War in Ukraine

While I would like for you to be right, you provide a pretty one sided view of the conflict. You missed your calling and generation - you would have been great at creating the WWII propaganda intermission trailers.

As to your last paragraph I agree objectively while not the primary purpose of our involvement, the cost benefit has been pretty good. However if we start providing plans and other equipment that cost could go up. I don’t have a feel for how effectively we can expect Ukrainians to learn to fly out aircraft and make an appreciable impact. If that can work I’m all for it.

 

I don’t think our only moves remaining involve giving Ukraine more stuff. For example, we could insist on freedom of the seas for Ukrainian grain exports instead of meekly begging for it. And I mean insistence in the sense that FDR meant it in 1940-1941 with Germany or Reagan did in 1986-1988 with Iran.

 

Brother, I want all of that to be true. But I’m afraid I can’t bet that way. Russia cannot allow a catastrophic defeat of its army in Ukraine even if such a thing were in Ukraine’s grasp, which I don’t believe. Despite all of its tough talk, Russia is in increasing fear of its people and its rank-and-file soldiers. If it has to make a decision between another stage of mobilization and staving off catastrophic defeat, then it must choose the former. Because a huge defeat would be even more likely to cause domestic problems and military rebellion than an escalation of the conflict. In short, one way or another, we are looking at a longer war than anyone wants.

 

This is one of the better, more realistically optimistic articles I have read on where the Ukraine War stands today.

How to beat Russia: Here’s what Ukraine is doing right on the battlefield

 

Maul gets mauled by former Marine former CIA operative …

More Delusional Thinking From the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency and a Couple of Conversations on Ukraine - A Son of the New American Revolution

 

Fact-Checked: Da!

https://x.com/witte_sergei/status/1700236601073553913?s=61

 

Nice article by Propaganda-Man Serge. Russia is losing the war, so the propagandists beg to negotiate a peace giving Russia a fifth of Ukraine, just to "save Ukrainian lives." The real life they are trying to save is Putin's. They suggested no such thing when Russia thought it was winning last year.

Honesty and integrity check: NYET!

 

A former Russian ally loses faith in Russia to protect them, and looks to the U.S. for military assistance. Armenia is having joint military exercises with the U.S. in a few weeks. Armenia had some border clashes with neighbor Azerbaijan and asked Putin for help, and Putin refused him.

Russia's reputation for providing regional security is now "in tatters".

A close Russian ally snubbed Putin by announcing military exercises with the US — the latest in a series of embarrassments for the president

 

Russia is having severe production problems with both missile production and tire production for military vehicles.

Russian soldiers have problems with missile and tyre production − ISW

 

I recommend you stay away from the “Russia is running out of munitions!” aspect of the narrative. There’s just no evidence for it. Now if you argue that Russia is running out of will at the rank-and-file level, there is quite a bit of evidence for that. And the longer that Russia cannot get moving and simply makes excuses for why it cannot get moving the more I believe that Russian fears about its population and military are well founded.

 

Reading lots of reports of shortages of weapons at the front and Putin resorting to trying to secure munitions from N Korea. Other reports of significant reductions in amount of shelling from artillery? Are these all inaccurate?

 

Of course, one can never know what the whole truth is in war until long after the fact. My assessment is that Russia has improved its production of ordnance a great deal over the shortfalls present early in the war. That does not mean that the Russian supply chain has sufficiently improved to get munitions from the factories to the front at a rate that matches consumption, but I think it probably has. When I hear stories like three to five Russian soldiers are sharing one rifle, sorry, I have to call BS.

The Russian situation in Ukraine is bad and deteriorating, but I don’t think supply is the issue any longer. But I would be as delighted as anyone to learn that they still hadn’t figured out basic logistics 18 months into this thing.

 

MSN

Continue reading on the app

R​

ussia can produce a maximum of 2 million shells per year, but this is insufficient for waging war against Ukraine, according to Reuters.
An unnamed official stated that Russia spent between 10 to 11 million shells in Ukraine over the past year.
"They are in a rather difficult position. If you spent 10 million shells last year and are in the midst of a battle, but can only produce 1-2 million ammunition per year, I don't think that's a very strong position," he said[/COLOR][/COLOR]

Russia is using artillery extensively on all fronts. However, in July, British intelligence reported that they had started to conserve ammunition, at least on the southern front

 

Kudos to the contributors on this thread. It is refreshing to see productive commentary including reasonable disagreements (save the site's normal trolls).

 

OT: As impressive as 10million shells per year sounds, note that WWI averaged over 350 million shells a year. Plus the western front was 400 miles long while Ukraine's front is 600 miles long.

WWI was hell.

Back to your regular scheduled programming

 

The collective West will run out of weapons before Russia does.

 

You must have Dugger blocked

 

Ukraine may not be as hellish as WWI. But it reminds of

He’s so brave!

 

The West has finally reached the last stage of Kuebler-Ross ?

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2023/...entators-finally-accept-the-obvious.html#more