Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

[The39thStep]

What really gets me is the game being played by the ones in the know, the military leaders like Milley and high level politicians who know what it takes to get the Russians out of the fortified areas at a faster, cost-effective pace and pretending to be surprised and disappointed in the counteroffensive knowing Ukraine doesn't possess the capabilities and knowing NATO themselves would never attempt such a thing without the full kit of weaponry - air superiority, heavy bombers, long range missiles. The media eats the "stalled Ukraine" line up. I really think the West (mainly the US) doesn't want a Ukrainian victory. I think they're afraid of what happens to Russia internally afterwards. An imploded Russia is a dark mystery.

Interesting. I suppose some of this depends on how one classifies a Ukrainian victory. What is the Ukrainian victory the States don't want in your opinion?

 

[Pickman's model]

What really gets me is the game being played by the ones in the know, the military leaders like Milley and high level politicians who know what it takes to get the Russians out of the fortified areas at a faster, cost-effective pace and pretending to be surprised and disappointed in the counteroffensive knowing Ukraine doesn't possess the capabilities and knowing NATO themselves would never attempt such a thing without the full kit of weaponry - air superiority, heavy bombers, long range missiles. The media eats the "stalled Ukraine" line up. I really think the West (mainly the US) doesn't want a Ukrainian victory. I think they're afraid of what happens to Russia internally afterwards. An imploded Russia is a dark mystery

What cost-effective measures do you think they have?

 

[Chz]

Nothing is more cost-effective than a nuke. May come with other costs, though.

 

[Pickman's model]

Nothing is more cost-effective than a nuke. May come with other costs, though.

i didn't think i'd elicit a response as daft as that

 

[Chz]

i didn't think i'd elicit a response as daft as that

The point being that "cost-effective" is rarely a major concern to the people heading these things. Maybe in terms of manpower, but they clearly don't give two fucks about the dollar cost of what they're throwing at the problem or they wouldn't be knocking down drones with Patriots.

 

[moochedit]

May come with other costs, though.

* checks small print *

 

[Pickman's model]

The point being that "cost-effective" is rarely a major concern to the people heading these things. Maybe in terms of manpower, but they clearly don't give two fucks about the dollar cost of what they're throwing at the problem or they wouldn't be knocking down drones with Patriots.

i really didn't expect a response dafter than your previous effort

 

[Chz]

i really didn't expect a response dafter than your previous effort

No-one expects...

 

[kebabking]

Interesting. I suppose some of this depends on how one classifies a Ukrainian victory. What is the Ukrainian victory the States don't want in your opinion?

I think it's like most things that most people want - that at some point a magic fairy will come along, wave a wand and turn a messy, difficult situation into one that's great, and doesn't have downsides.

I've genuinely not met, or heard of, any of the western supporters of Ukraine in Government who are wobbly on the restoration of Ukrainian territory under a democratic government that is free to choose it's affiliations. Everyone is solid on that - the problem is the potential consequences of the means of achieving that.

There are, in effect, three fears that hold people back from giving Ukraine the tools to accomplish a full-fat military victory through physical domination of the battlefield:

That Russian central state power/governance will collapse, and that Russia will become a giant failed state with 6,000 nukes and an endless supply of would-be former vassal states/territories looking to get out of its orbit.

That Grey-zone/conventional Putin would be replaced Putin would be replaced by nuclear Putin - whether it's him or the next guy is irrelevant.

That Russia will be so politically and economically defeated by such an outcome that it will become an outright vassal state of China. China on the Arctic Ocean and the Polish border does not appeal.

The fundamental problem is that there seems to be very little space between an outright Ukrainian victory with Russia expelled from all pre-2014 Ukrainian territory, and some degree or combination of the above happening.

 

[dilute micro]

What cost-effective measures do you think they have?

Milley knows the difference, which was my point. The US alone has everything needed to remove Russia from occupied Ukraine. Again, Milley knows what it takes. He shouldn't be surprised at how it's going for Ukraine.

 

[dilute micro]

Interesting. I suppose some of this depends on how one classifies a Ukrainian victory. What is the Ukrainian victory the States don't want in your opinion?

Yes, true. Learning from past mistakes with Ukraine and failures in dealing with Russia, I think it's best to go by Ukraine's definition.

 

[Chz]

Milley knows the difference, which was my point. The US alone has everything needed to remove Russia from occupied Ukraine. Again, Milley knows what it takes. He shouldn't be surprised at how it's going for Ukraine.

View attachment 388210

Even for the US, it would be a tough old slog. The Russians have had a year to dig in, and one thing they're not short of is mines. Aircraft can't take territory. At some point, some poor bastards have to actually go in there and kick out whoever's left after all the bombing. The US is entirely capable of it, but I think you're understating how difficult it would be even for them. It wouldn't be a "home by Christmas" sort of thing.

 

[UnderOpenSky]

Even for the US, it would be a tough old slog. The Russians have had a year to dig in, and one thing they're not short of is mines. Aircraft can't take territory. At some point, some poor bastards have to actually go in there and kick out whoever's left after all the bombing. The US is entirely capable of it, but I think you're understating how difficult it would be even for them. It wouldn't be a "home by Christmas" sort of thing.

Obviously the US won't commit to invasion, but if they did and if Russia didn't use nukes, then how many soldiers are going to stay in place defending their positions when faced with US air power? They might not be able to take it from the skies, but I can't imagine there would much will left on the part of the defenders.

 

[Pickman's model]

Milley knows the difference, which was my point. The US alone has everything needed to remove Russia from occupied Ukraine. Again, Milley knows what it takes. He shouldn't be surprised at how it's going for Ukraine.

View attachment 388210

that's rather er a different point to the one you were making. the americans have thrown billions of dollars of weaponry ukraine's way, and if the job's not been done then tbh that's down to the ukrainians rather than their avid suppliers. i am reminded of article 15 of t.e. lawrence's famous 27 articles, which states:

15. Do not try to do too much with your own hands. Better the Arabs do it tolerably than that you do it perfectly. It is their war, and you are to help them, not to win it for them. [...]

do you really think that the americans going in would win ukraine's war? there's a fucking host of unintended consequences waiting if you think that's a good plan

 

[Chz]

Obviously the US won't commit to invasion, but if they did and if Russia didn't use nukes, then how many soldiers are going to stay in place defending their positions when faced with US air power? They might not be able to take it from the skies, but I can't imagine there would much will left on the part of the defenders.

One thing the current Ukrainian offensive has proven is that you don't need much of a defensive line if it's behind a mile and a half of minefields. There is no quick and easy way through that, and even the lightest of defence makes it a fairly lethal proposition. The US (and the UK) does have a strategy for dealing with mines, but it's really a last option if you can't get around it by other means. Mainly because it's so dangerous and time-consuming. Just a couple of squads in a particularly deep trench with some mortars can make life a living hell for anyone clearing mines. You also have to bear in mind that while I'm sure the USAF can totally remove the Russian Air Force from the skies, their considerable amount of ground-based anti-air will take quite a lot longer to clean up. They have teeth, and the newer systems are no joke unlike a lot of their fancier toys. (Like Armata, LOL)

 

[emanymton]

Interesting. I suppose some of this depends on how one classifies a Ukrainian victory. What is the Ukrainian victory the States don't want in your opinion?

They don't want any kind of victory that could potentially lead to serious internal instability in Russia. Because they don't want the world's largest nuclear arsenal in a fractured and failing state (and who would). This is why the narrative about a NATO/US plan to destroy Russia is such horseshit. That is exactly what they don't want.

 

[dilute micro]

Even for the US, it would be a tough old slog. The Russians have had a year to dig in, and one thing they're not short of is mines. Aircraft can't take territory. At some point, some poor bastards have to actually go in there and kick out whoever's left after all the bombing. The US is entirely capable of it, but I think you're understating how difficult it would be even for them. It wouldn't be a "home by Christmas" sort of thing.

I disagree. I keep noting on the board that it also matters the condition of the Russian military. They are dire. Soldiers who have had no training and have only ever fired a single magazine out of a rifle aren't going to do much and are likely going to break. Aircraft wouldn't take territory. Landmines aren't such a problem when you have all the time necessary to work on them because there are no enemy opposite the mined fields. Taking empty territory would be much easier. Heavy bombers dropping 500lb bombs isn't the same as artillery. It's a completely different ballgame.

 

[Raheem]

They don't want any kind of victory that could potentially lead to serious internal instability in Russia. Because they don't want the world's largest nuclear arsenal in a fractured and failing state (and who would). This is why the narrative about a NATO/US plan to destroy Russia is such horseshit. That is exactly what they don't want.

All true. But serious internal instability in Russia seems pretty likely in any eventuality, and not really any less so if Putin gets thrown a bit of Ukraine. I think the US is generally cautious, rather than specifically worried about winning.

 

[emanymton]

All true. But serious internal instability in Russia seems pretty likely in any eventuality, and not really any less so if Putin gets thrown a bit of Ukraine. I think the US is generally cautious, rather than specifically worried about winning.

Well yes, if may happen whether they want it or not. I fact I would say that thanks to their ideology leading them to push Russia down the path it did they made it more likely. They just don't see that.

 

[dilute micro]

that's rather er a different point to the one you were making. the americans have thrown billions of dollars of weaponry ukraine's way, and if the job's not been done then tbh that's down to the ukrainians rather than their avid suppliers. i am reminded of article 15 of t.e. lawrence's famous 27 articles, which states:

do you really think that the americans going in would win ukraine's war? there's a fucking host of unintended consequences waiting if you think that's a good plan

I'm not talking about the US going in. I was only pointing out that people like Milley know what it takes to get Russia out of occupied areas. The dollar amount of hardware doesn't mean anything. It's about what it is in particular and how it's used. Ukraine doesn't have all the kit for combined arms. And they don't have much of what they have been given.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm not talking about the US going in. I was only pointing out that people like Milley know what it takes to get Russia out of occupied areas. The dollar amount of hardware doesn't mean anything. It's about what it is in particular and how it's used. Ukraine doesn't have all the kit for combined arms. And they don't have much of what they have been given.

So the picture of the b52 snuck in below the radar

 

[Pickman's model]

I disagree. I keep noting on the board that it also matters the condition of the Russian military. They are dire. Soldiers who have had no training and have only ever fired a single magazine out of a rifle aren't going to do much and are likely going to break. Aircraft wouldn't take territory. Landmines aren't such a problem when you have all the time necessary to work on them because there are no enemy opposite the mined fields. Taking empty territory would be much easier. Heavy bombers dropping 500lb bombs isn't the same as artillery. It's a completely different ballgame.

You're making a number of very questionable assumptions here

 

[The39thStep]

All true. But serious internal instability in Russia seems pretty likely in any eventuality, and not really any less so if Putin gets thrown a bit of Ukraine. I think the US is generally cautious, rather than specifically worried about winning.

Winning what and how?

 

[agricola]

Even for the US, it would be a tough old slog. The Russians have had a year to dig in, and one thing they're not short of is mines. Aircraft can't take territory. At some point, some poor bastards have to actually go in there and kick out whoever's left after all the bombing. The US is entirely capable of it, but I think you're understating how difficult it would be even for them. It wouldn't be a "home by Christmas" sort of thing.

I doubt any army in the world would try and push through those defences - if they were strong enough to do that, they'd be strong enough to get air and sea supremacy and invade from the sea.

 

[Raheem]

Winning what and how?

Winning = Forcing Russian troops out of Ukraine for the long term.

 

[Pickman's model]

Winning = Forcing Russian troops out of Ukraine for the long term.

in the long run we're all dead

 

[The39thStep]

Winning = Forcing Russian troops out of Ukraine for the long term.

Sure.Its intersting though to hear what winning means and to whom .

 

[dilute micro]

So the picture of the b52 snuck in below the radar

I believe you took the photo to mean the US themselves doing the bombing. I only meant to show hardware that Milley knows would get the job done.

 

[Pickman's model]

I believe you took the photo to mean the US themselves doing the bombing. I only meant to show hardware that Milley knows would get the job done.

I think it far beyond the bounds of possibility that the Americans will provide Ukraine with b52s or b1s or b2s. Tbh I think the American aid, and aid from other nato states, has been extremely generous

 

[dilute micro]

I think it far beyond the bounds of possibility that the Americans will provide Ukraine with b52s or b1s or b2s. Tbh I think the American aid, and aid from other nato states, has been extremely generous

Yeah, they're not giving Ukraine bombers. I just don't like certain people pretending to be surprised Ukraine hasn't punched to the coast yet, and talking about making deals. The Russians won't make a deal they'll keep. The US has dragged their feet with support, and it seems intentional and not due to fear of escalation. The US could get serious with Ukraine and make it work if they wanted to.

in the long run we're all dead

That's what Putin wants you to believe. It's all about perception.