War in Ukraine

As Ukraine is presently on life support (and barely that), Topknots glorying in the myth of the Battle of Kyiv in the early weeks of the war.

 

The Russians simply walked in, Ukrainian troops in Kharkiv tell BBC

Frustrated Ukrainian troops have told the BBC that Russian soldiers were initially able to just “walk in” to the region because of the lack of defences.

Kostyantyn Tymchenko, who lives in Vovchansk, is among those leaving the town for the relative safety of Kharkiv and said he was shocked by how close the fighting was.

"Half a kilometre away, there is already fighting, automatic weapons," he said. Tanks are constantly approaching, shooting back and then leaving. I thought it would be okay. I was shocked. I wish I had known in advance."

 

One major difference between the most recent aid package passed and the previous one from a year ago is that Ukraine's manpower has been severely degraded during that time. While the new weaponry should help some, they have less manpower to deploy said weaponry, leaving them exposed, as we see outside of Kharkiv. My predictions are that the results will be the same as the counteroffensive of 2023 or perhaps worse for Ukraine.

 

the idea of a counter offensive at this point seems like a fantasy. At this point they just need the weapons to hold the line.

 

Does it take a lot of the burden off of you knowing that absolutely no one not named Vegas Fox takes you seriously? Just post whatever nonsense strikes your fancy, facts and common sense be damned?

 

I don't disagree, but if that is the case, what then is the strategy going forward? A stalemate with Russia doesn't seem like much of a strategy. Again, Russia is not going to back down because it's a stalemate. It becomes a war of attrition at that stage and that's a war Russia wins easily.

 

It's not something Russia wins "easily". Wars of attrition are never easy.
Holding Russia in Ukraine is the right move, strategically.
Consider that the west is not ready for a land war with Russia
If they let Ukraine lose, Russia will have half a million experienced troops and a wartime economy ready to press into the weakest part of Nato.
Conversely, if you keep them in Ukraine, they don't go anywhere. They're stuck, and favorably, they are unable to influence much in any other part of the world because their entire military industrial complex is laser focused on Ukraine.
The west can essentially force Russia to either keep all of their eggs in one basket (Ukraine), for maybe years.
For a fraction of what we spend on defense every year, that is a bargain - and meanwhile the west can slowly ramp up defense production so that if Ukraine does eventually lose, they are more ready for war if it comes to that.

So yes, buying time in Ukraine absolutely makes sense. And since Ukraine wants to keep fighting, by all means the west should support that.

 

retaking lost territory that hasn't yet been mined is much different exercise than advancing across ground that Russia had time to prepare with mine fields. If/when Ukraine can take control of the skies and impact the front with air power, that will also make a substantial difference. All those oil depots being blown up and rails and bridges being taken out with himars and logistics gets much harder for Russia. Add in ATACMS and the long range artillery shells that France (?) is now providing and that russian a artillery becomes much easier to take out. Long story short, new weapons systems, accumulated impacts from recently provided longer range missiles, and improved air power changes the dynamic from what we have been witnessing. jmo from the cheap seats..

 

I hope you're right! But manpower will remain an issue.

 

What in the actual hell? That's like saying the press conference at four seasons landscaping was a stroke of brilliance.

 

omfg Lolol I forgot about that gem. Thanks for reminding me.

 

We still have posters that believe Russia has expansionist ambitions. There is no evidence to support that contention. Ukraine and the US started this war. John Mearsheimer had warned since 2015 (at least) that America was dragging Ukraine into a war in which it would be destroyed. Mearsjeimer with Lex Fridman:

 

Don’t know if it was Ukraine but the report says it migh have been. Also may have been a stray missile or parts of one.

Apartment complex hit, 15 civilians killed.

Ukraine strikes Russian apartment building killing 15 people, officials say

 

Yeah I’ve listened to that before. Some of his views border upon absurd.

 

Explain ?

 

The Best of the West …

 

Russia's military is going to have to be weakened much more than it is right now before you see great success in terms of Ukraine taking land back. Russia is still a larger military than Ukraine, and they fight well defensively, especially when they have time to set up minefields.

That said, the previous counteroffensive did not "flop" in my estimation. The fact that it did in your estimation is probably more due to your lack of understanding of the difficulties of war. You've been spoiled by things like the U.S.'s success in the removal of Iraq from Kuwait, and the following military invasion of Iraq. The U.S. technology and firepower advantage over Iraq was massive. We had accuracy that Iraq could not even dream of, dropping bombs through doors and windows of buildings, when Iraq would be lucky to be able to hit the broad side of a building from a quarter mile away. Ukraine had some success in defeating the two and three levels of minefields set up against them, but were not able to exploit their limited breakthroughs. I see that as a limited success causing reason for future optimism, not a "flop".

Ukraine has a small but significant technology advantage over the Russians in the accuracy of the weapons that we gave them. But their military is still quite a bit smaller than Russia's, and they don't have quite the firepower that Russia has. They also do not have the terrain advantage that the Afghans had when they were fighting the Russians. With the amount of weapons that the west is supplying Ukraine, they should be able to defeat Russia faster than the Afghans did, but not in 2-3 years. That's just unrealistic. I would say 4-6 years is more realistic, if we maintain a continuous supply of weapons and ammo to Ukraine, and don't do anything stupid by withholding aid again. We have not yet given Ukraine the advanced weapons they would need to sweep Russia from the field and send Russian troops running in retreat. We've also been fairly stingy with some of our older weapons platforms, like Abrams tanks (we only gave them 31 out of the 10,000 we have).

Your problem may be that your lack of knowledge of warfare is so extensive that you fall back on comparing it to a football game. I am by no means an expert on warfare, but I'd like to think I know enough to develop reasonable expectations. And, no, war is not a football game. You have to be able to think about this war in terms of years, not in terms of the next offensive resolving the war. You have to think of the long game. You and the republicans in Congress seem incapable of focusing on anything for more than a few minutes, because you both have a very short attention span. This is not Iraq, and Ukraine is not the U.S. military.

 

There’s the Kyiv in three days trope and more recently, the Russia gaining ground because the U.S. stopped shipping weapons for six months trope …

 

This is how things escalate - one little step at a time.

Estonia 'seriously' discussing sending troops to 'rear' jobs in Ukraine: Official - Breaking Defense.

But as things look darker and darker on the front, these discussions will become more commonplace across nato. It will be interesting to see if they decide to officially do it.

 

I get what you are saying, but the West is doing very little to ramp up to wartime production levels.

Totally believe it. Everything about this war has been a bill of goods. Not unlike Gaza.