History in the Making: Russian Invasion

VolvoHeretic said:

In reply to Opti :

Trump is in bed with Vlad the Impaler, Biden is just afraid to make waves. I would threaten Putin with nuclear antihalation and call his bluff. You Russian apologists are just in-bed fascists.

I want to up vote if you're joking or drunk. Down if you're serious and sober.  Help me out here.

GD ... can't we all just get along?

In reply to AAZCD-Jon (Forum Supporter) :

Drunk, yes. Serious? Also yes.

I am sick and tired of the USA treating the world's evil like some non-important chess game. It's Not! 

In reply to VolvoHeretic :

I want to thank you for taking attention away from my drunk post but ... let's follow the rules and maybe word things a little nicer.

In reply to VolvoHeretic :

I mean do you truly believe that a Jag V12 is better than a Chevy 454?  You'd have to be pretty far brit wing to believe that.  Like kinda cray cray brit wing.

Stampie said:

In reply to VolvoHeretic :

I mean do you truly believe that a Jag V12 is better than a Chevy 454?  You'd have to be pretty far brit wing to believe that.  Like kinda cray cray brit wing.

LOL, I apologize. I get carried away. There's nothing better than the Volvo B30 F Engine. If it only had a forged crank and rods.

Opti said:

Settlement. Like many have said since the very beginning. This outcome was obviously inevitable.

Actually, no. 

The original consensus was that Keiv would fall in a matter of days/weeks, and there was no sense in supplying them with anything but some Javelins. Since then they've won their independence and taken back much of their territory.

Yes, there will be a settlement (Ukraine doesn't want to invade Russia) but the terms are being decided on the battlefield. The future isn't written.

=======================================

I have no idea how to break this stalemate, or if it's possible. Phillips P. Obrien is war historian who lays out 3 ways stalemates are broken-direct assault, technology breakthroughs, and cutting supply lines (his favored approach). 

Link to his piece here, not sure if it will require a subscription.

His approach to conflict is through the lens of economics. It's a perspective on war that I haven't been exposed to before.

In reply to CrustyRedXpress :

Give Ukraine nukes.

VolvoHeretic said:

In reply to CrustyRedXpress :

Give Ukraine nukes.

 

This sounds like a potential recipe to get the entire planet dead.  Based on that being probable, I cannot support.  

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

VolvoHeretic said:

In reply to CrustyRedXpress :

Give Ukraine nukes.

 

This sounds like a potential recipe to get the entire planet dead.  Based on that being probable, I cannot support.  

Don't worry Anthony, I am self banning myself right now. See Ya

Opti said:

This is a decent broad understanding of the way it works, but it's murkier than you think.

...

All this to say it's not as simple as you say.

I was discussing principles and ideas -- the fundamental reasons why "freedom of speech" and specifically the first amendment are restrictions on the government and not on individuals.

But yes, there are many ways in which the society we live in today fails to uphold those principles.

VolvoHeretic said:

In reply to Opti :

Trump is in bed with Vlad the Impaler, Biden is just afraid to make waves. I would threaten Putin with nuclear antihalation and call his bluff. You Russian apologists are just in-bed fascists.

The funny thing is, It has been reported trump has threatened Putin with hitting Moscow, if he invaded, and after he invaded he said he would do exactly what you just recommended

You have very strong opinions for someone who doesn't actually know what's going on

02Pilot said:

In reply to eastsideTim :

It's a fair point, but how much range do they really need? I mean, sure, if they want to mount a sustained effort to knock out the Kerch bridge they would benefit from the longer-range unitary warhead ATACMS (Taurus is good too, but there are only so many Fencers to hang them on, and conversion is anticipated to take up to six months if and when approval is given for export by Germany). Other than that, and maybe a few airfields that are outside the range of what they have now, I don't see the need, and certainly don't think they would be capable of breaking the stalemate in any case.

If their domestic industry can come up with something besides drones to hit Russia, I'm sure they'll be encouraged to build as many as they can. Aside from Neptune and some conversion work, however, I don't know of any other ongoing R&D. I haven't heard anything to suggest that they're working on any theater-level systems, but of course such info would be held close in any case.

Quoting myself here to update my earlier statement. I just read that Ukrainian General Baranov, who heads up the long-range weapons component of the General Staff, told an interviewer that they are currently testing a missile of 700 mile range. No timetable or further detail was provided. He did not specify if this was a cruise missile or a ballistic missile, but either way it is clear that Ukraine does not expect to receive weapons in that range class from the West, and further that being domestically produced, they are free to use it against targets inside Russia proper.

In reply to Opti :

There are stalemates, and then there are stalemates. Agreed that Ukraine cannot sustain the current rate of loss, but they are also on the offensive against fixed positions and suffering as a result. If Ukraine stops trying to advance, focuses its efforts of building sustainable defensive lines (critical when you have limited manpower and 700+ miles of active front), and confines its offensive to longer-range strikes against Russian airbases, LOS, and other key targets in the rear areas, along with occasional special forces raids, they can dramatically cut their losses and hold on for a long time, perhaps indefinitely, all the while bleeding Russia, less in terms of men than expensive high-tech systems and large quantities of supplies and ammunition.

The problem with this approach is political, and largely of Zelensky's own making. He has stated countless times his unwillingness to stop trying to liberate territory until it's all back under Ukrainian control. There will be loud complaints if he shifts to a less direct approach, one that implicitly accepts that his declared objective is unattainable, and doing so might threaten his political viability.

In reply to Opti :

I don't know that I agree that it was obvious a year ago. While it certainly had to be considered as a possibility, Ukraine's unexpected success in halting the initial thrust, along with Russia's heavy losses and apparent demoralization, cannot be discounted. Had Putin taken a less committal approach, as some suspected he might in order to forestall domestic dissent and cut his losses, Ukraine might indeed have achieved more than they did, though certainly less than they want.

I've been talking about the shape of a potential settlement for a long time. Absent something radical happening away from the battlefield, Russia will just hold what they have for as long as they need to (something akin to Stalin's death in Mar 53 facilitating a settlement in Korea). The question is how long Ukraine sticks to the 100% reclamation plan; the longer they do, the more costly it will be.

The Ukrainian missile system that has been upgraded to a 435 mile range is supposedly the domestically produced Hrim-2 (kind of HIMARS like).  It's a 1000 lbs warhead ATACMS style/size missile.  Not sure about the guidance, but there is suspicion the system has already been used (not necessarily the longer ranged one)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrim-2

This is what 500km looks like BTW.  So 40% more than this.  That clearly put Moscow and the Kerch bridge very much in range.  Ability to target the bridge and getting through Moscow's air defense of course are unknowns.

In regards to potential resolutions:

U.S. and European officials have begun behind-the-scenes discussions with the Ukrainian government about options that could lead to possible peace talks with Russia to end the war.

NBC News, citing unnamed American officials, reports that these discussions, in particular, discussed what Ukraine might have to give up in order to reach agreements.

Officials have also said Ukraine will likely have until the end of the year or a little longer before more urgent discussions about peace talks begin.