post

[Battlefront.com]

I just banned FlemFire.  I can't see how much higher he floats above his high horse, because the clouds obscure his position.  It's could be why he can't carry on a real discussion.  Gotta shout to cover all that distance.

Capt summed it up well here:

Quote

Your problem is that you do not come with new information.  You do not come with good questions.  You don’t even come with good analysis and arguments to back things up.  You come with opinion and positions.  And the come on this thread like an evangelist - this is not discourse, it is preaching.  You are trying to make a lab into a chapel and it just makes people angry.

For those who aren't aware, FlemFire has a pattern of coming into this thread, DELIBERATELY provoking a heated discussion, walking away from points he can't support, then walking away completely.  We spend time and energy on this and then he just comes back around to do it all again.  He's been warned several times about this behavior and I've lost interest in allowing him to repeat it.

To the rest of you, thank you for attempting to debate someone who has zero intention of being debated.  There's always some good that comes from it.

Steve

[The_Capt]

43 minutes ago, FlemFire said:

 

Sure. I said from the start that Ukraine had zero military avenues to winning this war. How's that looking? To me, this war is an economic fight between the West and Russia, with Ukraine holding court for as long as that war takes to settle the economic one. I stated that if this was the objective, then Ukraine should not engage in trench warfare, but instead a war of maneuver where Russians are demonstrably bad. I stated long ago that if Ukraine was looking out for its own neck, it should take positions of advantage and sue for peace, because they risk losing more the longer the war drags out. How's that looking now? I think giving Ukraine a trickling of weapons serves no purpose other than to fight the war, but not win it. I think this is literally evil and getting many Ukrainians killed by luring them out with false hopes. I think Ukraine fielding an army of middle-aged men on repeated mobilizations w/ women starting to appear on frontlines is a surefire sign that their casualties are far worse than the media is letting on. I think Russia having a vastly bigger firepower pool on the frontlines of an attrition war matches this end result just as it would in any other theater of war. I think Russia is run by a dictator, has a history of accepting suffering, and will therefore withstand more 'punishment' to win the war as they see fit. This makes them a very formidable enemy, not one to poke fun at or take lightly. I think this sort of foe would require NATO boots on the ground to actually deliver a military defeat.

 

My only concern going forward is that I think this war might have had a knock-on effect of endangering the world -- that Russia's economic survival was a live-fire test for decoupling from the West, and it concerns me that such an experiment is now on paper for China to look at and shed itself of some uncertainties. I think this has made the world more dangerous than it ever has been and most people just don't realize it yet. As an American (edit: well, dual-national), this war does not concern me outside of geopolitical considerations and some personal fascination. I bought into the idea that the U.S. should fund Ukraine (far more than it is now), but I now think that this might have had had a terrible snapback effect.

 

I'm not interested in a vote by a community who aligns with your observations, which is to flounder around repeating pithy propaganda, giving outstretched credit to music video kill cams, seeing suggestions of tactical intrigues where there are none, and blindly pursuing wunderwaffen that will magically turn the day in a war measured by inches. The willfulness alone to stare at a frontline of Ukrainians with whitebeards and creased foreheads and think nothing is wrong is in and of itself completely staggering to me. I mostly come here to read the hot takes, understanding full-well that this is a pro-Ukraine echo chamber that would, apparently, be content seeing the entire male Ukrainian population pulverized to show Russia what-for. I'm pro-Ukraine as well, but I'm also pro-reality and I've seen this horse-and-pony show before and it does not end well for "American allies."

 

Not going to bother with the 2nd question. Like I said, if you think we're doomed to live on Planet Drone, so be it. I find the whole argument constrained considering I was a huge believer in drones as the future of warfare to begin with, I just don't imagine them as wunderwaffe like some seem to, what a horror. Nor for billbindc, who only did me the favor of pointing out counter-measures already in place, suggesting the process of iteration is already underway. Thanks, bill.

 

 

 

See my other post.  So Ukraine has lost?  We have definitely been around that tree a few times.  Is it right?  Well ok by what metrics has Ukraine lost?  You contradict your own position by stating that we have doomed Ukraine by not giving them enough weapons.  Ok, so if they had enough weapons they could win this war?  So winning the war is possible, except for the part where support to Ukraine has been hijacked to create a self-fulfilling prophesy - “you are going to lose this war, while I ensure you don’t get the support you need to win it.”

As to the war itself:

- Russia has failed to achieve any of its political or strategic objectives, with the lone exception of that land bridge, but until there is a ceasefire, I am not willing to call that one.

- The Russian military is a broken shell of its former self.  The damage done to its Tier 1 military is going to take a decade to rebuild under normal conditions, let alone long term sanctions.  I read a source that notes the Black Sea Fleet is not only denied but down 20%.

- Russian foreign influence has completely backfired - see Finland and Sweden in NATO.  NATO funding will be secure for a decade at least…and frankly we were half way to letting it die before this.

- Ukraine remains and independent sovereign nation.  It has distance to go but it will very likely be western facing for the next century.

- The Ukrainian military is about as battle hardened as it gets.  To the point they could make bank training us.

- Russia chances for serious operational gains remain low.  For all the reasons laid out in the last couple thousand pages.

- Russian internal stability remains highly suspect.  Hell they almost had an accidental coup last year.

You are correct, China is dining out on this and will continue to a point.  The war could end right now, Korean Peninsula style and Ukraine will have won this thing.  Of course Ukraine needs more support, as much as they can get.  I highly suggest you use your democratic rights this year to vote for the party and candidates that are trying to sustain that support, not shut it down.

Is it hard.  Damn straight.  Is Ukraine suffering, absolutely. Are they having force generation problems, very likely.  So what?  What is your answer?  Sue for peace?  Surrender?  Seriously, how on earth did the children and grandchildren of the generation that went through the Depression and WW2 come to this?  “Aw it’s too hard so we should just look away.  Stick to the easy ones so we can score political points.”  This was is not about politics are power.  It is about right and wrong.  What I find so shocking is how the USA, leader and symbol of “right”, is floundering now that history is watching.  How sentiments like yours can be so widespread.  Frankly, if this is the trajectory of your nation, China will be running the planet by 2050.

You want to Make America Great Again - start here and support a nation of people who just want to be free and democratic.  A nation that has been invaded by a brutal authoritarian regime.  Stop hand-wringing and doom saying “Ukraine has no avenues to win this war”…and do something about it!

Edited February 21 by The_Capt

[The_Capt]

8 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I just banned FlemFire.  I can't see how much higher he floats above his high horse, because the clouds obscure his position.  It's could be why he can't carry on a real discussion.  Gotta shout to cover all that distance.

Capt summed it up well here:

For those who aren't aware, FlemFire has a pattern of coming into this thread, DELIBERATELY provoking a heated discussion, walking away from points he can't support, then walking away completely.  We spend time and energy on this and then he just comes back around to do it all again.  He's been warned several times about this behavior and I've lost interest in allowing him to repeat it.

To the rest of you, thank you for attempting to debate someone who has zero intention of being debated.  There's always some good that comes from it.

Steve

Dammit Steve, I just posted another pithy rebuttal..and it was a good one, if I say so myself.  Well I can only hope he reads it in the outer darkness.

[billbindc]

44 minutes ago, FlemFire said:

 

You speak like someone who uses Twitter, so perhaps you should.

Well...I suppose now I'm going to have to. 

[Kinophile]

20 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I just banned FlemFire.  I can't see how much higher he floats above his high horse, because the clouds obscure his position.  It's could be why he can't carry on a real discussion.  Gotta shout to cover all that distance.

Capt summed it up well here:

For those who aren't aware, FlemFire has a pattern of coming into this thread, DELIBERATELY provoking a heated discussion, walking away from points he can't support, then walking away completely.  We spend time and energy on this and then he just comes back around to do it all again.  He's been warned several times about this behavior and I've lost interest in allowing him to repeat it.

To the rest of you, thank you for attempting to debate someone who has zero intention of being debated.  There's always some good that comes from it.

Steve

I had never seen him before. Was he a reskin of a previous poster? Pretty good idea of whom... 

[Harmon Rabb]

31 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

I had never seen him before. Was he a reskin of a previous poster? Pretty good idea of whom... 

FF has the distinction of being the first and only user on this forum that I placed on my ignore list.

I remember he did briefly rename himself to "kevinkin replacment" ...A bad omen for the future of his account in these parts of the interwebs. But I don't think it was Kevin, his style was different.

Good riddance.

Edited February 21 by Harmon Rabb

[ASL Veteran]

I haven't been following this thread too closely recently, although I have tried to keep up with current events as best as time allows.

From my perspective, Ukraine was at its weakest and Russia was at its strongest (relatively speaking as compared to each other) on day one.  Every day since day one has Russia getting weaker relative to Ukraine overall.  Russia has fewer armored vehicles of all types than at the beginning of the war.  Ukraine has more, and better, armored vehicles, artillery systems, and various other equipment than at the beginning of the war.  I believe that currently the forces in the field are roughly equivalent in terms of overall numbers.  Up to this point Ukraine hasn't been able to leverage their strengthening position relative to Russia, but Russia hasn't been able to replicate anything that they accomplished in the first month or two of when this whole thing started, and it doesn't look like they are capable of doing anything close to that in the foreseeable future.  Sure, Russia can grind out 'Victories' by WW1 standards, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the Russian army to cross the Dnepr River again, or even occupy all of Ukraine east of the Dnepr River (or capture Kiev for that matter).

To this point Russia, somewhat surprisingly, hasn't gained air superiority over Ukraine.  I am also of the opinion that a lack of air superiority holds Ukraine back.  It seems to me that the biggest advantage the US military has over all their modern opponents, probably even dating back to WW2, is air superiority (or even supremacy).  Once you have air supremacy everything else becomes a lot easier for a variety of reasons since air supremacy, to a large extent, gives you the ability to dictate the terms of the conflict.  

With that in mind, it seems to me that the biggest factor in how things will play out will be how Ukraine can expand the capabilities of their air force and whether or not deliveries of F16s, and other modern aircraft can influence the outcome along with the Leopards, Abrams, and artillery systems, etcetera.  If Ukraine can gain some form of air superiority, even temporarily over a specific sector of the front lines, I think it could have a very big impact on whether or not Ukraine can conduct a successful offensive.  Trying to break through Russian fortified lines and exploit a breakthrough to good effect without owning air superiority seems like a tall task to me.  Russians throwing waves of infantry and armor at various points of the front lines and gaining a few meters of ground each week is almost irrelevant to me.  If Russia decides to stop attacking and just sit on the defensive, then if Ukraine hasn't gained air superiority I think it's time to worry about the outcome if you are hoping for a Ukrainian victory.  So long as Russia keeps attacking like it's the Somme all over again then, by all means Russia, have at it.

[sburke]

59 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Dammit Steve, I just posted another pithy rebuttal..and it was a good one, if I say so myself.  Well I can only hope he reads it in the outer darkness.

damn and I was gonna go with "Alex I'll take submarines for $200" in response to his technology statement. either that or the internal combustion engine.. gawd there were so many choices!  sigh.

[chrisl]

Just now, sburke said:

damn and I was gonna go with "Alex I'll take submarines for $200" in response to his technology statement. either that or the internal combustion engine.. gawd there were so many choices!  sigh.

Your internal combustion engine is just a screaming target for my IR sensors...

Submarines, though, remain super cool.

[Butschi]

38 minutes ago, ASL Veteran said:

I haven't been following this thread too closely recently, although I have tried to keep up with current events as best as time allows.

From my perspective, Ukraine was at its weakest and Russia was at its strongest (relatively speaking as compared to each other) on day one.  Every day since day one has Russia getting weaker relative to Ukraine overall.  Russia has fewer armored vehicles of all types than at the beginning of the war.  Ukraine has more, and better, armored vehicles, artillery systems, and various other equipment than at the beginning of the war.  I believe that currently the forces in the field are roughly equivalent in terms of overall numbers.  Up to this point Ukraine hasn't been able to leverage their strengthening position relative to Russia, but Russia hasn't been able to replicate anything that they accomplished in the first month or two of when this whole thing started, and it doesn't look like they are capable of doing anything close to that in the foreseeable future.  Sure, Russia can grind out 'Victories' by WW1 standards, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the Russian army to cross the Dnepr River again, or even occupy all of Ukraine east of the Dnepr River (or capture Kiev for that matter).

To this point Russia, somewhat surprisingly, hasn't gained air superiority over Ukraine.  I am also of the opinion that a lack of air superiority holds Ukraine back.  It seems to me that the biggest advantage the US military has over all their modern opponents, probably even dating back to WW2, is air superiority (or even supremacy).  Once you have air supremacy everything else becomes a lot easier for a variety of reasons since air supremacy, to a large extent, gives you the ability to dictate the terms of the conflict.  

With that in mind, it seems to me that the biggest factor in how things will play out will be how Ukraine can expand the capabilities of their air force and whether or not deliveries of F16s, and other modern aircraft can influence the outcome along with the Leopards, Abrams, and artillery systems, etcetera.  If Ukraine can gain some form of air superiority, even temporarily over a specific sector of the front lines, I think it could have a very big impact on whether or not Ukraine can conduct a successful offensive.  Trying to break through Russian fortified lines and exploit a breakthrough to good effect without owning air superiority seems like a tall task to me.  Russians throwing waves of infantry and armor at various points of the front lines and gaining a few meters of ground each week is almost irrelevant to me.  If Russia decides to stop attacking and just sit on the defensive, then if Ukraine hasn't gained air superiority I think it's time to worry about the outcome if you are hoping for a Ukrainian victory.  So long as Russia keeps attacking like it's the Somme all over again then, by all means Russia, have at it.

Hm, I think the situation is more complex than Russia is getting weaker while Ukraine is getting stronger, even relatively speaking. Though, admittedly, the discussion in who's favor the clock is ticking is still very much ongoing.

Ukraine received some modern Western equipment but mostly out of existing stocks, not new productions, so to a degree this is a one time thing. How Western support is going to continue in the future... oh well. Russia has apparently increased production but is largely drawing from mothballed Soviet equipment, which isn't an infinite source, either, and probably not increasing in quality. Sanctions also have some effect. Western tanks don't appear to have made that much of a difference, they, too, die to ATGMs and drones, although crew survivability appears to be higher. Artillery systems seem to have a much larger impact but as @dan/california keeps reminding us, those aren't any good without shells which seems to be a real issue. Western production is ramping up only slowly, while Russia can draw on, aldo limited, supplies from e.g. North Korea (albeit lower quality).

Wether F16s would make a real difference remains to be seen. How they can help against minefields, dispersed ATGM teams and drones is anyone's guess.

Let's not forget the (still) most important component: manpower. Both sides appear to have difficulties with mobilization and rotating out exhausted units to some degree.

Ukraine apparently has an advantage in strike capabilities.

Right now, an end to the currently very static and attritional phase is really not on the horizon, I think.

With that I'll let the experts shred my summary.

EDIT: Maybe one of the largest dangers for Ukraine is how increasingly negative the situation is painted in Western mainstream media and discussions. The key takeaway from Avdiivka apears to be that the Russian army is on the offensive and slowly grinding done the Ukrainian defenders.

Edited February 21 by Butschi

[Maciej Zwolinski]

30 minutes ago, ASL Veteran said:

From my perspective, Ukraine was at its weakest and Russia was at its strongest (relatively speaking as compared to each other) on day one.  Every day since day one has Russia getting weaker relative to Ukraine overall.  Russia has fewer armored vehicles of all types than at the beginning of the war.  Ukraine has more, and better, armored vehicles, artillery systems, and various other equipment than at the beginning of the war. 

I think you discount the completely mistaken posture of Russian army during the first days of the invasion. They tried to conquer Ukraine in columns of march allowing themselves to be encircled and attacked from all sides. That way they debilitated their force to the extent completely nullifying their nominal force superiority.By March 2022, their northern pincer almost got annihilated West and North-East of Kiev. They were at their weakest in March 2022 and from that date, the Russians gradually improve.

 

37 minutes ago, ASL Veteran said:

With that in mind, it seems to me that the biggest factor in how things will play out will be how Ukraine can expand the capabilities of their air force and whether or not deliveries of F16s, and other modern aircraft can influence the outcome along with the Leopards, Abrams, and artillery systems, etcetera.  If Ukraine can gain some form of air superiority, even temporarily over a specific sector of the front lines, I think it could have a very big impact on whether or not Ukraine can conduct a successful offensive.

I do not think that Ukrainian air superiority is ever going to happen. The countries supplying UKR with F-16 are not even trying to suggest that. They won't have the numbers, and the F-16 AFAIK are intended to replace the current fleet of Mig-29 and Su-25 in their defensive and limited close air support tasks, as the former Soviet aircraft have reached and exceeded the end of their technical usability.

 

37 minutes ago, ASL Veteran said:

 

[Harmon Rabb]

[LongLeftFlank]

5 hours ago, sburke said:

We have literally tens of millions and zooo much better if ze brain is right zere in zee drones, no?

 

 

 

[danfrodo]

2 hours ago, billbindc said:

Effective systemic theater countermeasures to FPV drones do not in fact exist yet regardless of what performative bs you spew on this forum. 

(Brace yourselves boys for a quick assertion-fest featuring nets, shotguns and furious handwaving.)

Wait a minute, I've seen furious handwaving from individual russian soldiers not only stop drones but cause them to explode.  Seems, unfortunately, that it has a range of less than 1 meter.

And thanks to Fenris & HarmonRabb for some morale-boosters in their posts above, on what was shaping up to be a day of rather bleak news.  

[billbindc]

15 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

Wait a minute, I've seen furious handwaving from individual russian soldiers not only stop drones but cause them to explode.  Seems, unfortunately, that it has a range of less than 1 meter.

It's Flemfire's defense, it is kind of a defense system. Meat based, tragicomic but still...

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, Butschi said:

Wether F16s would make a real difference remains to be seen. How they can help against minefields, dispersed ATGM teams and drones is anyone's guess.

In fairness...they're never meant to, no? I get the strong impression the pending F16 fleet is intended to push back the RuAF and hit operational level targets, not individual ATGM teams.

[dan/california]

23 hours ago, LuckyDog said:

Have we discussed the possibility of AI analysis of the drone camera feeds to complement other intelligence feeds? Good enough data could even track vehicle and soldier movement. The geolocation and time stamps could enable predictive observation (resupply/build up) and potentially predictive artillery fire. The feeds don't look very high resolution but I've seen AI pick out PPE use on similar sized (relative to the screen) objects. Any thoughts?

Palantir has entered the chat...

 

1 hour ago, chrisl said:

Your internal combustion engine is just a screaming target for my IR sensors...

Submarines, though, remain super cool.

Someone in the Pentagon needs to have at lest the beginnings of a plan if they suddenly become detectable. 

1 hour ago, Harmon Rabb said:

First rule of modern warfare, mistakes will  be PUNISHED!

[ASL Veteran]

My impression is that Ukraine is attempting to replicate how western nations attack enemies through air superiority, but they are doing it with missiles and drones instead (and less effectively than the US air force would be doing it).  The target choices though do resemble what the US hits with the various air campaigns over the years.  Air Defense systems and installations.  Russian naval targets.  Interdiction of supply depots and lines of communications.  Command and control centers.  Individual leaders.  Artillery systems through counterbattery and rocket fire (HIMARs).

Russian artillery is primarily being used to support the front lines from what I understand, and the Russians don't seem to have the same targeting priorities as Ukraine does.  This seems to be a traditional Russian approach to warfare.  Even in WW2 The Germans said that Soviet air and artillery was primarily focused on targets within twenty miles of the front lines.  German troops could move with near total freedom beyond that distance unlike in the west when movement was interdicted at almost all distances from the front lines.  Sure, Russia does do some coordinated and large scale missile attacks at Ukrainian strategic targets, but they don't appear to be very effective at it.  

Ukraine doesn't need to gain full air superiority, but if they want to launch a successful offensive at some point, I think they will need to keep the Russian air force and helicopters at bay at the point of attack through a combination of F16s and modern Air Defense systems.