How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[FancyCat]

56 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

After all this time you still don't get it, do you?

Western support in this war is not about Ukraine. It is about Russia. Western incrementalism has nothing to do with Ukrainian clever scheming. It is about slowly ratcheting up the pressure on Russia through deliberate and careful escalation. The West has been the pacing horse in this race the whole time. Ukraine would love tac nukes - and frankly I don't blame them. But they are not going to be getting them.

The Western strategy has been consistent...to constrain and squeeze Russia while still offering offramps...and if need be further escalation. 

Finally, I do not know how many times it has to be proven but there is no magic bullet for this war. Ukraine can get long range missiles, hell they can get a few B52s...it will not result in Russia tapping out. F16s, good to have, long lead times...and they are going to re-establish air denial, at best.  

 

If you don't think Ukraine has a say in Western decisionmaking and influencing when and how to escalate, tbh we aren't gonna know till long after the conflict ends to what extent that is. (Not to mention with Western decision-makers compassing the gauntlet of escalation ranging from Scholz to whatever UK prime minister is in office, it is silly to act like it's totally in concert with no opportunity for Ukrainian input)

And I wasn't pointing out that long range missiles are a magic bullet, im pointing out that Ukraine is consistently pushing for things that are publicly declared to be out of bounds. I am pointing out that western denials have folded from firm nos to yes. I am pointing out items that have had many reasons for not being approved are later to found to not be as good a reason as it once was stated.

[acrashb]

Possibly, 'the' Girkin could end up as a Ukraninian POW:

 

[Kraft]

We had the topic of covert influencers funded by russia

How about *russian* influencers sponsored and funded by.. Canada?

Anastasia Trofimova, previously known (to very few) for working for russia today(hint), somehow got the chance to produce a movie with ~350k Tax payer money from Canada that is being shown at the Toronto film festival and other places of questionable programs.

Her movie: "russians at war" portrais "absolutely ordinary guys with families, with a sense of humor, with their own understanding of whats happening in this war"

"In russia, they are these heroes who never die. In the west they are mostly war criminals, war criminals and war criminals" 

She hopes to dispell "black and white reasoning" and "war propaganda" and is given a platform to do so. She wants to "build bridges of common ground, the voice of russian soldiers is usually not heard" She herself said to have not witnessed any crimes commited by russia during her 7 months in occupied Ukraine.

JUST TODAY, this young defender was executed on video by "ordinary guys with a sense of humor":

As well as these three PoWs here:

And a russian made telephone jokes with a PoWs cut off ear (I spare the picture).

But she will walk on red carpet and drink sparkling wine, get applause for providing such a valuable bridge between cultures or whatever these high class snob pieces of **** applaud themselfs for.

Edited September 6 by Kraft

[The_Capt]

49 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

If you don't think Ukraine has a say in Western decisionmaking and influencing when and how to escalate, tbh we aren't gonna know till long after the conflict ends to what extent that is. (Not to mention with Western decision-makers compassing the gauntlet of escalation ranging from Scholz to whatever UK prime minister is in office, it is silly to act like it's totally in concert with no opportunity for Ukrainian input)

And I wasn't pointing out that long range missiles are a magic bullet, im pointing out that Ukraine is consistently pushing for things that are publicly declared to be out of bounds. I am pointing out that western denials have folded from firm nos to yes. I am pointing out items that have had many reasons for not being approved are later to found to not be as good a reason as it once was stated.

Proxy War!! If one thing every nation on the planet should know by now - never expect to be a full partner a western backed proxy war. Ukraine has influence but it is in a big ol box. No one in DC, London or Brussels is invested in Ukraine for any love of that freedom loving nation. They are invested because Russia decided to “buck the system” in invading the place. The big decisions are largely out of Ukraine’s hands…and they know it. 

If anything this should give people more respect for what the Ukrainian government has had to do to keep this thing going and actually influence it. Meanwhile knowing that they are caught as plaything between great power agendas.

Western agendas have not “folded” due to Ukrainian influence - that is not how things work. They have been influenced by Russia. If the West wanted to play it “for real” we would be looking at no-fly zones, total blockades and other direct acts of war. This whole thing has been about strategic management.

If I may offer, your main problem is that you clearly value Ukraine more than the rest of the political West does. My honest fear is that as soon as Ukraine is no longer of use in boxing Russia back up, we will forget all about it. So while people are hand wringing about missiles and red lines, the real threat is a complete failure at Reconstruction. We could easily mess this whole thing up after this war is over…and have one helluva bad record on this space to date.

[ArmouredTopHat]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Proxy War!! If one thing every nation on the planet should know by now - never expect to be a full partner a western backed proxy war. Ukraine has influence but it is in a big ol box. No one in DC, London or Brussels is invested in Ukraine for any love of that freedom loving nation. They are invested because Russia decided to “buck the system” in invading the place. The big decisions are largely out of Ukraine’s hands…and they know it. 

If anything this should give people more respect for what the Ukrainian government has had to do to keep this thing going and actually influence it. Meanwhile knowing that they are caught as plaything between great power agendas.

Western agendas have not “folded” due to Ukrainian influence - that is not how things work. They have been influenced by Russia. If the West wanted to play it “for real” we would be looking at no-fly zones, total blockades and other direct acts of war. This whole thing has been about strategic management.

If I may offer, your main problem is that you clearly value Ukraine more than the rest of the political West does. My honest fear is that as soon as Ukraine is no longer of use in boxing Russia back up, we will forget all about it. So while people are hand wringing about missiles and red lines, the real threat is a complete failure at Reconstruction. We could easily mess this whole thing up after this war is over…and have one helluva bad record on this space to date.

Not going to lie, this is disturbingly close to some Russian propaganda regarding proxy wars and Ukraine having no agency of its own...

I also find it somewhat inaccurate given there are countries like the Baltics that have taken significant risk and investment into aiding Ukraine, despite sharing either a border or extreme close proximity to Russia. 

Edited September 6 by ArmouredTopHat

[billbindc]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Proxy War!! If one thing every nation on the planet should know by now - never expect to be a full partner a western backed proxy war. Ukraine has influence but it is in a big ol box. No one in DC, London or Brussels is invested in Ukraine for any love of that freedom loving nation. They are invested because Russia decided to “buck the system” in invading the place. The big decisions are largely out of Ukraine’s hands…and they know it. 

If anything this should give people more respect for what the Ukrainian government has had to do to keep this thing going and actually influence it. Meanwhile knowing that they are caught as plaything between great power agendas.

Western agendas have not “folded” due to Ukrainian influence - that is not how things work. They have been influenced by Russia. If the West wanted to play it “for real” we would be looking at no-fly zones, total blockades and other direct acts of war. This whole thing has been about strategic management.

If I may offer, your main problem is that you clearly value Ukraine more than the rest of the political West does. My honest fear is that as soon as Ukraine is no longer of use in boxing Russia back up, we will forget all about it. So while people are hand wringing about missiles and red lines, the real threat is a complete failure at Reconstruction. We could easily mess this whole thing up after this war is over…and have one helluva bad record on this space to date.

I think you make a big mistake in assuming that American foreign policy…even in proxy wars…is simply cold hearted calculation. Inevitably, our domestic politics gets involved in every conflict we really engage in and a lot of soft factors get introduced into the decision making process. It’s a very obvious fact when you think it through. We would not have been in Vietnam for long at all if it had been otherwise. “Who lost China?” would not have been a powerful American political charge for decades.

I would also take exception to the idea that the US will walk away from Ukraine in anything but a Trump driven abject surrender to Russian objectives. The simple reality is that “Russia in a box” is going to be a decades long process and Ukraine will be an integral part in that struggle…either as an American ally or an expanded manpower and resource base for further Russian pressure on Europe. 

[chris talpas]

8 hours ago, photon said:

Oh, it's definitely true.

The Kamikaze attacks wrought havoc on our task forces even in the face of VT, radar, integrated CAP, and defensive rings. The only successful anti-kamikaze tactic was the big blue blanket (which could only be done by carrier task forces).

Are there any historical instances of a surface gun fleet outfighting a carrier task force?

Task Force 38/58 was a thing of awesome might!

if anyone is interested in the Pacific War, I would recommend the Unauthorized History of the Pacific War podcast/youtube.

 

[ArmouredTopHat]

https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/1famaz8/ukrainian_btr_attacking_russian_positions_past/

Mykhailivka rail bridge is getting quite reputation right now. Seems to be in constant battle and the Russian destroyed equipment just keeps building up. 

[Battlefront.com]

6 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Competent people can make mistakes.

Sure, but it still bugs me you can't see through your blinders.  The first decision (getting rid of tanks) was, in your view, competent people making a mistake.  At the time you probably would not have said "have faith they made the right call".  Now they have decided to go with tanks again and this time you are saying "have faith they are competent people making the correct decision."  The only apparent reason for your inconsistent attitude is that in one case you disagree with the decision (e.g. the Dutch made a mistake) and the other you agree with it (e.g. the Dutch aren't making a mistake).  Worse, you are putting this forward as if it's evidence, when really it is just your selective opinion.

Again, you are being inconsistent with your application of logic because it suits your predetermined position, just as it does to refuse addressing questions raised by the realities of acquisition and production.  You can do that, of course, but just understand it makes your position look very weak.  Perhaps weaker than it could otherwise be.

6 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

As for the rest, I feel were just going to spiral again so I think we can leave it there.

Since you aren't interested in having your point of view challenged, I agree that we can leave it there.  However, it would be nice for you to stop obligating me to challenge you.  And yes, if we are to have a high quality discussion someone has to challenge poorly made points.  If it's not someone else, then it's me because it seems I'm the only one left with the patience enough to try.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, billbindc said:

I would also take exception to the idea that the US will walk away from Ukraine in anything but a Trump driven abject surrender to Russian objectives. The simple reality is that “Russia in a box” is going to be a decades long process and Ukraine will be an integral part in that struggle…either as an American ally or an expanded manpower and resource base for further Russian pressure on Europe. 

I think it depends on the definition of "walk away".  The US did not support Georgia the way it should have IMHO because it made some bad calculations, along with its European allies, that escalating wasn't the best path.  A "reset" was.  One could characterize that as walking away.

However, the US never left Georgia. Instead it switched into a lower and longer term gear.  It's not clear that's working out so well, or was/is the best policy, but I don't think the reality is that the US walked away from Georgia.

I think all but the isolationists in the US understand that as long as Russia exists countries like Ukraine and Georgia are going to be of vital importance to US foreign policy.  Therefore, I agree that the US won't abandon Ukraine as The_Capt fears, but I don't think he's wrong to suspect the strength of support could be far less than it should be as I believe to be the case with Georgia.

Steve

[cyrano01]

12 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Even with fully autonomous drone swarms there will be the challenges of battlefield management, logistics and targeting. Humans will need to learn how to fight whatever system this turns into. The only way to master that is to get in the game early. No nation went into WW2 with no air force, and came out a global leader in airpower. The global leaders all had been investing in the new domain for decades before - to greater or lesser degrees of success.

Late adopters will definitely benefit in technical leapfrogging, which will include unit costs. But they will not have had time to evolve their own military thinking, nor build a solid foundation of human expertise.

 

Ah, I've just encountered a racy new term for kind of, sort of, doing this sort of stuff without actually spending too much money. At the Royal Air Force Museum conference on 'The Future of Air Power' this week a speaker described the work of an RAF capability development squadron on 'small' drones (i.e. smaller than Reaper/Predator) as providing 'a break glass capability.' This seems to mean that you develop doctrine withing your capability unit but don't actually spend the cash to deploy it at scale until the moment comes when you have to break the glass and use it for real.

It was asked how this reconciles with 'you fight like you train' (synthetic training only across the air force without actually rolling out any kit en masse it seems) and how far he really thought it could all be scaled up quickly should you need to break the glass in a hurry. To be fair the speaker, who was a civilian historian/analyst was as sceptical as his audience on these points.

Edited September 7 by cyrano01

[Battlefront.com]

7 hours ago, FancyCat said:

So to say Ukraine is seeking IFVs cause that's the best they can reach for, it's incorrect, they are actually reaching for long range missiles, and Second, mentioning or not mentioning them PR wise is not a indication that they think or don't think IFVs are necessary for winning the war but more their emphasis that pushing Russian red lines is probably the best way to end the war.

Ukraine is pushing for things it believes will help it win the war.  Off or on limits is not the issue.  For example, they pushed HARD for artillery shells, something that West was already shipping in huge numbers, because that is what they needed and weren't getting.  They only started pushing for cluster munitions, previously off limits, when the supply of regular artillery shells was insufficient to meet their needs.  Similarly, they didn't push hard for a lifting of restrictions on the use of Western weapons on Russian soil until the Kharkiv incursion underscored how needed it was.  They also have been consistently pushing hard for AD weapons (in particular Patriot), a system they have had for years now, because they don't have enough.

So on and so forth.

As I've already said, Ukraine is pushing for weapons that it believes will help it win the war and defend it's people.  Even though Western MBTs are in short supply, Ukraine is not pushing hard for them.  Instead, they are pushing hard for long range strike weapons AND the ability to use them on Russian soil, as well as AD to counter Russia's long range strike weapons. 

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

5 hours ago, acrashb said:

Possibly, 'the' Girkin could end up as a Ukraninian POW:

 

Captured or perhaps compressed into a Russian meat cube.

The possibility of Girkin going to the front has been around for quite a while.  I'll believe it when I see it.  If they do let him out, I imagine he won't be able to so much as fart without the FSB knowing about it.  Girkin is the sort that could give them Priggy like problems.

Steve

[acrashb]

5 hours ago, Kraft said:

We had the topic of covert influencers funded by russia

How about *russian* influencers sponsored and funded by.. Canada?

Anastasia Trofimova, previously known (to very few) for working for russia today(hint), somehow got the chance to produce a movie with ~350k Tax payer money from Canada that is being shown at the Toronto film festival and other places of questionable programs.

[...]

The current Prime Minister has determined, some time ago, that Canada is a "postnational state" with "no core identity".  Which makes it easier for us to shoot ourselves in the foot like this.

I'd apologize on Canada's behalf, but I didn't vote for this government. 

At the same time, here we are with another dichotomy:

39 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Girkin is the sort that could give them Priggy like problems.

Several commentators agree with you, as do I.

The only reason to let him out, that I can imagine, is so that he can die gloriously in battle for Mother Russia, likely with some assistance for surety.  As a silent martyr he's much safer to the regime than as a jailed-but-influential dissenter.

[hcrof]

3 hours ago, cyrano01 said:

Ah, I've just encountered a racy new term for kind of, sort of, doing this sort of stuff without actually spending too much money. At the Royal Air Force Museum conference on 'The Future of Air Power' this week a speaker described the work of an RAF capability development squadron on 'small' drones (i.e. smaller than Reaper/Predator) as providing 'a break glass capability.' This seems to mean that you develop doctrine withing your capability unit but don't actually spend the cash to deploy it at scale until the moment comes when you have to break the glass and use it for real.

It was asked how this reconciles with 'you fight like you train' (synthetic training only across the air force without actually rolling out any kit en masse it seems) and how far he really thought it could all be scaled up quickly should you need to break the glass in a hurry. To be fair the speaker, who was a civilian historian/analyst was as sceptical as his audience on these points.

Sounds interesting, have you got a link?

[BarendJanNL]

On the topic of maneuver warfare, I honestly do not get why Kursk offensive is not a prime example. In Dutch doctrine (which includes tanks:-)) maneuvrist approach is all about striking the enemy where he is the weakest in order to not play to his strengths. So the offensive exactly ticks these boxes.

This seems to show that maneuver warfare is not dead. There challenges but hey, what do you expect after tens of years of technological advance. Also, mech forces have shown to be the right forces with firepower, tactical mobility and reasonable protection for this maneuver warfare.

[LongLeftFlank]

10 hours ago, The_Capt said:

If I may offer, your main problem is that you clearly value Ukraine more than the rest of the political West does. My honest fear is that as soon as Ukraine is no longer of use in boxing Russia back up, we will forget all about it. So while people are hand wringing about missiles and red lines, the real threat is a complete failure at Reconstruction. We could easily mess this whole thing up after this war is over…and have one helluva bad record on this space to date.

Ex-effing-zactly....

[LongLeftFlank]

9 hours ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Not going to lie, this is disturbingly close to some Russian propaganda regarding proxy wars and Ukraine having no agency of its own...

I also find it somewhat inaccurate given there are countries like the Baltics that have taken significant risk and investment into aiding Ukraine, despite sharing either a border or extreme close proximity to Russia. 

Oh please, what is it with you and the Zero-to-Sixty / All-Or-Nothing argumentation?

i.e. if you can find a single 'counterexample', that's all it takes to refute?

****

On the current utility of tanks, as best I can see from anecdata, since late 2023, MBTs on both sides have been largely playing the role of 1944 German StuGs, the very way every CMBN player can do in their sleep..... single vehicle shoot and scoot. Because if they stick around, they die. A lot of times they die anyway.

.... they emerge from their hides once a RU (or UKR) attack has committed itself, punch it in the teeth with a priority on enemy troop carriers (or newly occupied buildings/positions where the attackers haven't laid mines yet), then GTFO.

Other observed uses, such as rolling point for a mech column attack, seem to invariably result in the loss of the tank. Again, putting a CM hat on, perhaps that's tactically better than losing the troop carriers it's escorting, but it's costly, per prior discussion.

[LongLeftFlank]

4 hours ago, acrashb said:

The current Prime Minister has determined, some time ago, that Canada is a "postnational state" with "no core identity".  Which makes it easier for us to shoot ourselves in the foot like this.

I'd apologize on Canada's behalf, but I didn't vote for this government. 

At the same time, here we are with another dichotomy:

Several commentators agree with you, as do I.

The only reason to let him out, that I can imagine, is so that he can die gloriously in battle for Mother Russia, likely with some assistance for surety.  As a silent martyr he's much safer to the regime than as a jailed-but-influential dissenter.

Na ga happen but he could switch sides, a la Vlassov, and form his own Free Russia Legion/PMC. He can also agree to be tried for his crimes, with sentence to be suspended until after the war.

That would be a very Tolstoian way to go out.

....But I suspect he will have a 'minder' with a 9mm Nudel shot to the neck the moment he gets out of line.

Edited September 7 by LongLeftFlank

[Astrophel]

1 hour ago, BarendJanNL said:

On the topic of maneuver warfare, I honestly do not get why Kursk offensive is not a prime example. In Dutch doctrine (which includes tanks:-)) maneuvrist approach is all about striking the enemy where he is the weakest in order to not play to his strengths. So the offensive exactly ticks these boxes.

This seems to show that maneuver warfare is not dead. There challenges but hey, what do you expect after tens of years of technological advance. Also, mech forces have shown to be the right forces with firepower, tactical mobility and reasonable protection for this maneuver warfare.

OK, so perhaps we need a couple of tanks, but imo they have been verging on obsolete since the Apache Helicopter was introduced.  Seeing you appear to be Dutch I will share a conversation I had with a Dutch active military guy yesterday evening on this topical topic.  His view is that the PVV (biggest party) influencers had been observing events in West Bank/Gaza and see a tank or three as a way to manage internal discipline.  He was not joking and is an otherwise serious guy and so I share the thought here.

The war in Ukraine is very unusual and the circumstances will not repeat.  Nato tactics revolve around air power and in Ukraine air power is hardly tested so far.  The big lesson of the war is the over-riding importance of drones and electronic surveillance.  AI driven Drones are the direction for serious future investments.  What is really behind this latest Dutch decision is a puzzle to me - politics I suspect, especially with regard to Germany.

And, by the way, the biggest PVV influencers are rumoured to be russian.  The leader Wilders is again questioning support for Ukraine.

Edited September 7 by Astrophel

[The_Capt]

10 hours ago, billbindc said:

I think you make a big mistake in assuming that American foreign policy…even in proxy wars…is simply cold hearted calculation. Inevitably, our domestic politics gets involved in every conflict we really engage in and a lot of soft factors get introduced into the decision making process. It’s a very obvious fact when you think it through. We would not have been in Vietnam for long at all if it had been otherwise. “Who lost China?” would not have been a powerful American political charge for decades.

I would also take exception to the idea that the US will walk away from Ukraine in anything but a Trump driven abject surrender to Russian objectives. The simple reality is that “Russia in a box” is going to be a decades long process and Ukraine will be an integral part in that struggle…either as an American ally or an expanded manpower and resource base for further Russian pressure on Europe. 

Really? Well then the US is the lone exception to the rule - and Empire with a Heart of Gold. Cold hearted calculus centred on self interest is always at the heart of policy. We could unpack Vietnam but I disagree that US involvement, risk and continual bleeding was out of an altruistic love of the Vietnamese people.

The US and West already walked away from one nation after great expense and promises: Afghanistan. We can just as easily take the eye off the ball for Ukraine. The fact the US has a presidential candidate who is likely to do it - again through cold calculus of self-interest kinda proves my point.

This is not to discount the influence of emotion and will of the American people but let’s not kid ourselves here. And remember you are talking to someone who has watched our benevolent master turn on us, more than once - despite the warm regards of our neighbours and in many cases family to the south.

[The_Capt]

7 hours ago, cyrano01 said:

Ah, I've just encountered a racy new term for kind of, sort of, doing this sort of stuff without actually spending too much money. At the Royal Air Force Museum conference on 'The Future of Air Power' this week a speaker described the work of an RAF capability development squadron on 'small' drones (i.e. smaller than Reaper/Predator) as providing 'a break glass capability.' This seems to mean that you develop doctrine withing your capability unit but don't actually spend the cash to deploy it at scale until the moment comes when you have to break the glass and use it for real.

It was asked how this reconciles with 'you fight like you train' (synthetic training only across the air force without actually rolling out any kit en masse it seems) and how far he really thought it could all be scaled up quickly should you need to break the glass in a hurry. To be fair the speaker, who was a civilian historian/analyst was as sceptical as his audience on these points.

That is a fallacy I have heard before. Problem is that friction and C2 are not linear. When you scale up we run into problems, risks and opportunities that we could not foresee at a smaller level. Simulation can help with this but it seriously has its flaws. This sort of line of thinking is how nations underfund and descale their militaries writ large. “We will have a battalion in an imaginary division. And if war comes we we quickly build a bunch more battalions to build the division.” Problem being that a division comes with a lot more than just more battalions. One cannot take battalion staff, or even peacetime administration staff at high levels and turn them into a fighting division overnight,

Drones are the same problem. Using them at mass scale comes with costs we cannot see at smaller scales. C4ISR for example, these architectures take years to build and train commanders and staffs within them. To suddenly throw a mass new capability and believe it will perform is fallacy. In fact well trained troops with well established doctrine are going to make mistakes.

”Break glass” is just code for “spend less.”

[The_Capt]

6 hours ago, acrashb said:

The current Prime Minister has determined, some time ago, that Canada is a "postnational state" with "no core identity".  Which makes it easier for us to shoot ourselves in the foot like this.

I'd apologize on Canada's behalf, but I didn't vote for this government. 

At the same time, here we are with another dichotomy:

Several commentators agree with you, as do I.

The only reason to let him out, that I can imagine, is so that he can die gloriously in battle for Mother Russia, likely with some assistance for surety.  As a silent martyr he's much safer to the regime than as a jailed-but-influential dissenter.

Not true! We do have a core identity - we are not-American. And I am not joking. It is about the only thing we all agree on. As to “post-national” I don’t know what that means but we definitely are a client state of the US, slipping to vassal. Likely explains my cynicism writ large. 

[The_Capt]

4 hours ago, BarendJanNL said:

On the topic of maneuver warfare, I honestly do not get why Kursk offensive is not a prime example. In Dutch doctrine (which includes tanks:-)) maneuvrist approach is all about striking the enemy where he is the weakest in order to not play to his strengths. So the offensive exactly ticks these boxes.

This seems to show that maneuver warfare is not dead. There challenges but hey, what do you expect after tens of years of technological advance. Also, mech forces have shown to be the right forces with firepower, tactical mobility and reasonable protection for this maneuver warfare.

Well you are half right. Manoeuvre warfare is about employing manoeuvre - mobility and firepower integrated in a style of command to “create weakness” in an opponent through a combination of position and tempo (ie momentum). Manoeuvre doctrine that relies on passively waiting for an opponent to have a weak spot is not really of much use.

So Kursk was a manoeuvre, a strategic one really. And so was Kharkiv for that matter. Kursk proved that mech still works on an undefended border…until it doesn’t. Now if the UA had pulled Kursk to the point that the RA had to weaken the southern main front to the point they could create a breakthrough that left Russia in an untenable position we could be talking.

As to tanks and mech, these are tools, nothing more, nothing less. They do not define manoeuvre warfare, they are the devices we employ to do the thing, not the thing itself. The point of debate is how well these tools are working given the current battlefield. The answer is “not well”, for either side. Kursk has become a sideshow that relieved pressure but its enduring strategic effects are not known. We are still looking at heavily mechanized forces on an 800+km front, on perfect tank country, fighting like it is 1916. So something is not working. People have tried all sorts of explaining: Russians don’t have enough infantry, it is the old Soviet systems fault, Ukrainians don’t use mission command, they are not massing (ignoring the evidence that they killed whenever they do), NCO corps. Take your pick. 

Of course the most obvious explanation is the one most experts are desperately trying to avoid: character of warfare has shifted to denial and defensive primacy…just like it has before. So we can argue with it, deny it or learn to live with it.

Edited September 7 by The_Capt

[Probus]

7 hours ago, acrashb said:

The current Prime Minister has determined, some time ago, that Canada is a "postnational state" with "no core identity".  Which makes it easier for us to shoot ourselves in the foot like this.

I'd apologize on Canada's behalf, but I didn't vote for this government. 

At the same time, here we are with another dichotomy:

Several commentators agree with you, as do I.

The only reason to let him out, that I can imagine, is so that he can die gloriously in battle for Mother Russia, likely with some assistance for surety.  As a silent martyr he's much safer to the regime than as a jailed-but-influential dissenter.

Why is Ukraine sending F-16 pilots to train of CF-18s, or am I missing something?