User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 9:25:19 AM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: I think if Russia had launched this invasion in 2014, they would be in Kiev now, fighting a brutal insurgency. I'm not sure why they waited. Military was not ready? In 2014 Ukraine had maybe 10% of the military they have now. Yet they fought Russia to a standstill in Luhansk and Donbas. Maybe the shootdown of that Malaysian Airlines gave them pause? Maybe Putin held out hope he could corrupt and subvert Ukraine's politicians and again install a puppet? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER: Originally Posted By stone-age: The situation is not what the world thought it was. The russians took over crimea with no violence, when they could have used violence and Ukraine would have been destroyed. The world thought russia would easily win against Ukraine either way, so the invasion of crimea was actually a much preferred outcome compared to a military conquest with death and destruction and heartbreak. But the world was wrong about everything and we all know it now. I think if Russia had launched this invasion in 2014, they would be in Kiev now, fighting a brutal insurgency. I'm not sure why they waited. Military was not ready? In 2014 Ukraine had maybe 10% of the military they have now. Yet they fought Russia to a standstill in Luhansk and Donbas. Maybe the shootdown of that Malaysian Airlines gave them pause? Maybe Putin held out hope he could corrupt and subvert Ukraine's politicians and again install a puppet? I honestly think it was a mixture of wanting to maintain plausible deniability, being unsure of what they could get away with, and quitting while they were ahead. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 9:28:50 AM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ILfreedom: If the Sevastopol naval base is the sticking point, give it or lease it to Russia. Like the US naval base Guantonomo Cuba. But the rest of Crimea must be under Ukrainian military control. Russia could have security within Sevastopol but no armor or artillery. Russia would then be free to play in the Black Sea or Mediterranean as long as they never threatened Ukraine or any Nato country. As soon as they do, sink them all That is how it was before the war began. I do not think Russia would agree to that at this point with a hostile Ukraine. Sevastopol cannot be defended if the rest of Crimea is controlled by Ukraine. Crimea is a fortress, only reachable by narrow strips of land or the Syvash lagoon by foot. That makes it incredibly easy to defend against a land attack. And Russia will certainly not agree to be dictated what kinds of weapons they can have on base. Unless Ukraine is willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of soldiers, it will remain under Russian control. Let them keep their navy there and refuse to trade with them, so it will be nothing more than a liability and money sink. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 9:37:49 AM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ILfreedom: If the Sevastopol naval base is the sticking point, give it or lease it to Russia. Like the US naval base Guantonomo Cuba. But the rest of Crimea must be under Ukrainian military control. Russia could have security within Sevastopol but no armor or artillery. Russia would then be free to play in the Black Sea or Mediterranean as long as they never threatened Ukraine or any Nato country. As soon as they do, sink them all Neither side would agree to that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 9:38:21 AM EST
[#4]
|
|
|
|
MO, USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 9:38:42 AM EST
[Last Edit: ILfreedom]
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By strykr: That is how it was before the war began. I do not think Russia would agree to that at this point with a hostile Ukraine. Sevastopol cannot be defended if the rest of Crimea is controlled by Ukraine. Crimea is a fortress, only reachable by narrow strips of land or the Syvash lagoon by foot. That makes it incredibly easy to defend against a land attack. And Russia will certainly not agree to be dictated what kinds of weapons they can have on base. Unless Ukraine is willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of soldiers, it will remain under Russian control. Let them keep their navy there and refuse to trade with them, so it will be nothing more than a liability and money sink. Whether Russia agreed with it or not is irrelevant. Ukraine is developing its own long range drone and missile systems to make Sevastopol and also Russiann airbases in Crimea as untenable. You don't have to do a land based attack to take Crimea to make Russian occupation of Crimea as worthless to them. Russia should take the deal of a Sevastopol lease as the best deal they can get. I do believe the Ukrainians would honor it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 9:40:31 AM EST
[#6]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 9:40:41 AM EST
[#7]
Originally Posted By AlmightyTallest:
Ukrainian eating Pizza on a wrecked T-90A. [/quot e]Hello pizza delivery place I need a hand tossed large pepperoni delivered to the third T 90 on highway 26. Thanks. |
|
|
|
MO, USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 9:42:53 AM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dracster: Neither side would agree to that. At the present time no. But eventually this war will end through some sort of settlement. Hopefully one in which Ukraine gets all of its territory back and is able to join NATO officially. |
|
|
MN, USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 9:44:15 AM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest:
When it comes to shorad defense is a fixed position vs mobile launcher(stinger/starstreak vs this one). |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 9:44:28 AM EST
[#10]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 9:49:27 AM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fadedsun: 165 million euros to rebuild 20 tanks? Am I missing something? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fadedsun: Originally Posted By 4xGM300m: Yeah, ensuing from the cost of 165 million Euros for the 14 tanks, they will be completely rebuilt. https://www.defensie.nl/actueel/nieuws/2023/04/20/nederland-koopt-leopard-2-tanks-voor-oekraine Dutch article. BTW, Spain has another 20 Leopards in storage:   https://www.stern.de/digital/technik/leopard-2-panzer-fuer-kiew-aus-spanien---darum-scheitert-der-deal-32597368.html German article. 165 million euros to rebuild 20 tanks? Am I missing something? Wiki has the unit cost associated with them. Is breaking them down then rebuilding more expensive then just building from scratch? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 9:50:47 AM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest:
Musta thought they were the us for a second |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 9:52:21 AM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ILfreedom: If the Sevastopol naval base is the sticking point, give it or lease it to Russia. Like the US naval base Guantonomo Cuba. But the rest of Crimea must be under Ukrainian military control. Russia could have security within Sevastopol but no armor or artillery. Russia would then be free to play in the Black Sea or Mediterranean as long as they never threatened Ukraine or any Nato country. As soon as they do, sink them all That's how it worked until Pooting decided in 2014 to fuck it and take the whole thing. So F that noise. Kick the swines out and never let them set foot on it again. Blow up the bridge while the ruZZians are on it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 9:55:33 AM EST
[#14]
I think some kind of deescalation is likely by the end of the year. The rate of equipment and munitions for both countries is just too high to sustain indefinitely.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 10:00:32 AM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest:
I question the directionality of that. That may have been preemptive because they don't have product to sell. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 10:02:19 AM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Prime: I am now more culturally literate 🙏 Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Prime: I am now more culturally literate 🙏 Yes, thanks, I’ve been enjoying the cartoons but didn’t know where they came from. Sock puppets, makes sense now. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 10:05:39 AM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By stgdz: When it comes to shorad defense is a fixed position vs mobile launcher(stinger/starstreak vs this one). Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By stgdz: Originally Posted By AlmightyTallest:
When it comes to shorad defense is a fixed position vs mobile launcher(stinger/starstreak vs this one). Depends on what you are defending, the air threat, types of systems employed, enemy detection/interdiction capabilities, the ground situation, and a lot of other factors. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 10:13:12 AM EST
[#18]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 10:19:31 AM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Brok3n:
The dude knows that his life span can probably be measured in weeks, especially if he gets anywhere within striking distance of EXCAL or HIMARs or HAARM, and he knows that every swinging dick with a cell phone is going to report up his location until that happens. I'd want a drink too.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 10:23:06 AM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Charging_Handle: Hey Boris, hold my brake fluid and watch this!  The Threat: Inside The Soviet Military Machine (1985) Still a classic of the genre.  
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 10:24:17 AM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ILfreedom: If the Sevastopol naval base is the sticking point, give it or lease it to Russia. Like the US naval base Guantonomo Cuba. But the rest of Crimea must be under Ukrainian military control. This was exactly the arrangement before 2014. The lease was set to expire right after the elections, so Russia was drawing all kinds if contingency plans from relocating to Novorossiysk to probably what happened later. After Yanukovich won, he promptly extended the lease for a measly temporary discount on natural gas. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 10:30:55 AM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ILfreedom: Whether Russia agreed with it or not is irrelevant. Ukraine is developing its own long range drone and missile systems to make Sevastopol and also Russiann airbases in Crimea as untenable. You don't have to do a land based attack to take Crimea to make Russian occupation of Crimea as worthless to them. Russia should take the deal of a Sevastopol lease as the best deal they can get. I do believe the Ukrainians would honor it. There would be little benefit to expending ammunition to bombard Sevastopol unless Ukraine plans to follow up with ground assault. Russia would retaliate and fight them to a stalemate. Ukraine will not win an attrition war with Russia over Crimea. The Ukrainian economy cannot sustain long range bombardment without help from NATO. And they are denied the maneuver war due to limited access to the peninsula. Russia has more men to waste and they have the advantage of defending fortified positions further up north on the peninsula. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 10:42:05 AM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AlmightyTallest:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FuPlmPOWcAcH4Yo?format=jpg&name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FuPlo72XwAAuYv8?format=jpg&name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FuPlsngWwAA7y-L?format=jpg&name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FuPlv7bWAAA8JqP?format=jpg&name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FuPl0SCXoAkLWqd?format=jpg&name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FuPl5EqXoAEo6Mh?format=jpg&name=large
That is the kind of reporting I like. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 10:52:18 AM EST
[Last Edit: Prime]
[#24]
Rule #1
When a sniper is working on you, you have to move faster... (But 30 kg of equipment does not agree with you😅) Such are they, Bakhmut's everyday life of an infantryman
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 10:56:24 AM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By strykr: That is how it was before the war began. I do not think Russia would agree to that at this point with a hostile Ukraine. Sevastopol cannot be defended if the rest of Crimea is controlled by Ukraine. Crimea is a fortress, only reachable by narrow strips of land or the Syvash lagoon by foot. That makes it incredibly easy to defend against a land attack. And Russia will certainly not agree to be dictated what kinds of weapons they can have on base. Unless Ukraine is willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of soldiers, it will remain under Russian control. Let them keep their navy there and refuse to trade with them, so it will be nothing more than a liability and money sink. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By strykr: Originally Posted By ILfreedom: If the Sevastopol naval base is the sticking point, give it or lease it to Russia. Like the US naval base Guantonomo Cuba. But the rest of Crimea must be under Ukrainian military control. Russia could have security within Sevastopol but no armor or artillery. Russia would then be free to play in the Black Sea or Mediterranean as long as they never threatened Ukraine or any Nato country. As soon as they do, sink them all That is how it was before the war began. I do not think Russia would agree to that at this point with a hostile Ukraine. Sevastopol cannot be defended if the rest of Crimea is controlled by Ukraine. Crimea is a fortress, only reachable by narrow strips of land or the Syvash lagoon by foot. That makes it incredibly easy to defend against a land attack. And Russia will certainly not agree to be dictated what kinds of weapons they can have on base. Unless Ukraine is willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of soldiers, it will remain under Russian control. Let them keep their navy there and refuse to trade with them, so it will be nothing more than a liability and money sink. I find it interesting that virtually every time Crimea pops up you appear out of nowhere to emphatically declare it's too costly and improbable for the Ukrainians to take it. It's almost like--you have an agenda. Just my opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 10:57:26 AM EST
[#26]
 Ukrainian drones drop bombs on hidden Russian soldiers |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 11:01:42 AM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Prime: I question the directionality of that. That may have been preemptive because they don't have product to sell. India was complaining over a month ago that russia was not sending parts and equipment promised in a previous deal. They were not honoring the contract to india. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 11:02:57 AM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CharlieR: This came up a few years ago. In the GWOT, you have to worry about bad guys disengaging from the friendlies and getting separation before CAS showed up. If four MRAPs were going out, one on the back with a UAV to scan for enemy and maintain eyes on it would have been a good idea. If I had four tanks maneuvering and I wanted a UAV to scan for ATGMs, that would be a good idea, but I cant see four tanks going anywhere far from a company CP or a bradley platoon. Its on eof those things you have to experiment with. It takes a couple guys to see what is going on and plot it, and a leader with judgement to process what is being seen and report it. I think it is a platoon asset or mech company. A 16 man tank platoon loses a tank if someone is using that thing. Realistically, IMHO, a mech team need 2-3 scanning the company front, which to me is a senior NCO and a M113 or humvee. Its really a mini TOC. That seems logical to me. And perhaps those teams would be detached down from the HHC, or split off from a CAV squadron. FSOs might also be a logical home for drones, but they don't (IIRC) have the manning for hardly anything else either. Tank companies just barely have the manning to keep 14 tanks going, especially around the clock, so I don't see the sense in saddling them with more tasks. Personally I think tactical drones should be more defensive in nature. Why drop one grenade on somebody when we in the US have the luxury of calling for much bigger and better fires? I think what we are seeing is really just a consequence of the Ukrainians having fairly static lines, and not nearly enough fire support available. So for us, our 19Ds or 19Ks "could" do the job, but I think 13-series guys makes the best fit. By the way, some of you may have noticed that many of these Ukrainian guys with the specialty AT weapons such as Javelin are coming from Artillery units, because there are fewer of them so apparently they are assigned down more as "fire support". I think we will find a similar situation by necessity with drones (being expensive, potentially dangerous to friendly forces by attracting CB-fire, clogging up air space, etc., all things that Artillery guys are probably better versed in mitigating than your average tanker or scout). JMHO. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 11:04:43 AM EST
[#29]
Bakhmut Fortress 🇺🇦
The armor withstands, but the wheels "burn" every day...
|
|
|
|
MD, USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 11:06:08 AM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Charging_Handle: As horrible as the Russian Navy is, does it really matter if they have the Sevastopol base? The Russian Navy appears to suck even worse than their army. Their navy probably poses a bigger risk to themselves than to anyone else. They would quite honestly be better off completely eliminating their navy except for maybe a token coast guard force. Russia simply can't afford to adequately train or equip a modern naval force. And even if they could, corrupt officials and officers would syphon away the funds to line their own pockets with, as they've been doing. Everything about Russia sucks. It is a shit country, filled with shit people and has a shit culture. It should be no surprise that their military is so bad. My dad had a saying: "You can't make apple pie from shit". The same applies to nations and militaries. You only get what you put in. The foolish man built his house upon the sand. Russia built itself upon a pile of shit, using shit fragments for construction materials. From just seeing many vids of younger Russians, who have the ability to retrieve information from abroad, I don't think all russians are shit. Yes, many of the old fucks are set in their ways but that is a mighty broad brush to paint all the people shit. That is no different, than because the US has a ton of woke minded lemmings that the people of the US are shit. No? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 11:07:00 AM EST
[#31]
Wagner funeral.
|
|
|
|
MO, USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 11:10:48 AM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By strykr: There would be little benefit to expending ammunition to bombard Sevastopol unless Ukraine plans to follow up with ground assault. Russia would retaliate and fight them to a stalemate. Ukraine will not win an attrition war with Russia over Crimea. The Ukrainian economy cannot sustain long range bombardment without help from NATO. And they are denied the maneuver war due to limited access to the peninsula. Russia has more men to waste and they have the advantage of defending fortified positions further up north on the peninsula. I would not assume Nato support for Ukraine will end. From Nato's perspective they are destroying Russia's capability to wage war on them at a relatively low cost. No Nato infrastructure is being destroyed and no Nato soldier is dying. There is no cheaper way to wage war against a historical enemy than what is transpiring in Ukraine right now. |
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 11:15:51 AM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Charging_Handle: As horrible as the Russian Navy is, does it really matter if they have the Sevastopol base? The Russian Navy appears to suck even worse than their army. Their navy probably poses a bigger risk to themselves than to anyone else. They would quite honestly be better off completely eliminating their navy except for maybe a token coast guard force. Russia simply can't afford to adequately train or equip a modern naval force. And even if they could, corrupt officials and officers would syphon away the funds to line their own pockets with, as they've been doing. Everything about Russia sucks. It is a shit country, filled with shit people and has a shit culture. It should be no surprise that their military is so bad. My dad had a saying: "You can't make apple pie from shit". The same applies to nations and militaries. You only get what you put in. The foolish man built his house upon the sand. Russia built itself upon a pile of shit, using shit fragments for construction materials. There's a first rate part of the russian navy, but we don't see it. Those are largely their submarine fleet. The rest, yes, appears like poorly trained conscripts/contracts. That's my view reading from HI and others. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 11:16:42 AM EST
[Last Edit: Dracster]
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By voyager3: This was exactly the arrangement before 2014. The lease was set to expire right after the elections, so Russia was drawing all kinds if contingency plans from relocating to Novorossiysk to probably what happened later. After Yanukovich won, he promptly extended the lease for a measly temporary discount on natural gas. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By voyager3: Originally Posted By ILfreedom: If the Sevastopol naval base is the sticking point, give it or lease it to Russia. Like the US naval base Guantonomo Cuba. But the rest of Crimea must be under Ukrainian military control. This was exactly the arrangement before 2014. The lease was set to expire right after the elections, so Russia was drawing all kinds if contingency plans from relocating to Novorossiysk to probably what happened later. After Yanukovich won, he promptly extended the lease for a measly temporary discount on natural gas. And then Maidan happened so they invaded anyway and tore up the Kharkiv Pact. Expecting Ukraine to enjoy getting screwed over time and again by the Russians is unrealistic. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 11:20:44 AM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ILfreedom: If the Sevastopol naval base is the sticking point, give it or lease it to Russia. Like the US naval base Guantonomo Cuba. But the rest of Crimea must be under Ukrainian military control. Russia could have security within Sevastopol but no armor or artillery. Russia would then be free to play in the Black Sea or Mediterranean as long as they never threatened Ukraine or any Nato country. As soon as they do, sink them all Russia lost its right to lease anything when they attacked Ukraine. Ukraine should be contemplating how much of Russia they want to take in reparations. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 11:28:56 AM EST
[#36]
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 11:29:46 AM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Billy_Ringo: I find it interesting that virtually every time Crimea pops up you appear out of nowhere to emphatically declare it's too costly and improbable for the Ukrainians to take it. It's almost like--you have an agenda. Just my opinion. Yes, that is my opinion. I do not think I'm alone on that. |
|
|
MD, USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 11:31:25 AM EST
[Last Edit: Hate_Work]
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By spydercomonkey: Win or Lose, Ukraine’s Big Offensive May Put Biden in a Bind The US wants Kyiv to be successful in its spring push, but not too successful. https://archive.ph/Uv2aj The US strategy in Ukraine is premised on the idea that the war there will end, or dramatically de-escalate, this year. What if it doesn’t? President Joe Biden’s administration has done well in managing that conflict so far. But the longer the war lasts, the harder its politics will be for Biden to manage, and the greater the pressure it will exert on US policy around the globe. Ukraine’s prospects revolve around its much-anticipated spring offensive. The Ukrainians mostly weathered Russia’s desultory winter offensive, even hanging on — barely — to besieged Bakhmut in the east. Now it is Kyiv’s turn to strike. Preparatory operations are underway, as Ukraine softens up Russia’s logistics and probes its defenses. It’s anyone’s guess where the major thrust will come — perhaps in the Donbas, or perhaps, more likely, to the south in a bid to sever Russia’s land bridge to Crimea. Either way, the US hopes that the offensive will, by shifting the course of the war, create a pathway to peace. In public and private, top US officials have articulated the administration’s theory of victory: The idea that a successful, but not too-successful, Ukrainian offensive will lead to a ramping down of the war or even a negotiated settlement. This strategy involves a mix of pessimism and optimism. Pessimism, in that US officials increasingly doubt Ukraine can liberate all territory Russia has occupied since 2014. Optimism, in that Washington hopes Kyiv can reclaim enough territory to make the country economically viable and militarily defensible, while also putting Russian President Vladimir Putin’s military under sufficient strain to make him sue for peace. Which, in turn, will reduce Ukraine’s demands for US assistance, allowing America’s defense industrial base to pivot to other priorities. As Daniel Drezner writes, America is seeking its Goldilocks option. It needs Ukraine to fare well enough that it can negotiate from strength, but not so well that it believes it doesn’t have to negotiate at all. Washington simultaneously needs to convince Putin that he may lose all his gains — and perhaps his hold on power — if the war continues. But it doesn’t want Putin so desperate that he lashes out wildly, or for China to conclude that it must ramp up support for an ally in danger of suffering a crushing defeat. That sweet spot may exist, but finding it won’t be easy. Putin, for his part, has little incentive to play along with US strategy. Yes, his military continues to underwhelm. If Ukraine makes major breakthroughs this spring, it will be because Russian forces bled themselves to death in fruitless winter assaults. But Putin’s theory of victory is that he can outlast Ukraine and its friends, perhaps because America’s attention will eventually be pulled elsewhere. The more Ukraine’s vulnerabilities are revealed, the more Putin’s faith will be strengthened. And the more Washington makes clear how much it needs the war to end, the more likely Putin is to drag it out. The longer the conflict goes, the more vexing Biden’s dilemmas will become. Funding the Ukraine war effort will get harder; those arguing that a stalemated “territorial dispute” simply distracts America from the real threat posed by China will be empowered. Bureaucratic disputes will get sharper as the Pentagon is asked to do too much with too little. The US may face a choice between slashing support for Ukraine and taking steps that Biden has resisted, such as providing Kyiv with cluster munitions and advanced fighter aircraft or invoking the Defense Production Act to stimulate production in the industrial base. So far, Biden’s administration has proceeded as though it can give Ukraine the aid it needs, while preparing adequately for a looming conflict with China, while making only marginal increases to the defense budget. That strategy has always been a gamble. The longer this war goes, the riskier it will be. If Biden wants to win a long fight in Ukraine while reducing the possibility the US might lose in the Pacific, he will have to begin rearming the American military with something like wartime urgency. If he opts not to do that, he may have to decide which geopolitical priority — defeating Russia or deterring China — to sacrifice. Perhaps the Ukraine conflict will end on Washington’s timetable. But Biden needs to start planning now for what will happen if it doesn’t. Make no mistake, FJB and the White House will claim VICTORY before the election next year. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 11:31:35 AM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By lorazepam: Wagner funeral. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FuP4QbzXsAENujS?format=jpg&name=900x900 Anybody know if that is the bag of carrots, box of sausages, floral arrangement, or bath towel level package? I'm assuming it isn't the Lada package. |
|
|
|
MO, USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 11:33:16 AM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By borderpatrol: Russia lost its right to lease anything when they attacked Ukraine. Ukraine should be contemplating how much of Russia they want to take in reparations. There is a difference between what is right and what is achievable. I'm not saying Ukraine should offer up anything. But if they do, it should be a solution that is balanced in favor of Ukraine. This war is not going to end for a while. Do the Ukrainans need Sevastopol for its future security under the conditions I outlined? I don't think so. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 11:35:19 AM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ILfreedom: I would not assume Nato support for Ukraine will end. From Nato's perspective they are destroying Russia's capability to wage war on them at a relatively low cost. No Nato infrastructure is being destroyed and no Nato soldier is dying. There is no cheaper way to wage war against a historical enemy than what is transpiring in Ukraine right now. Then give them the means to win, long range ammunition like ATACMS and fighter jets to carry out air strikes over Crimea. Missiles to sink ships. Why is that not happening? NATO has an interest in keeping Ukraine as a functional state to contain Russia, but they do not want to escalate further than what is necessary for that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 11:38:42 AM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GTLandser: That seems logical to me. And perhaps those teams would be detached down from the HHC, or split off from a CAV squadron. FSOs might also be a logical home for drones, but they don't (IIRC) have the manning for hardly anything else either. Tank companies just barely have the manning to keep 14 tanks going, especially around the clock, so I don't see the sense in saddling them with more tasks. Personally I think tactical drones should be more defensive in nature. Why drop one grenade on somebody when we in the US have the luxury of calling for much bigger and better fires? I think what we are seeing is really just a consequence of the Ukrainians having fairly static lines, and not nearly enough fire support available. So for us, our 19Ds or 19Ks "could" do the job, but I think 13-series guys makes the best fit. By the way, some of you may have noticed that many of these Ukrainian guys with the specialty AT weapons such as Javelin are coming from Artillery units, because there are fewer of them so apparently they are assigned down more as "fire support". I think we will find a similar situation by necessity with drones (being expensive, potentially dangerous to friendly forces by attracting CB-fire, clogging up air space, etc., all things that Artillery guys are probably better versed in mitigating than your average tanker or scout). JMHO. Because drones are cheap, as are grenades, it seems to me that the harassment value and terror of being targeted day and night as an individual has to suck. Raining artillery on individual soldiers seems like overkill, pun intended. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 11:42:01 AM EST
[#43]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 11:46:05 AM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hate_Work: From just seeing many vids of younger Russians, who have the ability to retrieve information from abroad, I don't think all russians are shit. Yes, many of the old fucks are set in their ways but that is a mighty broad brush to paint all the people shit. That is no different, than because the US has a ton of woke minded lemmings that the people of the US are shit. No? The idea that most Russians aren't good people would be wrong. Living under a perpetual threat of terror if you speak ill of anything your government does, tends to shut people up and make them mind their own business. The penalties are real and can include your friends and relatives in the process. It doesn't help that most western news outlets and basic communication with the outside world is monitored, restricted or both. Listening to the Russian propaganda channels should enlighten anyone concerned, about how the general population has been brainwashed. It also proves people can be manipulated into believing almost anything. Fuck Putin with a rusty rebar. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 11:46:24 AM EST
[#45]
I am sure we could quickly have a system RD’d so that every main battle tank could have its own semi autonomous drone, feeding real time video directly back to the commander. The minimal cost versus the benefit of enhanced situational awareness and target identification would be enormous. Those tube lunched drones someone posted would be a good starting point.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 11:48:53 AM EST
[#46]
 Juuuust in case we haven't done this yet.
|
|
|
|
MD, USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 11:55:00 AM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By lorazepam: India was complaining over a month ago that russia was not sending parts and equipment promised in a previous deal. They were not honoring the contract to india. You reap what you sow. Serves India right by dealing the Russia in the first place. Wondering how that shitburger tastes now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 12:07:12 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By strykr: Yes, that is my opinion. I do not think I'm alone on that. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By strykr: Originally Posted By Billy_Ringo: I find it interesting that virtually every time Crimea pops up you appear out of nowhere to emphatically declare it's too costly and improbable for the Ukrainians to take it. It's almost like--you have an agenda. Just my opinion. Yes, that is my opinion. I do not think I'm alone on that. You're not alone on that. I'd love nothing more than to see Ukraine retake Crimea, but I don't think it's feasible militarily. Taking out the Kerch Bridge would hurt the Russians, but it wouldn't make it impossible to resupply Crimea. As it stands, just breaking the land bridge to Crimea is going to be difficult enough for Ukraine, let alone assaulting Crimea itself with ground forces. Sure, allowing the Russians to retain control of Crimea isn't great, and it might encourage further aggression in the future, but I think that can be mitigated through Ukraine getting into NATO and stacking long range munitions as deep as possible post-war. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 12:08:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: governmentman]
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By strykr: Then give them the means to win, long range ammunition like ATACMS and fighter jets to carry out air strikes over Crimea. Missiles to sink ships. Why is that not happening? NATO has an interest in keeping Ukraine as a functional state to contain Russia, but they do not want to escalate further than what is necessary for that. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By strykr: Then give them the means to win, long range ammunition like ATACMS and fighter jets to carry out air strikes over Crimea. Missiles to sink ships. Why is that not happening? NATO has an interest in keeping Ukraine as a functional state to contain Russia, but they do not want to escalate further than what is necessary for that. I'm increasingly convinced that NATO is playing the long game, and boiling the Originally Posted By MelGibsonEnthusiast: You're not alone on that. I'd love nothing more than to see Ukraine retake Crimea, but I don't think it's feasible militarily. Taking out the Kerch Bridge would hurt the Russians, but it wouldn't make it impossible to resupply Crimea. As it stands, just breaking the land bridge to Crimea is going to be difficult enough for Ukraine, let alone assaulting Crimea itself with ground forces. Sure, allowing the Russians to retain control of Crimea isn't great, and it might encourage further aggression in the future, but I think that can be mitigated through Ukraine getting into NATO and stacking long range munitions as deep as possible post-war. I think retaking Crimea is very doable, just will be slow. Between antiship missiles and various drones, sea resupply can be rendered ineffective. Cut off supplies and it is only a matter of time. |
|
|
|
MD, USA
|
Posted: 4/21/2023 12:08:24 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By borderpatrol: The idea that most Russians aren't good people would be wrong. Living under a perpetual threat of terror if you speak ill of anything your government does, tends to shut people up and make them mind their own business. The penalties are real and can include your friends and relatives in the process. It doesn't help that most western news outlets and basic communication with the outside world is monitored, restricted or both. Listening to the Russian propaganda channels should enlighten anyone concerned, about how the general population has been brainwashed. It also proves people can be manipulated into believing almost anything. Fuck Putin with a rusty rebar. I don't deny what you or anyone else has to say, negatively about Russia. But to put it into context, does anyone really expect most the people of the US to stand up to the Government machine? They haven't so far and keep on just being lemmings. Russia is just a few decades ahead of the US. And at the rate at which the world spins now, I wonder how long before I will need to move from the Washington DC area (family is all here), to somewhere more conservative, or to take up arms if the entire nations turns to shit and I am defending my family from the roaches from the cities. But back to Russia. Don't many of the people just want to be left alone and live their life? Christ, they don't even have the means to stand up to their government. Just like the Dem's dream in the US. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File
