How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[beardiebloke]

50 minutes ago, buena said:

During WWI soldiers in trenches spent a lot of time trying to blow each other up by building tunnels under the enemy trenches. We haven't seen anything like that in Ukraine. Is there any info about tunnels being used, either to blow enemy trenches or to move underground?

There was at least one incident but it doesn't seem very common.  It's been discussed here but I struggle to find the posts.  I think this is the one I remember from last year around Andriivka.

[squatter]

3 hours ago, hcrof said:

I don't disagree about the 1916 analogy but how do you think the warring sides would have made peace in 1916? Under what terms? And who would enforce them?

I don't mean to suggest that there was a peace settlement in reach in 1916, but there could be one today.

3 hours ago, hcrof said:

Edit: and wasn't the war being fought in french and russian territory in 1916 due to rapid early advances by the central powers? And who won in the end?

Er, yes, and it was won by the Allies of course, but not sure your point here?

[billbindc]

1 hour ago, Harmon Rabb said:

Thank you for the explanation Bill, makes sense that he stands to gain something form this. I don't think a public figure would spend so much time promoting the narrative of a genocidal regime, that is increasingly hostile towards his country. Well Wikipedia says David was born in South Africa, but I'm sure he has his U.S. citizenship by now. If he had nothing to gain from it personally.

I don't follow politics as much as you but my money is on Biden winning in November anyway.

Not to get into boring details but I work in tech myself (Sorry I'm not an awesome fighter pilot/lawyer in real life ) so I may have some perspective on this. Tech can be a very cutthroat sector and while the industry leaders who succeed in it are not always moral (David is a great example) they are in my experience rarely stupid.

I bet David knows what he is pushing is nonsense and he is smart enough to understand how poorly this war has been going for Russia. His intention is to do what he can to make support for Ukraine less popular. Unfortunately he seems to be friends with Elon who is giving him a platform for spreading his disinformation.

This is why I'm grateful for the folks in NAFO, for spending their free time calling this Sack of **** out.

There's a line of thinking on these guys...Thiel, Musk and Sacks...that their approach to the world is heavily influenced by the experience all three had growing up within a baaskap framework. I find it to be pretty compelling. 

[poesel]

1 hour ago, billbindc said:

How do folks from India get snookered into being fodder for meat assaults in far Ukraine? Le Monde has your answer: 

https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2024/02/29/des-indiens-recrutes-a-leur-insu-dans-l-armee-russe_6219341_3210.html

Poverty and lack of education - they usually go hand in hand. For India add the caste system (officially dead, but actually still alive).

[squatter]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Kinda looks like you have constructed a fortress of opinion.  As I noted, almost every major military water crossing in history has been led by lighter forces establishing a bridgehead:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Badr_(1973)#:~:text=Operation Badr (Arabic%3A عملية بدر,Peninsula%2C on 6 October 1973.

So the ability to push light forces across a water obstacle and support them is not new or novel.   Nor are commando raids.  Combining these two into sustained effect is the question - again, I assess as not only possible but plausible.

My point to you here is to throw in the bin all your examples of amphibious crossings from previous wars, because what the last two years have shown is that war has changed immensely (as you of all people know). You may as well dig out examples of fall of France and Barbarossa to try justifying an argument for massive armoured schwerpunkts as a viable strategy in the current environment

It's not called 'a fortress of opinion', it's called drawing conclusions from what we are seeing play out on the battlefield. You on the other hand are bringing obsolete examples as evidence to the table.

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

As to UA light forces “buzzing around RU LOCs = fanciful”, they have already demonstrated this on repeated occasions in this war.  First at Kyiv and then later at Kharkiv and Kherson.

At risk of boring everyone else with constant back and fourth, I've got no doubt what light forces can achieve against an overextended poorly organised attacker (Kyiv) or a depleted, unprepared, unentrenched defender (Kharkiv). Again, I say these are poorly selected examples for the discussion at hand. 

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

You are not here to discuss the viability or pros and cons of a possible UA operation.

Sorrywhatpardon?! I must be fantasising this discussion then! 

 

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

You are instead here to promote the futility of Ukraine continuing this war and are instead pushing the idea that due to that futility they should sue for peace.  

That is close to my position, yes. I do believe the time to close down hostilities has arrived. If anything I am concerned that Ukraine's position will only deteriorate from here (unless Western supply delivery ramps up massively, which doesn't seem likely currently). I think the West will continue to do enough to keep Ukraine in the war, but will not supply enough to kick the Russians out. 

But arriving at this position is the product of drawing conclusions from observing how this war is playing out, not the other way round. 

 

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

You have already answered that question and locked the cognitive door.

 

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

However, on this “all is lost Ukraine, beg for peace” (which is a pro-Russian narrative),

 

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Well no point discussing because you have already made up your mind in support of you larger argument…

I've been an admirer of a great many of your posts as a long time lurker here, but you do have a propensity to go ad-hominem with people who don't agree with your opinions. But going below the belt in an argument is not a good look for your position. You seem to believe anyone who disagrees with you is either a f*cking idiot, or a Russian stooge. 

I reject both accusations - I am a very stable genius! 

Edited March 1 by squatter

[dan/california]

 

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

I have never fully subscribed to "LOLZ Russia" or "Russia Sux".  Nor does a steady stream of one-sided war porn change that.  As to the second point: a major personal gripe on this forum is "Monster Russia!."  Undersubscribing Russia is as big a sin as oversubscribing Russia.  We have posters who need to continually take the worst case for Ukraine, and best case for Russia at every instance.  This is not healthy or useful, and as harmful as the overtly "LOLZ Russia" narratives

I gotta be honest, I am astounded on what is still holding Russia together.  As I said, I re-visited Oryx after a long absence and for tanks and AFVs, Russia has lost 3x what Ukraine had as their entire fleets at the beginning of the war.  We have continually seen signs of Russian strain: lower quality equipment showing up at the front, conscription of excess human capacity, mass migration out of Russia, buying ammo from NK (FFS).  However, one has to simply shake ones head at the level of Russian obstinance in all this.  I am not sure how they are holding their military together right now based on these losses.  Further, the shock of this war on Russia cannot be understated.  Does anyone think Putin planned for all this?  That Russian society was ready for this?  No western nation would be ready for something like this war, the shock would cripple us.  Imagine if Iraq in '03 had turned into something like this war; it would have broken the West.

So what?  Well first off, Russia clearly is not in great shape and their performance in this war compared to the advertising has fallen woefully short.  Russian resilience is high, I will give them that.  Yet we do not know where that breaking point is for them - further, they could have already crossed it...these sorts of things do not happen fast, until they do.  But...and it is a big "but", Russia does have a breaking point.  Every nation/society/human collective on earth has a breaking point.  Russia is not invincible and homogeneous.  Under enough stress it will fracture - economically, militarily and socially.  What we have is a competition of breaking points - ours, Ukraine and Russia's.  Our "breaking point" in the West (US in particular) is laughably low.  I suspect Ukraine's breaking point is further out than Russia's as of all the parties to this conflict, only Ukraine is facing direct existential crisis.  The question really is: can weak western will plus desperate Ukrainian will defeat Russian (??? metric ???) will?  One can immediately see the two major variables here.  Western will and Russian will are the two players on a Ukrainian fulcrum.  The location of that fulcrum depends on how much western support we provide to Ukraine.

I stand by my position that militarily this war has already been won; however, that does not mean it cannot still be lost.  If the West totally fails Ukraine, Russia will take ground - it, in effect, expands Russian option spaces.  Russian airpower seems intent on flexing, perhaps eyeing air superiority again.  A complete withdrawal of US support is a strategic mistake of historic proportions.  It is essentially ceding a proxy war and Ukraine could enter the annals with Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan of lost US ventures.  The rest of the West will need to step up.  If Ukraine falters, as some have insisted, then the whole conversation is moot.  If the fulcrum shatters, there is no war.  The West will write it off to "bad investment" and re-draw the lines.

The longer I watch this war, the more in awe of what the WW1 and WW2 generations went through.  We see those wars through the safe lens of history.  It is another thing entirely to be in the middle of one wit the future unwritten.

One of the West's great weaknesses is that the total victory in WW2, followed by the Soviet collapse in 1990 has us a conviction that history is on our side. To whatever extent that has ben the case for the last hundred years it means absolutely nothing about how the next hundred will work out. 

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

My advice is to steer clear of this one.  I am getting strong Macgregor vibes - not interested in actual military analysis...pushing a political position.

This

1 hour ago, billbindc said:

I think this understates the situation considerably. Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq were peripheral wars that did not seriously affect the US strategic position. Ukraine is a war to defend the outer ramparts of the EU...which is where the US has 50% of its trade and gets 50% of its foreign investment. And a failure of will there has implications for perceptions of American will over Taiwan, future confrontations over NATO, etc. 

Munich is the most abused analogy in modern history...which is a shame...because it applies here.

It truly does, and we simply are not taking it seriously enough. We are two years behind on practically everything in regard to stepping up munitions production. Ukraine today had a great segment about this yesterday, whatever Russias flaws, and they are immense, they did start tooling up for a real war two years ago. "At some point the benefits of compounding interest kick in". 

1 hour ago, buena said:

During WWI soldiers in trenches spent a lot of time trying to blow each other up by building tunnels under the enemy trenches. We haven't seen anything like that in Ukraine. Is there any info about tunnels being used, either to blow enemy trenches or to move underground?

There have been at least two cases that have gotten meaningful coverage. One of them was in Avdiivka a few weeks ago, i can't remember the details of the other one. I think on a lot of the front no mans land it effectively to wide to tunnel under. this is doubly true as FPV drones make the first 5km or more behind the lines a no go zone for heavy equipment.

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

I think you are understating Vietnam and Iraq - peace on Afghanistan (a backwater that every empire needs to take a run at for some reason).  The internal repercussions of Vietnam on the American psyche were enormous.  Iraqs geopolitical train wreck in the making is not small either. 

As to defence of “EU ramparts because $$$”.  Let’s not oversubscribe trade - 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_trading_partners_of_the_United_States

China - who many in the US government are openly selling as unavoidable war guys - is higher in trade than the EU.  On Direct Foreign investment, however, you are correct it is about 50%.

As to shoring ramparts - I think you hit upon the main point and it is not money.  It is perception.  US leadership and dominance depends a lot on perception.  If the US is seen retreating from this war it could turn into an inverted Vietnam.  Rather than inward impacts of self-doubt etc, we will see outward impact of doubt.  My sense is the US internally really is not going to be impacted if Ukraine fails.  Some will feel bad but no one is going to question the entire American Experiment inside the US because of this war.  They very well might outside of the US.  If Ukraine loses this war or even has to sue for peace from a position of weakness, you can use an egg timer to measure the time before cries of “Final US death rattle” start being flung around.

 

If we let Ukraine fall U.S. credibility will simply be gone. The response will be some combination of countries trying to make the best deal they can with Russia and China, and Iran, or absolutely frantic nuclear weapons programs in the attempt to avoid the first choice. I am going to go out on a short thick limb and state that this will amount to a wrong turn for civilization that will take at least a century to fix, and perhaps much longer.

Edited March 1 by dan/california

[Kinophile]

Itll burn out. Nice to see some push back to the war but I'm highly doubtful of any effect. 

 

[Kinophile]

When @The_Capt starts posting with a 7-8 hr time delay from North America, you'll know where he's been sent...

 

[Kinophile]

Hopefully something very expensive and irreplaceable was hit. 

 

[The_Capt]

10 hours ago, squatter said:

My point to you here is to throw in the bin all your examples of amphibious crossings from previous wars, because what the last two years have shown is that war has changed immensely (as you of all people know). You may as well dig out examples of fall of France and Barbarossa to try justifying an argument for massive armoured schwerpunkts as a viable strategy in the current environment

It's not called 'a fortress of opinion', it's called drawing conclusions from what we are seeing play out on the battlefield. You on the other hand are bringing obsolete examples as evidence to the table.

At risk of boring everyone else with constant back and fourth, I've got no doubt what light forces can achieve against an overextended poorly organised attacker (Kyiv) or a depleted, unprepared, unentrenched defender (Kharkiv). Again, I say these are poorly selected examples for the discussion at hand. 

Sorrywhatpardon?! I must be fantasising this discussion then! 

 

That is close to my position, yes. I do believe the time to close down hostilities has arrived. If anything I am concerned that Ukraine's position will only deteriorate from here (unless Western supply delivery ramps up massively, which doesn't seem likely currently). I think the West will continue to do enough to keep Ukraine in the war, but will not supply enough to kick the Russians out. 

 

 

 

I've been an admirer of a great many of your posts as a long time lurker here, but you do have a propensity to go ad-hominem with people who don't agree with your opinions. But going below the belt in an argument is not a good look for your position. You seem to believe anyone who disagrees with you is either a f*cking idiot, or a Russian stooge. 

I reject both accusations - I am a very stable genius! 

Ok, so let's throw out military history then, and I am only half joking - you do have a point on this war being off the conceptual map so historical example have limited traction.

In this war we have seen one sustained river crossing, so there is that.  Otherwise we only have opinion and informed assessment to go by.  What we are seeing on the battlefield:

- Light dispersed forces are doing better than large heavy concentrations of mass.

- Light dispersed forces have had disproportionate effects on the battlefield from previous war.  This is likely due to C4ISR and weapons developments.

- Light dispersed forces have a much lower logistical footprint than heavy ones.

- Russian forces are very thin in places on these fronts based on simple math.  They have offset this through mine warfare and other forms of force multiplication.

- We have no reports of massive fortresses or mine belts south of Kherson.

All of that adds up to an option space down south for a sustained light force effort that may yield operational effects.  You keep skipping past the fact that the UA has already demonstrated a proof of concept on this at Kryky.

As to disagreements.  I have no problem with well thought out, evidence based disagreement.  It is when certain folks arrive on this forum with "wot I think" as if it has come from the right hand of the Almighty Himself while missing key observations and phenomenon, that I will point that out and call "BS".  You are not the first person to Dunning-Kruger on this board, nor will you likely be the last.  What you "do not know" based on your position is significant...and this is in a war where we can only see shadows.

Normally, I can live with someone who embraces their own ignorance. However, when one arrives with an ulterior agenda that is when alarm bells go off.  By your own admission, you do not want a southern light option to be workable - it counters your central theme - "this war has gone on too long and should be ended".  This is perverse logic.  Any military solution for Ukraine is unacceptable by taking this stance.  There are no options for Ukraine, is what you are proposing, the issue of water crossings is secondary.

I again disagree and openly say that you have no idea what you are talking about. You have presented no evidence or even analysis...only assessment based on "what you think".  As I tell my students: "Rule # 4 - no one cares what you think.  They care what you can prove."  If you admire my posts, then you will note that I always try to ground my assessments on facts and evidence.  I tried again here and you have dismissed them.  I tried outlining force density on the ground..."whatever".  I tried to outline what light forces could do..."uh uh".  In short you are pitching a problem that does not want a solution.  Then go all alligator tears and huffy with indignity when you are called out.

You want respect for your analysis, well go do some research and come back with something that holds water.  Do an UA options analysis that stands up to scrutiny and we have a start point for discussion.  I have tried to present counter-factuals to your position but none are good enough because none will ever be good enough for someone whose position is pretty obviously unassailable.

So like the others who have come through on the same train you are on: why are you here?  To convince us all is lost and we should call out political leadership to sue for any peace we can get?  I mean the UA has no hope down at Kherson.  No hope at Zaporizhzhia. No hope in the Donbas. So what is the point of even doing military analysis and assessment, the outcome is clearly already decided?  What are you here to learn?

My bet is that you already answered the question in both our minds - "f#cking idiot" and "very stable genius", which in the end are the same thing.    

Edited March 2 by The_Capt

[omae2]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

I have never fully subscribed to "LOLZ Russia" or "Russia Sux".  Nor does a steady stream of one-sided war porn change that.  As to the second point: a major personal gripe on this forum is "Monster Russia!."  Undersubscribing Russia is as big a sin as oversubscribing Russia.  We have posters who need to continually take the worst case for Ukraine, and best case for Russia at every instance.  This is not healthy or useful, and as harmful as the overtly "LOLZ Russia" narratives

I gotta be honest, I am astounded on what is still holding Russia together.  As I said, I re-visited Oryx after a long absence and for tanks and AFVs, Russia has lost 3x what Ukraine had as their entire fleets at the beginning of the war.  We have continually seen signs of Russian strain: lower quality equipment showing up at the front, conscription of excess human capacity, mass migration out of Russia, buying ammo from NK (FFS).  However, one has to simply shake ones head at the level of Russian obstinance in all this.  I am not sure how they are holding their military together right now based on these losses.  Further, the shock of this war on Russia cannot be understated.  Does anyone think Putin planned for all this?  That Russian society was ready for this?  No western nation would be ready for something like this war, the shock would cripple us.  Imagine if Iraq in '03 had turned into something like this war; it would have broken the West.

So what?  Well first off, Russia clearly is not in great shape and their performance in this war compared to the advertising has fallen woefully short.  Russian resilience is high, I will give them that.  Yet we do not know where that breaking point is for them - further, they could have already crossed it...these sorts of things do not happen fast, until they do.  But...and it is a big "but", Russia does have a breaking point.  Every nation/society/human collective on earth has a breaking point.  Russia is not invincible and homogeneous.  Under enough stress it will fracture - economically, militarily and socially.  What we have is a competition of breaking points - ours, Ukraine and Russia's.  Our "breaking point" in the West (US in particular) is laughably low.  I suspect Ukraine's breaking point is further out than Russia's as of all the parties to this conflict, only Ukraine is facing direct existential crisis.  The question really is: can weak western will plus desperate Ukrainian will defeat Russian (??? metric ???) will?  One can immediately see the two major variables here.  Western will and Russian will are the two players on a Ukrainian fulcrum.  The location of that fulcrum depends on how much western support we provide to Ukraine.

I stand by my position that militarily this war has already been won; however, that does not mean it cannot still be lost.  If the West totally fails Ukraine, Russia will take ground - it, in effect, expands Russian option spaces.  Russian airpower seems intent on flexing, perhaps eyeing air superiority again.  A complete withdrawal of US support is a strategic mistake of historic proportions.  It is essentially ceding a proxy war and Ukraine could enter the annals with Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan of lost US ventures.  The rest of the West will need to step up.  If Ukraine falters, as some have insisted, then the whole conversation is moot.  If the fulcrum shatters, there is no war.  The West will write it off to "bad investment" and re-draw the lines.

The longer I watch this war, the more in awe of what the WW1 and WW2 generations went through.  We see those wars through the safe lens of history.  It is another thing entirely to be in the middle of one wit the future unwritten.

I'm not really on a level to argue with you but i watched some russian propaganda shows and argue about one and a half year with middle men whom was spreading russian propaganda (and that was a waste of time) so i'm very familiar with their arguing points.

I'm saying this because its feels like that their is a misunderstanding how russia is waging this war.

So first of all at the start of the war putin said that the its a challenge against the west hegemony and that the west should consider russia's interest from that point on. Something on the line i'm not remembering how it was said. But this isn't started there, its started back in 14. And since than they using the same tactics. They lie without impunity and escalate because they are fairly confident that the west will not throw away its good life for Ukraine. They are proud of their suffering its a badge of honor that they can endure more than others. That's in their culture.

When US lose 50 000 for Vietnam its a tragedy when russia lose 16 000 for a little town its business as usual. Russians don't care about loses until they are involved.

Other thing is that russia is a system based on suppression. The elite don't have to care about votes, and they made phony opposition parties that aimed at useful fools. Loud and dumb peoples.

Russian propaganda is not aimed at intellectual its aimed at the mass, not to persuaded them to believe in something but to don't care. They are pushing extremes from every side of the political palette, and drown the rationality with a noise similar to a pub argument.

Those whom are a real threat to the system simply squashed, intimidated, jailed or killed in a way that everybody is aware that they did that. But in the same time lying that they didn't. They more akin to a mafia than a political party. Everybody in the russian system is aware that the big guys are so powerful that you cant really f..ck with them and they make them sure to remind them again and again. Navalny, Sojgu, even Mortz is a sign for the rest. You have no chance, do as we want or you will be sorry.

There is no way in the short run to russia explode. They are basically part brainwashed and partly scared of the elite so much that they don't believe that there is a chance for a power change. Many believe that if there would be a power change the new elite would be more dangerous than one they have now.

So no their is no other way than to keep making the Ukrainians kill russians until they will be so scared that they would risk a fight against the elite.

Cause the elite plays a different game than the west. They perfectly aware that they can push their peoples into situations that they don't want without a serious blow back. While in the west when people get scared they just vote out the guy who is charge and put in one that say its gonna be all okay. Their long game is simply playing chicken with the west and take as much as they can while they do. They will not stop at Ukraine if they don't have to. They don't believe that west would risk a war for Estonia or Latvia or Moldova. Same as they believe that west will not fight for Ukraine. Once you prove them right they will go on. If Ukriane is check, than the Baltic and Moldova, if that's check than transnistria even if it means to attack Poland. Cause they are sure that the west is a coward. I cannot really emphasize this. They believe it like a religion.

So they will push until they are allowed to, they will not stop until they have to. And that's something that peoples in the west should understand, their is a kind of madness with the russian society that is dangerous as hell, and the more time you give them the more dangerous they become. They are not getting weaker, the elite basically destroyed any opposition and right to oppose them under the war. They are getting more akin to the third Reich after 43. Except they have nukes.

[The_Capt]

15 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

When @The_Capt starts posting with a 7-8 hr time delay from North America, you'll know where he's been sent...

 

Not me man, they got their pints of blood out of this old warhorse years ago (f#ck, that really sounds like a statement that could come back to haunt me.) 

Seriously, I saw some noise about "western boots on the ground in Ukraine".  Guys it has already happened.  We are moving from covert to overt.  Hell, someone I know very well turned down a tour in a J7 shop in Kyiv just last month.  They have positions posted for in-country tours up and are trying to pull people in.  This is all part of that slow boil strategy the West appears to be pursuing.  We will put in staff and supports into HQ first.  Then some sort of in country support mission on the western border.

By the time this is over we might have a freakin multi-national division in country.

[hcrof]

48 minutes ago, squatter said:

I don't mean to suggest that there was a peace settlement in reach in 1916, but there could be one today.

Er, yes, and it was won by the Allies of course, but not sure your point here?

I'll bite...

Similar to 1916, both sides are exhausted but still swinging. Both sides think they can win and noone has proposed a solution that is remotely acceptable to both sides. Russia wants a divided and submissive Ukraine with a puppet government in power. Ukraine wants to return to 1991 borders and a substantial security guarantee to prevent Russia from invading again. Those are totally incompatible positions so they keep fighting. 

In WW1 the central powers were blockaded until they were unable to keep fighting. It took another 2 years. That is likely how this war will end. 

If the West allows Ukraine to lose then pax Americana is over and we return to the bad old days, except now we have nukes. So we need to make sure they don't lose. It really as simple as that. 

[The_Capt]

1 minute ago, omae2 said:

I'm not really on a level to argue with you but i watched some russian propaganda shows and argue about one and a half year with middle men whom was spreading russian propaganda (and that was a waste of time) so i'm very familiar with their arguing points.

I'm saying this because its feels like that their is a misunderstanding how russia is waging this war.

So first of all at the start of the war putin said that the its a challenge against the west hegemony and that the west should consider russia's interest from that point on. Something on the line i'm not remembering how it was said. But this isn't started there, its started back in 14. And since than they using the same tactics. They lie without impunity and escalate because they are fairly confident that the west will not throw away its good life for Ukraine. They are proud of their suffering its a badge of honor that they can endure more than others. That's in their culture.

When US lose 50 000 for Vietnam its a tragedy when russia lose 16 000 for a little town its business as usual. Russians don't care about loses until they are involved.

Other thing is that russia is a system based on suppression. The elite don't have to care about votes, and they made phony opposition parties that aimed at useful fools. Loud and dumb peoples.

Russian propaganda is not aimed at intellectual its aimed at the mass, not to persuaded them to believe in something but to don't care. They are pushing extremes from every side of the political palette, and drown the rationality with a noise similar to a pub argument.

Those whom are a real threat to the system simply squashed, intimidated, jailed or killed in a way that everybody is aware that they did that. But in the same time lying that they didn't. They more akin to a mafia than a political party. Everybody in the russian system is aware that the big guys are so powerful that you cant really f..ck with them and they make them sure to remind them again and again. Navalny, Sojgu, even Mortz is a sign for the rest. You have no chance, do as we want or you will be sorry.

There is no way in the short run to russia explode. They are basically part brainwashed and partly scared of the elite so much that they don't believe that there is a chance for a power change. Many believe that if there would be a power change the new elite would be more dangerous than one they have now.

So no their is no other way than to keep making the Ukrainians kill russians until they will be so scared that they would risk a fight against the elite.

Cause the elite plays a different game than the west. They perfectly aware that they can push their peoples into situations that they don't want without a serious blow back. While in the west when people get scared they just vote out the guy who is charge and put in one that say its gonna be all okay. Their long game is simply playing chicken with the west and take as much as they can while they do. They will not stop at Ukraine if they don't have to. They don't believe that west would risk a war for Estonia or Latvia or Moldova. Same as they believe that west will not fight for Ukraine. Once you prove them right they will go on. If Ukriane is check, than the Baltic and Moldova, if that's check than transnistria even if it means to attack Poland. Cause they are sure that the west is a coward. I cannot really emphasize this. They believe it like a religion.

So they will push until they are allowed to, they will not stop until they have to. And that's something that peoples in the west should understand, their is a kind of madness with the russian society that is dangerous as hell, and the more time you give them the more dangerous they become. They are not getting weaker, the elite basically destroyed any opposition and right to oppose them under the war. They are getting more akin to the third Reich after 43. Except they have nukes.

No need to argue here.  This all tracks with what we have seen coming out of Russia before and during this war.  An autocratic state that is somehow proud of its own misery.

I guess my only counter-point is that this same country has had 2 major revolutions in roughly the last century.  The run up to both of these were not sudden either, but they were both triggered (or at least helped along) by a war.  I honestly do not know what it will take for Russia to "explode" but as a student of subversive warfare the symptoms are already there.  Harsh class divisions backstopped by a massive internal security apparatus.  Regional disparities in sacrifice and distribution of wealth.  Bi-polar use of the normal social opiates (religion, popular culture).  Economic stressors.  Historical grudges and axe handles peeking above the surface.  Central authority tying itself in knots to "not do things".  Extra-judiciary executive actions.  Reports of failures of social programs and infrastructure.  Strange accidents and counter-military actions.  And the big one...Priggy and Boys Roadtrip.  

These all add up to an unhealthy state...and it was not healthy to begin with.  Will it break during this war?  I really do not know.  Will it break so that this war can be over?  Again, very hard to predict.  If it does happen it will be violent and fast.  I think it more likely that Russia dies slower after this war as it stays isolated and a defacto client state to nations that will still fund it.  Militarily it is serious trouble after this war.  It would take years to rebuild what it has lost under normal circumstances - in the face of continued sanctions and isolation, that could turn into decades.  

[Battlefront.com]

4 hours ago, squatter said:

Ultimately I think you are engaging in semantics here. The question absolutely is 'can it be done', because 'it' is 'crossing the river at scale', exactly what we have been debating.

And you have been continually dodging the central point that Ukraine has had a bridgehead on the left bank for months and Russia, despite massive effort, has failed to dislodge it.  Yet you insist that "it can't be done" and yet it is done now, already.

The question is how much more can be done.  And here is where you are again dodging the central premise...

4 hours ago, squatter said:

But you are right we will see. My position is that it is copium to imagine that UKR has the ability to make significant advances in any sector of the front (short of significant change in balance of forces via either Western supplies or ongoing attrition taking effect in ways it hasn't yet produced), Dniepr or otherwise. I get that folks want to be positive about UKR's position in the war, but I think that's leading some to dream impossible dreams.

Except none of us talking about the importance of this bridgehead are suggesting anything like you're imagining, despite this being repeatedly pointed out.

Light forces are absolutely able to expand a bridgehead a few KMs, maybe even a few 10s of KMs.  The question is a) will Ukraine try to do it and b) if it does try are the Russia defenses sufficiently strong enough to thwart it.  On this last point you presume the answer is "yes", but you are ignoring the lessons learned from this summer's counter-offensive.

When Ukraine tried to use NATO style mechanized combined arms it got trounced.  It gained almost no ground and suffered some significant losses trying.  So what happened?  Ukraine largely switched to light forces again and despite VASTLY dense and well prepared lines, Ukraine gained ground.  Russia has to pour vast amounts of resources to hold the line.

So, we can have a debate.  That's fine.  But it would be nice if you would debate what's being presented instead of what isn't.

Steve

[kimbosbread]

23 minutes ago, omae2 said:

There is no way in the short run to russia explode. They are basically part brainwashed and partly scared of the elite so much that they don't believe that there is a chance for a power change. Many believe that if there would be a power change the new elite would be more dangerous than one they have now.

See this is what I disagree with. I think the likely mode of failure we’ll is Russia grind to a halt and collapse in slow motion. What happens when they can’t muster up enough fuel, or vehicles, or shells or bombs or mobiks? What happens when they are at < 50% refinery capacity for domestic use?

19 minutes ago, hcrof said:

Similar to 1916, both sides are exhausted but still swinging. Both sides think they can win and noone has proposed a solution that is remotely acceptable to both sides.

100% this. But once you run out of gas and can’t swing anymore, you don’t have as many choices. I think 2025-2026 is when we’ll see that, based on Russia’s stubborn refusal to collapse.

[Kinophile]

Ohh, possibly it was a bridge strike

And/Or that Ukrainian speciality, but an Airbase strike:

Bit more specific... 

Yevpatoria

https://maps.app.goo.gl/cxUL14WJV2YBuFeHA

 

 

Edited March 1 by Kinophile

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, Kraft said:

It is my biggest gripe in this forum. Closely followed by the idea russia is hanging on by mere threads, collapsing any day now.

Well, that's one way to interpret it.  The other way is that we're documenting and discussing the things that will, almost certainly, lead to Russia's collapse so that when it does happen we don't have to be in the "wow, that was a total surprise!  Who saw that coming?".

For years before this war started I argued with people that Russia would get its arse handed to it if it attacked Ukraine.  At the time people said I was nuts.  I was right more than wrong, they were wrong more than they were right.  A big part of this discussion now is similar.  The evidence is there to support certain premises, and Russia collapsing is absolutely one of them.

The problem is timescale.  I have *NO* idea when Russia will collapse.  Could be 2 minutes from now, could be 2 decades.  But it will collapse.  It's been heading in that direction for some time before this war and, as I have argued repeatedly, it is one of the reasons for this war at this time.

It's kinda like talking to a scientist that says "the Sun will explode and with it all life on Earth will cease".  Someone then says "I see no evidence of that happening".  Just because it's billions of years away doesn't mean the scientist is wrong and the person arguing everything is fine is correct.  It all depends on perspective.

Steve

[Ts4EVER]

That seems kind of obvious though, every human system collapses at some point or at least gets majorly transformed...

[mosuri]

22 hours ago, Kinophile said:

Omnomnomnom

There's also two what looks like Tu-95 to my untrained eye, plus two other four-engine planes (Il-76?)

Taganrog is what, barely 100 miles from the front?

This seems sus to me. Would love it to be yet another "not even russians are that stupid" situation but 2 strategic bombers and AWACS parked right next to each other, seems too good to be true.

[poesel]

1 hour ago, dan/california said:

 

One of the West's great weaknesses is that the total victory in WW2, followed by the Soviet collapse in 1990 has us a conviction that history is on our side. To whatever extent that has ben the case for the last hundred years it means absolutely nothing about how the next hundred will work out.

So you are saying that absolutely nothing can be learned from history? A sad day for historians around the world...

Joke aside: it is wrong to assume that trends from the past project linearly into the future. But is also wrong to assume that there is no trend.

[fireship4]

~Nevermind~

Edit: to clarify, I had a second look and realised I didn't see what I thought I had in a previous image.

Edited March 1 by fireship4

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, mosuri said:

There's also two what looks like Tu-95 to my untrained eye, plus two other four-engine planes (Il-76?)

Taganrog is what, barely 100 miles from the front?

This seems sus to me. Would love it to be yet another "not even russians are that stupid" situation but 2 strategic bombers and AWACS parked right next to each other, seems too good to be true.

Possibly wrong, pics don't look doctored though. Would be bizarro that the Rus AF did this, and yet also not surprising in many ways.

[Kinophile]

Oh and Caltrops. 

I remember something about caltrops in Belarus in 22, no? 

[mosuri]

3 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Possibly wrong, pics don't look doctored though. Would be bizarro that the Rus AF did this, and yet also not surprising in many ways.

I'm leaning towards these being rotting hulks, or maybe something that could be restored, but not operational at the moment.

More of the same can be found by panning the current google map image a bit SE ...

Quick googling shows that there's a Beriyev facility that's been hosting various airframes.

E.g. this stock photo from 2007

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-tu-95-strategic-bombers-at-the-taganrog-based-beriyev-scientific-and-22922065.html