War in Ukraine

The thing I think you are leaving out is Trump's Ego. I'm not sure that he is willing to take a deal that is worse than what Ukraine is dealing with right now and have Biden Admin folks say they had better ones on the table. The assumption that Trump is just going to fold on FP is not backed up by his previous history of taking aggressive action when challenged, ie ISIS, Syria, & the IRGC.

 

I see no sources. Simply derisive laughter on your part and a short comedic video.

 

Read the thread. There is photographic evidence of the S-400 destroyed in Kursk. If you are not aware of what Israel did to the Iranian S-400’s, how do you expect to have any credibility discussing military technology on the battlefield?

I see no sources for your “Army College” paper. Please link it and state what “Army College” and program it was submitted for.

 

Gosh, in context, it sounds like you’re responding to one of our disinformed and/or malicious trolls who asserted they went to “Army College” and wrote a paper about Ukraine while they were there. First, I just have to ask what “Army College” they went to? There are so many. West Point? Captains Career Course? Command & General Staff College? School of Advanced Military Studies? War College? Usually, someone who went to “Army College” knows which one they attended. Second, did they reach whatever their conclusions were before or after Ukraine held its own for the better part of three years and caused north of 200,000 Russian casualties?

 

Post #29484 try to keep up. And there is no undisputed evidence that Israel destroyed anything of note, let alone an S-400.

 

Just impotent derision and name-calling followed with casualty estimates pulled from an orifice.

 

Well, he did indeed. I suspect we all know that won’t happen, at least not literally as soon as he takes office. I mean, step 1 is just getting both parties to the table. What’s the most optimistic timeline for that? A month? And then there’s the problem of how far apart both sides are. Does he have leverage against either party to force them to accept the other’s desired end state? Even if you think he does — today, not six months from now — how long would said leverage take to force one party or the other to bend even part way? Look, I have no doubt Trump wants the war to end and that he will try to end it. But we are talking about a long process even in the most optimistic of circumstances, and these are hardly optimistic circumstances. But, I say again, it might be worth trying just so people who think otherwise can see for themselves how intransigent Russia is. In my opinion, they need to bleed a bit more before they will bend to reason.

 

So are you saying you are one of the authors of said paper or are you just quoting it?

What will you take as proof of Israel’s destruction of Russian weapon systems?

 

I simply cite the paper.

And I haven’t even seen Israeli claims of destroying an S-400, just S-300’s.

Now Ukraine claims to have recently destroyed an S-400 that was down for maintenance.

 

Don’t get me wrong, I hope you’re right in this. In fact, I hope Trump proves my Never-Trump obstinacy to be my greatest character misjudgment of all time. And I hope that he makes his decisions here (and everywhere) based on the long-term best interests of our Country.

I have my clear and obvious doubts on all of the above.

 

That paper does not state what you claim. First off, it is over a year old. Second, it does not take into account the more capable weapon system that the US has provided Ukraine during that time.

Here is what it actually claims:
"For context, the United States sustained about 50,000 casualties in two decades of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. In large-scale combat operations, the United States could experience that same number of casualties in two weeks*."

* There is nothing that backs up the “could experience” number and there is no citation on where the authors pulled that number over that time from. I would seriously question it, since it would mean the US would lose over 1.2M KIA over the course of a year. You would have to conclude the US would lose over 95% of its active-duty force in one year. That is quite a stretch but the authors are likely presenting a worse case scenario to prove their point.

This is what you said it claimed:
"Also note that the virulently anti-Russian news source Mediazona, working with the BBC claims to have confirmed 66,000 Russian KIA. And I believe this number includes Ukrainian freedom fighters and volunteers.

See my Army College paper which postulates that close to that number of US army would die if inserted into Ukraine."

No where in that paper does it say that the US would lose 66k KIA if inserted into Ukraine. It refers to “large scale combat operations.” They are actually speaking about China and not Russia. If you understood why that is, I would not have to spell this out for you. Also, that 66k KIA total is an questionable estimate of total Russian KIA. It was estimated to be aronud 120K total in June of '23, meaning that the Russians were losing just under 10k per month. Ukraine is supposedly coming it at around 3K casualties a month, which includes WIA along with KIA. That number is what the AFU is suffering being out manned, without Air Supremacy, and being restricted on their long-range fires.

If the US entered the Ukraine fight, our casualties would be much lower due to being able to destroy all the S-400 & S-300 within the first week and establishing Air Superiority. That would then allow for the DAS, CAS, and long range SEAD strikes along Russia’s logistical LOC’s chocking off their ability to supply their front-line troops from well behind the FLOT.

What that paper is actually arguing for is DOTMILPF changes that TRADOC needs to advocate for based on what is going on in Ukraine. It is not arguing that the US would lose the majority of its active duty fighting force in the space of a year if the US entered the war on the side of Ukraine. If you are going to cite something, at least understand what it actually says before doing so.

 

It’s moot because if the US lost 50,000 troops in two weeks Americans would be outraged and the U.S. would pull the plug.

But never mind facing Russia, the US army, as presently constituted, would likely get waxed by the Ukrainian army that Russia had to square off against.

Finally, Russia has managed to inoculate itself against every wonder weapon the U.S. has sent to Ukraine.

 

It is not moot, since it is extremely unlikely the US would lose 50k in two weeks in Ukraine for the reason I listed. I doubt we would lost a 1/10 of that in the course of a month.

What makes you think the US Army would get waxed by the AFU if we got into a fight? Lots of experience working with the AFU? You do realize that the AFU is completely depended on the US and NATO to train them on the weapons systems we have donated and their logistical support? Do you have any idea how stupid that comment is?

So riddle me this Duggers_Dad, how many vessels of the Russian Navy are currently still operating out of ports in Crimea?

 

Because Ukraine had upwards of 700,000 troops, at the start of the SMO, and were heavily fortified, armed and largely NATO operable.

And also because it is widely acknowledged that our military is a paper tiger. It is only our geopolitical influence and proxy wars that have stemmed our decline.

 

Why would an AFU with an end strength of 700k be able to wax the US military when they would not have air superiority, 5th Gen aircraft, and the high end, long range fires capabilities that the US has? I'm not even bringing up the difference in Naval strength.

Who has acknowledge our military is a paper tiger?

 

Why was Russia so cautious, early on, with its Air Force which also includes fifth Gen fighters ? Presumably because Ukraine had a vast array of Soviet era air defense systems. And why is Ukraine still fighting after Russia has fired many hundreds if not well over a thousand cruise missiles at many dozens of critical sites ? The U.S. has never fought a war like this.

 

To the last dead Ukrainian …

 

This is good news:

 

This does seem encouraging because it appears to signal the possibility that we’re finally ready to talk to Russia.

It’s really unbelievable. Even at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis Russia and the U.S. were in constant communication.

 

They were not cautious early on. The RGF actually chose an incredibly aggressive Course of Action for the initial invasion of Ukraine and through incompetent planning and execution, the AFU were able to repel them. Russia does not have real 5th GEN fighters seeing as they are way behind on stealth and radar technology. Shocking that crappy Russian Air Defense technology can pick up crappy Russian fighter technology but neither can do that against US tech.

The US has fight a war like this, it was called Desert Storm and OIF Round 1. You put US military up against whatever conventional forces Russia or Ukraine had prior to Feb '22 and you would get the same result as Desert Storm. The AFU is fighting the best of the RGF to a standstill with our cast offs and 1990's technology. The F-16 that were just donated have been in service for almost 50 years.