How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[cesmonkey]

Quote

He said France was looking at providing hundreds of VAB (Véhicule de l'Avant Blindé) front-line troop carriers in 2024 and early 2025.

France's army is gradually replacing its thousands of VABs, which first went into operation in the late 1970s, with a new multi-role troop carrier.

Quote

Paris will also supply more Aster 30 anti-aircraft missiles for SAMP/T launchers, similar to the US-supplied Patriot air defence systems. "We are also developing remotely operated munitions in a very short timeframe, to deliver them to Ukraine starting this summer," Lecornu told La Tribune newspaper in an interview published Saturday.

 

[Kinophile]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

So out of that entire wall of text this is really the only point made about the core subject of this entire thread.  The rest is as was noted, “meta”.  Again, no citations, no analysis, no insight…simply “wot I think”.  Fine, everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how well or poorly informed.

Let’s unpack this one kernel of an actual relevant opinion. First off “absurd”.  So this statement appears to suggest that anyone who thinks otherwise is lost in a sea of misinformation.  It is clearly “obvious” that Ukraine is losing, or at least Russia is not.  You seem to be referring to the recent retaking of Adiivka and Russian winter offensive as proof of this. You also seem to infer that we are deluding ourselves otherwise - hence this whole “what is the truth?” thing.

So, if you have indeed been following this thread, you will have noted that the state of each party of this war has been a subject of intense debate. We have had plenty of injects that Ukraine is losing, on the edge of collapse and Adiivka is the “beginning of the end”.  We have had the counter opinion as well.

But let’s just unpack your central position: advancing while your opponent is retreating is a clear sign of winning. [note: you do see the irony of your heuristics argument here, right?] Any student of warfare can come up with dozens of historical examples of this position being simply untrue. A military is a very large complex machine that can still conduct offensive operations even though it is fundamentally broken - Germany 1918, Germany 1944-45, US 1950, US 1969 to name but a few.  So to take one tactical offensive, which has been gained at very high cost (or were all those casualties a “false-flag” operation with crisis actor tanks and IFVs?), as “absolute proof” that Russia is indeed not losing this war clearly demonstrates that you are taking a single phenomenon out of context and drawing a broad conclusion.

So rather than us trying to prove to you, which is always how these things tend to go, let’s go the other way. Why don’t you do the work and prove it to us?  What is the state of the Russian military? Tactically, Operationally and Strategically?  What is the state of the Ukrainian military?  Based on your assessment, how will the war likely progress?  How do the answers to those questions inform future policy?  What should those policies be? Most importantly, how can this war end positively for the West?  What are the risks and opportunities?

Now before you start typing, and I am betting you already think you know answers to these questions, we are going to need to see proof of work.  No more vague, “but the truth is unknowable” smoke screen.  You clearly have an opinion and one would hope it has been informed.  So state the facts you are employing to come to it. Cite some expertise beyond your own that supports your position.  Even those trapped in that damned cave have shadows they can make reference to.

I am very doubtful you will do any of this to be blunt. The fact that looking up a legal definition of genocide was somehow “only for lawyers and too much work” kinda situates the depths you are willing to go in all this:

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml

https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/Genocide Convention-FactSheet-ENG.pdf

(that took about 2 mins).

So to echo your own sentiment - I really do not care what you think you know or don’t know at this point.  You have demonstrated no expertise, or leveraging of expertise in any of whatever this has been about.  You have employed classic use of “empty uncertainty” by throwing around some pretty junior philosophy and zero actual facts. You are not a military or political analyst, that much is clear.  And you do not contribute by pulling in new information.

So far you have come onto this thread with “doubt” as a form of offence - you really have not come with honest questions in search of answers…you already have all the answers you want. You basically attacked the regulars on this thread with this uncertainty and then have done the “wounded dove” act as you get pushback. You have to be at least the dozenth person to do this, and you did not even come up with an original spin. Same pattern as every other time - throw out an inflammatory unsupported counter opinion, dance around facts and dress it up as “being real”, act all hurt when you get mauled.  Now you will disappear into the woodwork to avoid the ban, or jump off the bridge because this is your hill to die upon for some reason.

Or maybe, just maybe, you will go away for awhile and come back with some new facts that create a coherent argument we can actually debate.  I would be both shocked and delighted of this were the case.  

BLUF:

"You're a troll. Prove otherwise."

[Kinophile]

on the back of French supply of Aster missiles to Ukraine :

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-SAMP-T-Aster-missile-better-than-the-US-Patriot-surface-to-air-missile-Which-is-better-than-the-other

Decent comparison of Aster - SAMP/T and Patriot PAC-2.

 

[The_Capt]

44 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

BLUF:

"You're a troll. Prove otherwise."

BFC pays me by the word…food stamps mostly.  

[danfrodo]

16 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

BFC pays me by the word…food stamps mostly.  

he emailed me to say he's sorry that I can't handle opposing opinions to my own.  Did he have an opposing opinion? 

1.  provably false assertions don't really fall into what I would respect as an actual opinion, it's just parroting misinformation

2. It was the usual passive aggressive troll thing where he ends w the old 'have a great day' 

Classic troll narcissistic nonsense.  And no one here can really even make sense of what he is really saying.  

Thanks @TheCaptain for handling this for us 

[cesmonkey]

 

[riptides]

5 minutes ago, cesmonkey said:

 

So sad that person is an elected official.

Even worse....that that sort of drivel can be spouted and not a thing can be done about it.

 

[dan/california]

2 minutes ago, riptides said:

So sad that person is an elected official.

Even worse....that that sort of drivel can be spouted and not a thing can be done about it.

 

Truth!

Edit: The extremely good news is that it sounds like she knows she has lost, finally. Keep your fingers crossed, and write your Congressperson AGAIN!

Edited April 1 by dan/california

[billbindc]

16 hours ago, sfhand said:

On to the statements according to my current understanding of the world:

1.partially true partially false

2. disproven by brics

This has to be a bit.

[billbindc]

A public service announcement (relevant bc this issue is certainly affecting the debate on aid and much else in DC): 

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/05/10/microwave-attacks-havana-syndrome-scientifically-implausible/

[Kinophile]

2 minutes ago, billbindc said:

A public service announcement (relevant bc this issue is certainly affecting the debate on aid and much else in DC): 

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/05/10/microwave-attacks-havana-syndrome-scientifically-implausible/

Thats from 2021. Do you mean in relation to the recent election CBS doc? 

[Battlefront.com]

7 hours ago, sfhand said:

I personally think you are quite accomplished in many ways. Paradoxically, you don't know me at all yet you think you do and somehow you think I am the arrogant one here. That amazes me to no end, but to each his own. Personally, I don't put much stock in people taking other peoples inventory whether it's coming or going.

I can only judge you by what you've written.  What you've written is a confused muddle with the only unifying theme being that you know way more than any of us and that we are uniformed bumpkins by comparison.  Communications requires you to adjust your methodology if you believe you're being perceived incorrectly.  Since the consensus here is that you're a troll, this suggests you need to modify your presentation if you aren't trying to be a troll.  Otherwise, if you feel you needn't make any improvements you are again confirming my assessment that you're arrogant and dismissive of the informed opinions of others.

7 hours ago, sfhand said:

Do you know  the boy's description of the ghosts in the 6th Sense?

Be aware that I figured out he was a ghost in the first 20 minutes or so.  To me it was obvious what was going on.  But I digress...

7 hours ago, sfhand said:

In the face of the current situation in Ukraine I find it absurd to say Russia is currently getting their *** kicked while Ukraine advances to the rear. The thing is, one doesn't need to study war their entire life to reach this conclusion.

And right here is exactly why this discussion isn't going well.  There are 84,000 posts here discussing this war on a daily basis with input from all kinds of sources.  The conclusion we've come to, collectively, is that Russia is getting its arsed kicked.  Badly.  Russia lost this war in March of 2022 and continues to dig it's depths of loss deeper with each passing day.

This does not mean everything is happy fuzzy bunnies and kittens for Ukraine.  It absolutely is not.  But if you can explain how a country with 10 times the resources went into a war expecting a victory in 3-14 days is still fighting 2 years later with 1/3rd less ground than it had at the peak of territorial seizure, I'm all ears.

7 hours ago, sfhand said:

Which brings up your statements forming your narrative that you asked my views on. I didn't just arrogantly offer my views on the statements, you asked me for them. Instead of following up you then write your hagiography and attack my character. I can guess at your motives behind the switcheroo but that's not me. To each his own.

You did not present your views in any meaningful way.  What you did is the equivalent of saying "God exists, I know what he looks like, you don't, and that's really all that needs to be said".

7 hours ago, sfhand said:

Look man, I don't need to keep this going. Unlike some here I can agree to disagree and move on. This isn't about my honor or integrity despite the many accusations and efforts to make it be so.

Like always, even when we disagree like now, I sincerely hope you have a great day.

We like informed discussion here.  We thrive on it, in fact.  But we've also seen people drop in, say we're all wrong, then show no interest in having a debate about whatever point they wish to make.  Dropping an opinion without any detailed, coherent argument behind it has zero value to anybody except, perhaps you.

Let me put it another way.  Eisenhower and his staff have just completed their analysis and planning for D-Day.  Someone, who wasn't involved in any of that, comes in and without looking at anything says "it will never work.  You're all wrong".  What do you think the planners should do... chuck it out the window and start over again because someone said it was crap without providing any evidence?  And even if they did chuck the plan, without guidance as to where the plan went astray what do you think the chances are of coming up with a better plan the second time around would be?

Look, collectively we've put 10s of thousands of hours into analyzing this war.  Have we got everything perfectly correct the whole time?  No.  But we've been far more right than wrong about the course of this war, strategically and tactically, to be very sure that we have a good handle on what's going on.  We certainly did a MUCH better job in the first year when the experts kept saying that Russia would "win" any day.

If you're not interested in having a discussion, that's fine.  You are under no obligation to participate.  But if you do want to participate, you are under an obligation to meet the minimum requirements for debate.  As of now, you've fallen woefully short of that minimum.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

13 minutes ago, billbindc said:

This has to be a bit.

Heh.  Whenever I see "BRICS" in this context I get a pretty good idea what sources of information the person views as credible.  To be polite, it's not the same information set I use for basing my world views upon. 

Steve

[billbindc]

27 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Thats from 2021. Do you mean in relation to the recent election CBS doc? 

Editted: 

This is about the Havana Syndrome claims made on 60 Minutes last night. Nobody has seriously challenged Rofer's analysis.

Edited April 1 by billbindc

[sfhand]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Hey @sfhand this is how to post a counter-position.

My how nice. For me it is important to note the post in question is not really a counter-position. This does not mean I don't appreciate the writer's message and the way it was delivered. I also appreciate his license to write the post the way he wanted to write the post. But thanks for letting me know what you think is proper.

The quality that makes it not a counter-post in this thread is that it is not pro-Russia. That would be a counter-post in this thread. I suspect if the post was pro-Russia you would have forgotten all about me. Well, maybe not, because apparently it is a Cardinal Sin in these parts to ask how people determine the truth in these times of mis-information (not unlike the rest of human history replete with top down mis-information).

What the writer didn't say is that the time for personal attacks and vilification over political disagreements should come to an end. I'm not saying he should have but I definitely noticed it was not there.

I will now acknowledge that I've been incorrectly using the term meta. My posts are not really meta any more so than anyone else's. I am a participant not the subject. As a result I can understand how my misuse of the term might lead someone to assume I am arrogant. For that I apologize. This is definitely not "all about me."

[billbindc]

4 hours ago, Beleg85 said:

In case someone didn't read it yet, worth to check newest well-documented investigation conclusions about so-called Havana syndrome. Guess who was behind it?

https://theins.press/en/politics/270425

There is no reasonable critique of the Havana Syndrome claims on the grounds of Russia willingness or ability to directly attack American officials. The big question is if it is scientifically or otherwise plausible. So far, we have only seen effects without evidence of the cause. In addition, we are to believe that Russia has had this capability since perhaps the 1980's, they have been carting it around the world and no revelation of its existence has escaped the waves of file releases, defectors and intense American surveillance of the main enemy.

Is it possible. Sure.

Is it likely?  

[sross112]

48 minutes ago, cesmonkey said:

 

Ok, so looking at the actual poll, this is typical media/political spinning. The headline conveniently leaves out that 70% think that the US should either continue or increase aid to Ukraine with the only split being whether it is given with or without oversight. 

The actual question (question 4 of the poll) was "How much of a role do you believe the US should have in helping to negotiate an end to the Russia-Ukraine war?" 71% responded with either a major role or a minor role by combining the two choices. The question was not what the headline above says and neither was the answer. Later on question 7, 69% respond that they support the US urging Ukraine to negotiate a settlement to the war. Maybe that is because most people want wars to end? 

In the end a typical poll with wishy-washy questions that can be interpreted to the will of whatever political slant one wants.

edited to add link to poll: https://quincyinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Quincy-Institute_rev-tabs.pdf

Edited April 1 by sross112

[billbindc]

21 hours ago, sfhand said:

I used to be a part of "the reality based community" until they lost there minds along with their attempt to be reality based.

Community Note: if reality is something you put in quotes it is likely that you have become detached from it yourself.   

[sfhand]

16 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I can only judge you by what you've written...

And there in lies the rub.

I don't think this thread is the Magnum Opus of the war. I know you and a lot of similar minded people spent countless hours writing it and think it is more right than wrong, if not 100% right, one poster even said Historians will reference it. That sounds an awful lot like hubris to me, but what do I know, time will tell.

And yes, this mindset does remind me of this place during the Iraq war, hat tip to panzermartin.

Since you choose to brand me as a troll it is clear what you have in mind. As a result I will leave this thread and most likely the forum with the knowledge that my opinion only matters to you when I support your business or when I agree with your politics. Note to those who can't differentiate between one stating their intended course of action and a promise, this is not a promise.

You have a great day Steve, I'm out. (my consistent use of this type parting remark is intended to convey that I respect you as a human being and that we are all more than what we write on the internet, apparently I am alone in this thinking as well)

 

 

 

[Battlefront.com]

6 hours ago, Tux said:

I find reading walls of naked opinion (when it even gets that far) as tedious as the next person, so I don’t mean this to sound at all like a rebuke:  however I would argue that it’s important for a forum such as this one, which prides itself on trying to be a rational and open-minded place, to at least engage with dissenting views for those first few rounds that may be necessary to determine whether they are trying to contribute in good faith, or not.

Exactly this.  Which is why I always chuckle when someone accuses me of acting like an authoritarian trying to protect a specific (approved) point of view.  I've never done this in the 25 years of managing this forum and never will.  My detractors like to talk big, but they have never been able to point to even one instance where I've so much as threatened to ban someone with a difference of opinion.

What I have done is advised, warned, and very rarely banned people who can't follow simple forum behavior.  When someone strays outside of those bounds I am explicit as to where the problem is and how to remedy it.  Sometimes people don't listen and I'm left with little choice.  I recently banned someone here after multiple warnings and a temporary ban.  I did so with regret, but nobody can say I didn't try.

6 hours ago, Tux said:

Some people just honestly aren’t aware how to express themselves constructively or struggle to isolate coherent streams of thought if they have a lot going on in their heads at once.  That doesn’t necessarily mean they have nothing of value to add, likely thought that admittedly does seem in many cases.

Exactly.  Which was my previous post explaining how you can't come into an informed discussion 2 years in, claim without explanation that everybody is wrong, and not expect to be perceived as arrogant (at best) or perhaps even delusional (at worst).  Yet somehow some people don't see it that way.

Steve

[The_Capt]

14 minutes ago, sfhand said:

And there in lies the rub.

I don't think this thread is the Magnum Opus of the war. I know you and a lot of similar minded people spent countless hours writing it and think it is more right than wrong, if not 100% right, one poster even said Historians will reference it. That sounds an awful lot like hubris to me, but what do I know, time will tell.

And yes, this mindset does remind me of this place during the Iraq war, hat tip to panzermartin.

Since you choose to brand me as a troll it is clear what you have in mind. As a result I will leave this thread and most likely the forum with the knowledge that my opinion only matters to you when I support your business or when I agree with your politics. Note to those who can't differentiate between one stating their intended course of action and a promise, this is not a promise.

You have a great day Steve, I'm out. (my consistent use of this type parting remark is intended to convey that I respect you as a human being and that we are all more than what we write on the internet, apparently I am alone in this thinking as well)

 

 

 

23 plus years on this forum blown to pieces in a few short posts.  And to be honest I still have really no idea what he was going on about.  “I have doubts!”  And “I disagree”, without ever stating what his position was or was not. Weirdest flameout we have seen since Dorosh (man, there is a blast from the past.  Been so long that I am not sure I even spelled it correctly).  Well he came here to be a martyr and got what he wanted…another BFC happy customer.

 

Edited April 1 by The_Capt

[Battlefront.com]

18 minutes ago, sfhand said:

And there in lies the rub.

I don't think this thread is the Magnum Opus of the war. I know you and a lot of similar minded people spent countless hours writing it and think it is more right than wrong, if not 100% right, one poster even said Historians will reference it. That sounds an awful lot like hubris to me, but what do I know, time will tell.

There is an open record here.  It's pretty easy to audit what has been written in this thread and compare it against how the war has gone.  People can judge that record for themselves, but they shouldn't do so without having read it.  Which, apparently, you haven't done much of and that means you are in no position to have an informed opinion of what this thread is/isn't.

18 minutes ago, sfhand said:

Since you choose to brand me as a troll it is clear what you have in mind. As a result I will leave this thread and most likely the forum with the knowledge that my opinion only matters to you when I support your business or when I agree with your politics.

Very typical.  You came in here with a vaguely stated position that amounts to "you're all wrong", you were challenged to back that up, you refused to do so but had no difficulty restating that everybody else is wrong.  Now you are forced into showing us that we are wrong, continuing to be called a troll, go away without saying anything, or... as you just chose to do... with a haughty attitude that you're right and nobody here wants to listen to you.

You have just confirmed everything I said in my previous posts.  This has nothing to do with me or anybody else here, it has everything to do with you and your need to avoid having to defend your positions.  Far easier to just claim we're all dolts who don't appreciate your brilliance and then bugger off.  I've seen it countless times here before and in real life.

Steve

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, billbindc said:

A public service announcement (relevant bc this issue is certainly affecting the debate on aid and much else in DC): 

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/05/10/microwave-attacks-havana-syndrome-scientifically-implausible/

So I know a couple people who got hit by whatever this thing was/is and this whole thing is just bizarre. In both cases they had never heard of this thing and suddenly started showing weird symptoms. Maybe it is like Gulf War Syndrome (know a couple people with that too) - a combination of factors that become so tangled that we never really can pin down a single cause.

I have heard both sides of this whole thing and it remains a mystery to me.

[Holien]

BTW for anyone interested Check out his responses via clicking his ID on the forum. He has one supporter who has interesting views on Steve...

I seem to remember that person having a similar debating style...

[The_Capt]

25 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Exactly.  Which was my previous post explaining how you can't come into an informed discussion 2 years in, claim without explanation that everybody is wrong, and not expect to be perceived as arrogant (at best) or perhaps even delusional (at worst).  Yet somehow some people don't see it that way.

It is like trying to debate a parrot that has been trained to only say “you’re wrong!”