How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[squatter]

2 minutes ago, buena said:

I believe you when you say you're from the UK beacuse you have no idea how the EU works

That is actually very funny. Good post. 

[squatter]

27 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Well you might want to sit down and have a conversation with yourself then because these are the exact same lines being used in the MAGA camp right now = "easy button of US power", "vague hand waving on details" and obstinate belief that there is an easy solution in face of obvious counter-facts.  Oh, and let's not forget the obstinate refusal to see any viable solution other than your own because of "what you think".  FFS we just had FlimFlam or whatever in here doing pretty much exactly what you are.

Look, maybe you are who you say you are and this whole thing is a big miscommunication, but your timing and profile are highly suspicious.  You posted once back in 2013 and then disappear for 11 years, only to come back on this specific thread espousing a lot of the same lines we have heard from the US political far right...just after Adiivka.  Your problem space is straight out of the MacGregor school of analysis and your solutions are pull straight from the MAGA camp.

 

Yes I'm not 100% sure what made me decide to post here recently - long time of lurking and just feeling like certain positions (that to me seem obvious) were not being expressed. 

Worth reminding yourself that there's a huge spread of opinions out there on how this war might end that exist outside of the MAGA/Biden US-centric paradigm: 

https://www.cfr.org/councilofcouncils/global-memos/global-perspectives-ending-russia-ukraine-war

 

[Kinophile]

The BSF is no joke in terms of firepower and is still a considerable force, but having destroyed the UKR Navy it lacks the organic units to perform the second of its two missions. First is control the open sea (nominally done, and but not really - in UKR grain exports are at/past pre war levels), second is control the littoral zone. (third would be support inland ground forces with ranged strikes). 

This course of the war, as with several other aspects, again reminds me of the Russo-Japanese War, specifically Port Arthur. Not a perfect analogy (nothing is) but similar pressures and operational/strategic pinch points. 

The BSF eradicated the UKR Navy as a fighting force but has failed to control the shores. Its ships are too vulnerable, its training and operational performance are abysmal but where it truly seems to fail is leadership. 

Operationally, the lack of basic fleeting/convoying and Air support around VIP units (cough Moskva cough Ropucha class cough) is just incredible. I mean, did these guys not read naval history at all ? Are they utterly bereft of any clue in how to deal with their enemy outside simplistic text books? 

These are old tactics, fully described in any naval warfare text. Old but effective. Even if they are not a full solution (because drones) they still increase the friction against any attack. Stack up the layers and attacks start to fail, or at the least the damage inflicted is lessened. I mean, do something . 

Are they not looking at current events and past losses? After so, SO many drone strikes why are their ships not bristling with HMGs and search lights? The Ukies do it on land, so it's absolutely possible. Why, when attacks begin are their ships not going full speed, maneuvering like mad and making work for the USVs? Why are helos not in the air, on call, strafing the USVs? Why don't they have their own drone ops onboard, striking back at USVs with FPVs? 

None of the above is hard or requires integrating new tech (drone ops are self contained). 

Seriously, wtf? 

Its impossible to control a hostile shore if you can't even protect your own units in harbour. 

But hey, if you need a family murdered in their home at night then these useless ****s are just who you want. 

Edited March 5 by Kinophile

[The_Capt]

5 minutes ago, squatter said:

Yes I'm not 100% sure what made me decide to post here recently - long time of lurking and just feeling like certain positions (that to me seem obvious) were not being expressed. 

Worth reminding yourself that there's a huge spread of opinions out there on how this war might end that exist outside of the MAGA/Biden US-centric paradigm: 

https://www.cfr.org/councilofcouncils/global-memos/global-perspectives-ending-russia-ukraine-war

 

Right...yet you bring up US power as the solution.  

[Carolus]

1 hour ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

And that is why I was very careful not to use world "new". 

In past posts I have quoted that article extensively. 

For the end result now and this year, doesn't matter whether the equipment is "refurbished". Then when we zoom out to strategic level and long term planning it does matter because the stockpiles are going to run dry in the coming years.

I am personally not very concerned about these numbers, because this is not a war of vehicles. 

Does this mean pressure on Ukrainians? Does it mean death and suffering? Yes.

But we have a "Coalition for Drones" program going in Europe that aims to provide a million drones to Ukraine in 2024. We have a Czech 155mm shell initiative that is going to provide 500.000 shells to Ukraine this year, Chinese cotton notwithstanding. Rheinmetall is gearing up to outproduce the entire USA with 155mm shells.

Ukraine itself has produced 200.000 drones this year already and will produce more than a million if they just keep production rates at current levels.

Okay, only 1 per 7 drone attacks is successful on average.

What are 5000 Russian vehicles filled with contractniki and conscriptniki going to do when the we have a ratio of 1 tracked / wheeled vehicle per 20 drones with Ukrainian production alone, and 1 : 40 if the EU drones coalition keeps its promise? 

1:40 and each single one is a potential kill at a range of 3 to 5 kms?

Denial for ground warfare is only beginning to ramp up.

And as @Letter from Prague said, we don't even know what damage strategic bombing will do to Russia over the course of the year, because that will not get better for Russia either.

Ukraine only needs to turtle under the PATRIOT shield and keep its will to fight.

Edited March 5 by Carolus
typo

[hcrof]

25 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

The BSF is no joke and is still a considerable force, But having destroyed the UKR Navy it lacks the organic units to perform the second of its two missions. First is control the open sea (nominally done),  second is control the littoral zone. (third would be support inland ground forces with ranged strikes). 

It eradicated the UKR Navy as a fighting force but has failed to control the shores. Its ships are too vulnerable,  its training and operational performance are abysmal but where it truly seems to fail is leadership. 

Operationally, the lack of basic fleeting/convoying and Air support around VIP units (cough Moskva cough Ropucha class cough) is just incredible. I mean, did these guys not read naval history at all?

These are old tactics but effective. Even if they are not a full solution (because drones) they still increase the friction against any attack. Stack up the layers and attacks start to fail, or at the least the damage inflicted is lessened.

Are they not looking at current events and past losses? After so, SO many drone strikes why are their ships not bristling with HMGs and search lights? Why, why when attacks begin,  are their ships not going full speed, maneuvering like mad and making work for the USVs? Why are helos not in the air, on call, stafing the USVs? Why don't they have their own drone ops onboard, striking back at USVs with FPVs? 

None of the above is hard or requires integrating new tech (drone ops are self contained). 

Seriously, wtf? 

But hey, if you need a family murdered in their home at night then these useless ****s are just who you want. 

I wonder if the issue is money - if the fleet budget is being plundered to pay for the land campaign they can't adapt ships and training easily, let alone develop a new drone force. On the other hand they need to demonstrate they are trying to do something to keep Putin happy so they put assets at risk (Russian attitude being you are not fighting if you don't take casualties anyway.) This is all compounded by remarkably poor leadership. 

This situation can't be stable though, surely the Russians will have to think of something eventually...

Edit: I imagine (with no evidence at all really) that the BSF can barely pay for fuel right now due to cut budgets, let alone more crew to man machine guns and searchlights. But they can't have the hard conversations with Putin to say the fleet needs to be mothballing ships to save money right now, not charging off to fight Ukrainians. 

Edited March 5 by hcrof

[photon]

7 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Are they not looking at current events and past losses? After so, SO many drone strikes why are their ships not bristling with HMGs and search lights? Why, why when attacks begin,  are their ships not going full speed, maneuvering like mad and making work for the USVs? Why are helos not in the air, on call, stafing the USVs? Why don't they have their own drone ops onboard, striking back at USVs with FPVs? 

That's what I'm puzzled by. The notional maximum speed of that ship is 25-30 knots with the turbine boost, but it seems like it can only manage 12ish knots on its cruise engines. I wonder how long it takes to transition from cruise engines to combat engines? Maybe the maintenance and logistical tail can't support ships running on turbines the whole time they're at sea?

It also looks like the USVs approach first from the rear, so I wonder if the tactic is: 1. First drone hits the rear of the ship, impairing mobility. 2. Other drones circle (!) setting up for sinking strikes. 3. Drone hits amidships opening a hole at the waterline. 4. Drone enters (!) previous hole detonating and causing catastrophic sinking damage in the unarmored interior.

The USVs look to be pretty low observability and are operating in wolfpacks, so detection prior to the mobility kill is the whole fight. Once the first drone hits the rear of the ship, that's seems like the ballgame.

[Kinophile]

19 minutes ago, hcrof said:

I wonder if the issue is money - if the fleet budget is being plundered to pay for the land campaign they can't adapt ships and training easily, let alone develop a new drone force. On the other hand they need to demonstrate they are trying to do something to keep Putin happy so they put assets at risk (Russian attitude being you are not fighting if you don't take casualties anyway.) This is all compounded by remarkably poor leadership . 

This situation can't be stable though, surely the Russians will have to think of something eventually...

Fuel might be an issue, maybe. Money, maybe, but with something like 17%+ of GDP spent on the war there must surely be enough for the BSF. 

Even then, the lie is put to that by the direct example of Ukraine. Strong leadership always finds a way, and quickly.

Lazy, unimaginative and fearful leaders stall, prevaricate and rehash existing tactics and doctrine, to no avail. 

Thank God the BSF is led by domesticated goldfish, while Ukraine's naval war is led by sharks. 

 

Edited March 5 by Kinophile

[Kinophile]

12 minutes ago, photon said:

That's what I'm puzzled by. The notional maximum speed of that ship is 25-30 knots with the turbine boost, but it seems like it can only manage 12ish knots on its cruise engines. I wonder how long it takes to transition from cruise engines to combat engines? Maybe the maintenance and logistical tail can't support ships running on turbines the whole time they're at sea?

It also looks like the USVs approach first from the rear, so I wonder if the tactic is: 1. First drone hits the rear of the ship, impairing mobility. 2. Other drones circle (!) setting up for sinking strikes. 3. Drone hits amidships opening a hole at the waterline. 4. Drone enters (!) previous hole detonating and causing catastrophic sinking damage in the unarmored interior.

The USVs look to be pretty low observability and are operating in wolfpacks, so detection prior to the mobility kill is the whole fight. Once the first drone hits the rear of the ship, that's seems like the ballgame.

I'm really interested in how the amidships is the preferred target zone. It's nominally more dangerous to attack, as CIWS can hit you from stem to stern, versus a stern attack where half the ship's armament can't hit you. But if you hit the stern that damage can be compartmentalized - you're working up a "pipe" (the hull) and the damaged zone can be sectioned off. Hit the middle of the pipe and water has many more directions to flow. Also, munitions stores are rarely in the stern so if you want some nice secondaries then go in the middle.

If you know the CIWS is not strong and the Bridge is preoccupied with an attack on the opposite side then you have a good chance of striking home. We also know that BSF damage control is not great. An amidships strike is bad but to get double-tapped, that's really bad. Your primary team dealing with the original damage is now dead, wounded or scattered and must be reconstituted. With sh*tty leadership that's unlikely. 

Like you I'm also extra curious about that lack of maneuver at speed. These corvettes are relatively speedy and "agile". The UKR must be hitting their stern first, as you say.

Finally, I thought I saw a UAV strike in the footage, not sure. 

Edited March 5 by Kinophile

[squatter]

34 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Right...yet you bring up US power as the solution. 

Yes true. But what I mean is, there are plenty of people out there who see negotiations are inevitable, who have nothing to do with MAGA/Trump/Biden. 

The US will 100% be instrumental in how this war ends. It's just a case of in which fashion. 

Will Trump win the election and cut aid thus forcing Ukraine to the table and give Putin everything he wants? 

Will Biden win and force Russia to the table with increased threats of supplies to Ukraine and thus in position of strength? 

Will Biden win, not be able to procure enough weapons from Congress, and then Ukraine will be forced to  the table in position of weakness cos no better options? 

The outcome of the war will be decided now in large part by what the US does or does not do. That's how it goes when you're the global hegemon. 

 

 

[photon]

18 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

An amidships strike is bad but to get double-tapped, that's really bad.

Yeah - I'm not sure there are many ships afloat that could take a double tap like that and make it to a home port. Certainly not in the displacement range the BSF is deploying. I looked at all the pictures I could find of the Kotov, and it looks like no automated CIWS - it's a couple of HMGs and an AGL. I hope the USN is currently bolting AGLs and thermal imagers on every square meter of available rail on our ships.

It also looks like there is another ship (?) or a terrain feature close aboard the Kotov that might be distracting the crew. And the moon is pretty near a new moon. I wonder if the USV attacks are timed to hit when there's relatively little illumination?

 

[The_Capt]

12 minutes ago, squatter said:

Yes true. But what I mean is, there are plenty of people out there who see negotiations are inevitable, who have nothing to do with MAGA/Trump/Biden. 

The US will 100% be instrumental in how this war ends. It's just a case of in which fashion. 

Will Trump win the election and cut aid thus forcing Ukraine to the table and give Putin everything he wants? 

Will Biden win and force Russia to the table with increased threats of supplies to Ukraine and thus in position of strength? 

Will Biden win, not be able to procure enough weapons from Congress, and then Ukraine will be forced to  the table in position of weakness cos no better options? 

The outcome of the war will be decided now in large part by what the US does or does not do. That's how it goes when you're the global hegemon. 

 

 

So no discussion of the way forward can sidestep the MAGA/Trump/Biden issue, or the '24 election.  The rest of the world can have all the opinions it wants but US power (as you argue) is central...then so is US politics, which by definition is how that power is governed.  Your own argument boxes that fact right into the discussion, while you try to cite a broader perspective?

I have to be honest, your strategic/political position is making less and less sense.  Why don't you go back to arguing with a career military engineer on viabilities of water crossings south of Kherson?

[hcrof]

15 minutes ago, photon said:

I hope the USN is currently bolting AGLs and thermal imagers on every square meter of available rail on our ships.

 

My concern is that you need crew to operate these things and the USN (or RN for that matter) do not have bodies to spare, thus the decision is postponed for another day...

[cesmonkey]

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/hungary-president-signs-swedens-nato-membership-ratification-2024-03-05/

[Grossman]

57 minutes ago, squatter said:

Yes true. But what I mean is, there are plenty of people out there who see negotiations are inevitable, who have nothing to do with MAGA/Trump/Biden. 

The US will 100% be instrumental in how this war ends. It's just a case of in which fashion. 

Will Trump win the election and cut aid thus forcing Ukraine to the table and give Putin everything he wants? 

Will Biden win and force Russia to the table with increased threats of supplies to Ukraine and thus in position of strength? 

Will Biden win, not be able to procure enough weapons from Congress, and then Ukraine will be forced to  the table in position of weakness cos no better options? 

The outcome of the war will be decided now in large part by what the US does or does not do. That's how it goes when you're the global hegemon. 

 

 

I'm waiting for the German leadership to get off its perch. Putin has the watch, Europe has the time. Pressures are on the Russians, Europe sees the invasion as a threat to European security. We'll see more of more EU involvement, arms etc. In the US, the arms manufacturers are screaming at the Republicans to vote funds. This war will run. And there is no way peace can be done with Putin.

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, hcrof said:

I wonder if the issue is money - if the fleet budget is being plundered to pay for the land campaign they can't adapt ships and training easily, let alone develop a new drone force. On the other hand they need to demonstrate they are trying to do something to keep Putin happy so they put assets at risk (Russian attitude being you are not fighting if you don't take casualties anyway.) This is all compounded by remarkably poor leadership. 

This situation can't be stable though, surely the Russians will have to think of something eventually...

Edit: I imagine (with no evidence at all really) that the BSF can barely pay for fuel right now due to cut budgets, let alone more crew to man machine guns and searchlights. But they can't have the hard conversations with Putin to say the fleet needs to be mothballing ships to save money right now, not charging off to fight Ukrainians. 

I read several reports BEFORE the war that spoke of how badly the Russian navy had degraded in quality across the board.  The primary reason cited was the shift of strategic focus away from the seas and towards ground operations.  The navy appears to have been treated as an asset that must be maintained for empire status more than practical use.  Some exceptions, such as cruise missile capacity, but the Moskva seems to typify the general approach... minimal modernization.

What I don't get, as you don't, is how can they not be doing rather inexpensive and practical drone counter measures better than they apparently are.  Maybe they used to think having a couple of guys with a PKM was sufficient, but by now they should have learned it absolutely is not.

Steve

[squatter]

49 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

So no discussion of the way forward can sidestep the MAGA/Trump/Biden issue, or the '24 election.  The rest of the world can have all the opinions it wants but US power (as you argue) is central...then so is US politics, which by definition is how that power is governed.  Your own argument boxes that fact right into the discussion, while you try to cite a broader perspective?

I literally don't know where you are going with this any more? 

I am saying a) US will be pivotal whatever happens, and b) arguing for ceasefire doesn't make you automatically a MAGA nutjob 

These statements shouldn't be fodder for argument, they should be self-evident

 

[Battlefront.com]

5 minutes ago, squatter said:

I literally don't know where you are going with this any more? 

I am saying a) US will be pivotal whatever happens, and b) arguing for ceasefire doesn't make you automatically a MAGA nutjob 

These statements shouldn't be fodder for argument, they should be self-evident

 

The reason is the only people who think a cease fire is practical are people who are either fine with throwing Ukraine under the bus or are totally ignorant of this war and shouldn't be voicing an opinion.

The only country in the world right now that can affect a cease fire is Russia.  That's it.  Russia, Russia, and only Russia.  That is because only Russia can stop this war and so far it has shown 0.0% interest in anything other than Ukraine's total surrender and dismemberment.

Lots of other countries have a say in surrender, chief of which is Ukraine.  A Trump Presidency could influence a surrender scenario, though we are already seeing that Ukraine is able to keep killing Russians without significant US aide, so I'm hopeful.

Therefore, any talk (and I do mean *any*) about a cease fire is akin to suggesting Ukraine fully surrender or it is naive nonsense that means zero in the world we live in.

For sure the war must end at some point.  And that point is when Russia or Ukraine have decided they have had enough.  If Russia decides to quit then a cease fire may be possible.  If Ukraine decides to quit, then it will be a surrender and not cease fire.  If both have decided they want to quit at the same time, which is not impossible, then perhaps there could be a temporary cease fire (temporary could be years).  Which is why Ukraine doesn't have any intention of going down that route unless it has no other choice.

Steve

[Butschi]

23 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The reason is the only people who think a cease fire is practical are people who are either fine with throwing Ukraine under the bus or are totally ignorant of this war and shouldn't be voicing an opinion.

I wish it was that simple. There are those who fall into one or both of these categories. For me, the greater cause for concern are those who actually mean well and are, let's say, mainstream level informed or slightly above, i.e. they watch the news and read an article about the war here and there. But without investing as much time as we do into understanding the details.

If you only watch mainstream media - and I'm talking about the ones that are actually fairly high quality in e.g. Germany you get the impression that Ukraine fought hard and bravely but Russia is advancing.

And these people are increasingly voicing opinions like "we should encourage Ukraine to start negotiating for peace".

Edited March 5 by Butschi

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, squatter said:

I literally don't know where you are going with this any more? 

I am saying a) US will be pivotal whatever happens, and b) arguing for ceasefire doesn't make you automatically a MAGA nutjob 

These statements shouldn't be fodder for argument, they should be self-evident

 

Ok, help me out here because following the bouncing ball is becoming really difficult.  Obviously, I am no stable genius, you are completely losing me.  So to review:

- You came back to this forum and opened with "Hey fellas, anyone think Ukraine is out of military gas and we should think about peace negotiations?"

- Then we began a discussion on a possible operation down south at Kherson.  You vehemently disagreed, ignored evidence and pretty much dismissed any and all Ukrainian military options at this point in the war.  Steve even called you out for this.

- Ok, I got tired of trying to explain why the southern operation is viable - you clearly were not in a listening mood on that one.  Then I called you out and challenged to to provide your "solution.

- Your solution was for the US to double-down on support and "threaten" Russia to a negotiation table.  Some vague hand-waving but we could have a UN Zone of separation, Ukraine in the EU (but not NATO), some sort of vague Ukraine defence and security guarantees, Ukraine gives up Crimea and Donbas, and reparations and war crimes are pretty much a long shot.  Did I miss anything? 

- Of course to do this, the US would need to commit an overwhelming amount of support to this war.  Likely an order of magnitude more in order to "scare Russia to the table quickly".  Side-stepping the obvious problems of US political will, process and internal frictions -  Russia is not stupid and knows these issues as well - the ability for Ukraine to upscale and operationalize all that support could likely take years, but ok...for arguments sake let's just assume all that away.

- As a self-proclaimed UK citizen, you are essentially making the end-state of this war entirely a US problem, which is frankly disingenuous; however, let's just put all that to the side too.  If Ukraine receives a whole mountain load of military support...why negotiate?  Increased military support would create new military options for the UA to renegotiate the current Russian position by f#cking killing them.  If the only way to solve this is with overwhelming US support, why on earth wouldn't Ukraine use that support to push the RA out of their own country?  "Hey Ukraine, here is enough capability for you to re-establish air superiority.  What?  Oh no, you aren't supposed to really do it.  No, you can use that to give Crimea away, lock in exclusion from NATO and agree to a shaky ceasefire."   Seriously...W.T.F?!

- So after that little journey we are right back where we freakin started...Ukrainian military options in prosecuting this war until Russia can't do anything about it. Which you started off dismissing in the first place!

So rather than come on here and advocate for more Ukrainian support (particularly out of the US) from the beginning, you took us on this personal exploration of Ukraine being out of options unless we support them better.  We had to walk through what peace looked like in your mind...which frankly looks a lot like going back on the offensive once the UA is bombed up.

I swear to gawd if you are not kevinkin back on another account I will be shocked.  If you are honestly a Labour Party carrying member of the UK, you are locked in the mother of all Dunning-Kruger effects.

Regardless...got it.  Thank you so much for highlighting that we need to support Ukraine more, and any negotiations must be from a position of strength.  Let's just move on...

Edited March 5 by The_Capt

[Letter from Prague]

14 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

What I don't get, as you don't, is how can they not be doing rather inexpensive and practical drone counter measures better than they apparently are.  Maybe they used to think having a couple of guys with a PKM was sufficient, but by now they should have learned it absolutely is not.

Steve

I don't want to pretend I'm an expert (unless we're talking machine learning or build a data warehouse) but even before the war, I read that the difference between Russian and Western navies is how much crew they have - Russian run much leaner and (at that time the article presented it as a good thing) rely on machines and automation instead having many people around "watchstanding".

I think now we (possibly) see that this is not because the Russians are smarter than us, but because they lack the ability to attract competent people for their navy, train them and retain them (and have for decades) and this is how they make do.

So they might not actually have that many guys with guns to go out and shoot drones.

[Kinophile]

49 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

The reason is the only people who think a cease fire is practical are people who are either fine with throwing Ukraine under the bus or are totally ignorant of this war and shouldn't be voicing an opinion.

The only country in the world right now that can affect a cease fire is Russia.  That's it.  Russia, Russia, and only Russia.  That is because only Russia can stop this war and so far it has shown 0.0% interest in anything other than Ukraine's total surrender and dismemberment.

Lots of other countries have a say in surrender, chief of which is Ukraine.  A Trump Presidency could influence a surrender scenario, though we are already seeing that Ukraine is able to keep killing Russians without significant US aide, so I'm hopeful.

Therefore, any talk (and I do mean *any*) about a cease fire is akin to suggesting Ukraine fully surrender or it is naive nonsense that means zero in the world we live in.

For sure the war must end at some point.  And that point is when Russia or Ukraine have decided they have had enough.  If Russia decides to quit then a cease fire may be possible.  If Ukraine decides to quit, then it will be a surrender and not cease fire.  If both have decided they want to quit at the same time, which is not impossible, then perhaps there could be a temporary cease fire (temporary could be years).  Which is why Ukraine doesn't have any intention of going down that route unless it has no other choice.

Steve

There seem to be two critical items US provides that Europe can't - C4ISR and Patriots. For almost everything else there is a European equivalent or better (Brad /CV90s, HARM /Meteor, NASSAMs, etc).

I'm not saying CV90s is better than Brad's, but they are certainly equivalent; if UKR swapped every single Brad for a CV90 would there be a drop in effectiveness? Dump the token Abrams and Leos for a fleet of Korean K2s and you're still rolling. 

EU arms production rates and quality of machines can absolutely match US. 

The best (and worst) thing about EU support is that it's non-binary. If the wrong dipsh*t wins the US election then aid drops like a drunk Ivan. EU is slower to get to a point but also slower to leave, and even then intra-member agreements are par for the course. 

Edit-There is a third US item : world wide logistics...damn. 

Edited March 5 by Kinophile

[Ts4EVER]

5 hours ago, Carolus said:

The West has to keep Ukraine breathing until 2026.

Much can change politically in that timeframe, including a more direct involvement by China or some other unforeseen crisis that changes global outlook significantly...

[Battlefront.com]

16 minutes ago, Butschi said:

I wish it was that simple. There are those who fall into one or both of these categories. For me, the greater cause for concern are those who actually mean well and are, let's say, mainstream level informed or slightly above, i.e. they watch the news and read an article about the war here and there. But without investing as much time as we do into understanding the details.

If you only watch mainstream media - and I'm talking about the ones that are actually fairly high quality in e.g. Germany you get the impression that Ukraine fought hard and bravely but Russia is advancing.

And these people are increasingly voicing opinions like "we should encourage Ukraine to start negotiating for peace".

People that have no background in international politics or warfare and form their opinions from social or mainstream media are who I meant when I said:

"are totally ignorant of this war and shouldn't be voicing an opinion"

So again, people voicing cease fire as a possibility are doing only harm and no good.  There is no other realistic way to look at it.

Steve

[kimbosbread]

13 minutes ago, Letter from Prague said:

I don't want to pretend I'm an expert (unless we're talking machine learning or build a data warehouse) but even before the war, I read that the difference between Russian and Western navies is how much crew they have - Russian run much leaner and (at that time the article presented it as a good thing) rely on machines and automation instead having many people around "watchstanding".

Compared to the US, it boils down to valuing and trusting the captain and crew. The US believes the crew is the most valuable part of the ship, and considers one of their main jobs to be damage control (one of the things the US is best at). Automation in the US military is in principle designed to augment soldiers, reduce their exposure, reduce medical costs etc.

USSR never trusted or valued crew, and considers ships to be disposable. Automation is a way to remove need for pesky crew who might not follow orders.