Ukraine - Russia Conflict (Original Title: Things are heating up in the Donbass)

[spat]

Your still looking at the problem wrong.

Say you have a a team of 50 of the best well trained marksmen delta force veterans . And the Russians attack their position from three sides with a division . You know what happens to those those troops? they all die . The russians take that Position and do it again. the Russians are victorious because they have achieved the objective set out for them by their command. Maybe your guys kill 20 to 1 , doesnt matter because they lost the objective . Now the next problem is where are you going to get another 50 delta force vets? Theres only so many.( I think 2k actually) They take years to produce You cant replace your losses while the Russians can .

Obviously your delta force guys are extremely efficient. but numbers matter too, and the quality of your defense has just declined by 50 top notch experts that you cant replace. You have better troops and training but your losing the war. You can only trade lives for territory until you run out of territory. Your efficiency doesn't = victory. You look at the numbers and come away saying we are far better than the Russians, but the Russians are taking and holding ground . Your going to run out of ground!


Correct! so the Russians hire 10 more salesman at one sale a day, who's winning? Obviously you have the better salesman, but my company is making more sales . Now your salesman is KIA or gets a better job which ever comes first. how are you going to replace him? the guys an expert, years of experience , You cant just take a guy off the street and expect similar performance

Your viewing the metric wrong. succcess on the battlefield isnt measured in lives or armor, its measured in ground taken and held.

Stalin's truism is correct. ""Quantity has a quality of its own ""

What happened to the vaunted German army in Russia? the Germans were not able to produce thier high end weapons and troops faster than the Russians could destroy them. The historic parallel is the same .


For some reason it doesn't click with you. the situation is that for the cost of a 5k drone (or much less) you can knock out a 5 million dollar tank . the drone can be produced at 10,000 a month, antitank missles at 1-2K per month vs 400 tanks a month , the math should be obvious .
Armors effectiveness on the battle field is limited until one side can produce an effective countermeasure

the secondary weapon is the infantry (rah) of which Russians have massive resources for and Ukraine does not


View attachment 238199

The battle of Conoco fields says you're wrong. The Russians tried that and it turns our they got their asses kicked and the US troops were just fine.

Battle of Khasham - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

And we haven't been talking about armor and tanks, we were talking about artillery.

That is why a single F35 can conduct a more effective bombing mission than 1000 WWII B17s

In fact, a single flight by a single F35 can do what would take all 1000 of those B17s flying half a dozen times to do.

Now, admittedly an F35 needs a lot more support than a B17, and it's pilot a lot more training than a B17 crewman.

But, not 6000 times as much.

So, you are out ahead.

People all seem to forget that modern warfare is all about logistics. Tactics and even strategy are solved problems.

So, if you are responsible for logistics, do you want to transport 100,000 artillery shells, or 50 smart munitions?

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

The battle of Conoco fields says you're wrong.

And we weren't talking about armor and tanks, we were talking about artillery.

That is why a single F35 can conduct a more effective bombing mission than 1000 WWII B17s

In fact, a single flight by a single F35 can do what would take all 1000 of those B17s flying half a dozen times to do.

Now, admittedly an F35 needs a lot more support than a B17, and it's pilot a lot more training than a B17 crewman.

But, not 6000 times as much.

So, you are out ahead.

People all seem to forget that modern warfare is all about logistics. Tactics and even strategy are solved problems.

So, if you are responsible for logistics, do you want to transport 100,000 artillery shells, or 50 smart munitions?

You're making a lot of correct points. I'm not disputing everything you say.

But to make the same WW2 comparison on another level, many instances of the military specifically not calling in airstrikes on things like machine gun nests because it was not an efficient use of air power it was cost prohibitive.

Fast forward to Ukraine are you going to waste a 1 million dollar smart munition to kill 4 guys in a trench bunker or are you going to lob a few cheap dumb artillery shells or a cheap 20k drone?

Atacms and smart munitions are great for targeting command and control centers and supply depots or armor but not the best usage for small units.

Who is building more of the cheap 20k$ drones?

 

[spat]

A genuine question as I honestly have no idea

Do you think that if SHTF big time, we could really produce a massive supply of weapons in a short time?

Do we still have that capability?

Do we still have enough in house manufacturing capabipity that could be switched over?

I hope so !

We didn't have that capability in 1938 either, the US army were using trucks to simulate tank combat because they didn't have tanks.

By 1945 we were pumping out weapons and ammunition at a greater rate than the rest of the world put together x10.


Remember, every industry was retooled. All the automakers just stopped making cars for the civilian market. It all went to the war effort.

Singer stopped making sewing machines and started making machine guns.

Literally every factory was retooled.

Now, we have some cultural challenges, and we're not manufacturing as much here as we used to, but if you couple a widely recognized existential threat like WWII was with the same sort of national unity we saw on Dec 7th, 1941 of Sept 11, 2001 we would shift drastically.

Our industrial capacity today is orders of magnitude greater than it was in 1938.

 

[spat]

You're making a lot of correct points. I'm not disputing everything you say.

But to make the same WW2 comparison on another level, many instances of the military specifically not calling in airstrikes on things like machine gun nests because it was not an efficient use of air power it was cost prohibitive.

Fast forward to Ukraine are you going to waste a 1 million dollar smart munition to kill 4 guys in a trench bunker or are you going to lob a few cheap dumb artillery shells or a cheap 20k drone?

Atacms and smart munitions are great for targeting command and control centers and supply depots or armor but not the best usage for small units.

Who is building more of the cheap 20k$ drones?

I am saying that the all in cost for delivering a $1M smart munitions is *cheaper* than the 5000 $500 artillery rounds it takes to accomplish the same mission.

Just because it costs $500 to produce one in a factory in St. Petersburg doesn't mean it only costs $500 to deliver it to the front line in Ukraine.

The logistics costs for all of it dwarf the production costs. People who concentrate on the production costs are missing the big picture.

Imagine giving Germany a 1000 M1 Abrams tanks in 1944. You'd think they would suddenly dominate the war, but they wouldn't.

They'd probably not even be able to use them, because they couldn't even keep the tigers in fuel, and one Abrams would burn the whole divisions monthly fuel allotment just getting across the compound.

Remember, this is the Russian military who ran out of gas just trying to drive their troops *to* the battle in the first couple weeks of this fiasco.

Doesn't matter if they've got a stockpile of a billion rounds in Moscow, if they can't afford to deliver them to Ukraine.

 

[holdover]

The battle of Conoco fields says you're wrong. The Russians tried that and it turns our they got their asses kicked and the US troops were just fine.

Battle of Khasham - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

No. your talking apples and oranges again . 1st I said a division. second one side had total air dominance , the had no air assets at all. the outcome was predictable

According to the U.S. military, the presence of U.S. special operations personnel in the targeted base elicited a response by coalition aircraft, including AC-130 gunships, F-22 Raptor and F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jets, MQ-9 Reaper unmanned combat aerial vehicles, AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, and B-52 bombers.[6][14][7] Nearby American artillery batteries, including an M142 HIMARS, shelled Syrian forces as well.[14

You cant apply this incident to a 1000 mile long front . We cant bring that kind of firepower to bear everytime someone shoots at us , We dont have the assets. Take away the air power and that situation would have been very different .

 

[spat]

No. your talking apples and oranges again . 1st I said a division. second one side had total air dominance , the had no air assets at all. the outcome was predictable

According to the U.S. military, the presence of U.S. special operations personnel in the targeted base elicited a response by coalition aircraft, including AC-130 gunships, F-22 Raptor and F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jets, MQ-9 Reaper unmanned combat aerial vehicles, AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, and B-52 bombers.[6][14][7] Nearby American artillery batteries, including an M142 HIMARS, shelled Syrian forces as well.[14

You cant apply this incident to a 1000 mile long front . We cant bring that kind of firepower to bear everytime someone shoots at us , We dont have the assets. Take away the air power and that situation would have been very different .

A conflict in the foreseeable future that the US doesn't have absolute air supremacy is just not a realistic scenario.

You're talking about a simultaneous assault along a 1000 mile front like this was WWI trench warfare. That's just not going to happen.

You're not even fighting the last war, you're fighting 3 or 4 wars ago.

The closest modern version of what you describe would be the TET offensive in Vietnam. An attempt to overwhelm US forces with numbers, and that was almost 60 years ago.

US forces today are qualitatively different than they were 60 years ago.

I'm not sure you quite understand by how much.

In Desert Storm 40 years ago, the Brits were the only military that could even collaborate meaningfully with us. Everyone else was relegated to support roles because they just couldn't even be useful at the tempo we were operating at. That gap has only widened.

If something like TET had been attempted in Iraq or Afghanistan it would have been an absolute massacre that ISIS or the Taliban might not have ever recovered from.

The US just doesn't lose battles, with rare exceptions we win every one since WWII, and not by a small margin.

We just get bored of fighting and go home.

 

[holdover]

A conflict in the foreseeable future that the US doesn't have absolute air supremacy is just not a realistic scenario.

Oh my God your ridiculous. Even in Afghanistan our air power couldn't reach everywhere at once

No concept of how things work . Its not like it is on TV .

If your so sure that the weapons we supply to Ukraine are so advanced how come they are losing?

 

[spat]

Oh my God your ridiculous. Even in Afghanistan our air power couldn't reach everywhere at once

No concept of how things work . Its not like it is on TV .

If your so sure that the weapons we supply to Ukraine are so advanced how come they are losing?

Sure, we didn't commit enough air power to have planes everywhere in Afghanistan.

But, we had absolute air supremacy from day one.

That doesn't mean you have planes everywhere, it just means you can put planes anywhere you want anytime you want.

Just like we didn't have troops everywhere on the ground, but we could put them anywhere we wanted.

As for why Ukraine isn't winning, well, we have been artificially limiting what they can do with those weapons, and we have been spoon feeding them *just* enough weapons go stop the Russians, but not enough to actually win.

Because our goal is to keep the war going, not for the Ukrainians to win. Ultimately it's our decision who will win, I'm not sure which way we want it to go now.

Once the opportunity to launder money runs out, then I guess we'll find out. I bet we decide to cut Ukraine loose then because that will cover up all the financial shenanigans..

Make no mistake though, we are dictating exactly the course this war is taking and we can change that course anytime we want.

 

[holdover]

Sure, we didn't commit enough air power to have planes everywhere in Afghanistan.

But, we had absolute air supremacy from day one.

We cant. We dont have enough airpower everytime somebody body runs into the enemy. The assets are prioritized . say you have a 12 man recon team with attached assets of 2 Apache and 1 one gunship for a mission . Now there is a company size element cut off and under attack , taking casualties , the commander can borrow those assets to help save the unit. Now the first recon unit runs into trouble , the air support is headed back to base to reload . After reloading they maybe allocated back to the original unit but may be overruled by field commanders in either case theres not enough firemen to put out all the fires .Now factor in losses from a near peer rival. its not going to be as easy as desert storm He also has long distance interceptors and intense anti air missiles.

Of course were comming on the field with the most aircraft . but we obviously cant bring all of our aircraft , so much has to be left to the pacific and Mediterranean, and US theaters .

Just saying its not going to be a picnic

 

[holdover]

That doesn't mean you have planes everywhere, it just means you can put planes anywhere you want anytime you want.

We dont have that.

 

[holdover]

As for why Ukraine isn't winning, well, we have been artificially limiting what they can do with those weapons, and we have been spoon feeding them *just* enough weapons go stop the Russians, but not enough to actually win.

So you think its our fault because we are intentionally withholding arms ? And the Russians are winning. What would the point of that be ? besides making a dollar ? Because in the end. the Ukraine falls. I suppose then they can arm up the Baltics and Poland

 

[holdover]

Make no mistake though, we are dictating exactly the course this war is taking and we can change that course anytime we want.

Maybe so, But losing Ukraine doesn't seem to be a good plan. No doubt NATO wanted the Crimea , that was the jewel of the whole war. That could have crippled Russia .

 

[spat]

So you think its our fault because we are intentionally withholding arms ? And the Russians are winning. What would the point of that be ? besides making a dollar ? Because in the end. the Ukraine falls. I suppose then they can arm up the Baltics and Poland

Poland *is* armed.

Poland could take Russia on their own at this point.

But, yes, that's *exactly* what the point was.

Why else do you think we pour in just enough arms to keep them afloat, but dump in so much money that we're supporting their pension fund.

It is first and foremost a money laundering operation, it always has been. Once it starts to dry up, *then* we'll decide which side we want to win.

 

[spat]

Maybe so, But losing Ukraine doesn't seem to be a good plan. No doubt NATO wanted the Crimea , that was the jewel of the whole war. That could have crippled Russia .

NATO DGAF about Crimea. Why would they care ?

You keep making the mistake of thinking Russia is anything other than the patsy in all this.

And losing Ukraine is an excellent plan if you need to cover up all the evidence of your crimes.

"Oh no, Russia won, unfortunately none of the records of how that money we gave them was spent survived..."

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

We dont have that.

In a peer to peer fight with an actual rival like china or Russia we won't be able to have fighters and attack aircraft be stationed with 100 miles of the enemy it will be too dangerous. They will need to be 500+ miles away and that will then rely on being dependent upon 60 year old tankers to give them enough gas for an effective combat radius to operate from a "safer" area.

 

[holdover]

In a peer to peer fight with an actual rival like china or Russia we won't be able to have fighters and attack aircraft be stationed with 100 miles of the enemy it will be too dangerous. They will need to be 500+ miles away and that will then rely on being dependent upon 60 year old tankers to give them enough gas for an effective combat radius to operate from a "safer" area.

Yes there's a lot of little details Like haveing your airfields fuel facility's hit with Iskander missiles

 

[holdover]

And losing Ukraine is an excellent plan if you need to cover up all the evidence of your crimes.

"Oh no, Russia won, unfortunately none of the records of how that money we gave them was spent survived..."

Well , there is some merit in what your saying there.

 

[holdover]

NATO DGAF about Crimea. Why would they care ?

Why would they care if Russia lost the black sea fleet? why would they care that Russia lost control of her shipping Lanes? Why would they care that they could crush a huge part of the Russian economy ? Why would they care that Russia would be mostly eliminated from the entire Mediterranean? Why would they care that NATO has a huge Naval base 50 yards from Russia?



There is a small but growing lobby in Europe and the United States making the case for the break-up of the Russian Federation. Their main argument is that Putin’s denial of Ukraine’s right to exist proves that the Russian state is irredeemable imperialist, and that none of its neighbors can feel safe living alongside such a revisionist and expansionist state.


Such arguments were advanced at a meeting in Brussels convened by the European Conservatives and Reform group, the conservative bloc in the European Parliament, on January 31. They called for the creation of 34 new states on the territory of the Russian Federation. In Washington, DC the Hudson Institute and Jamestown Foundation met to discuss “Preparing for the dissolution of the Russian Federation” on February 14; while a “Free Peoples of Russia Forum” convened in Sweden in December 2022. The case was laid out by Janusz Bugajski in his book “Failed State: A Guide to Russia’s Rupture.”

Why pushing for the break up of Russia is absolute folly

Even the most vociferous opposition leaders say creating new states out of the federation would be fraught with disaster. Here's why.

responsiblestatecraft.org

The thing is, Your seeing this war as a purely defensive war for Ukraine , and that Putin is hell bent on taking over Europe

Im looking at it from the point That Russia is in the way of a new world order, Dominated by Europe the US and China ( for the moment) and must be eliminated . Globalism is an agenda the US has been pushing for the last 65+years . if you look at the Ukraine from only 2014-2024 You lose a lot of perspective . Its not an isolated event independent of history. The break up of Russia and eventually the US is necessary . the independent nation state is supposed to be a thing of the past . Some countries Like the US and Europe are going along with the program and some countries like Russia Iran and others are not . In any case were looking at this through two different lenses

 

[Mosinitis]

Russian army on the outskirts of "New York".

 

[fresch]

Do apples to apples.
U.S. 2024 vs Russia/NK/Chi-na, 2024
Raw materials, manufacturing, logistics, technologies, Command and control capabilities, it ain't 1944. All fight for money as per usual; I see no redemption from any side.
Too much back channel money being tossed around, follow the money, if we could, would show what is going on.
Just the world stage playing dress up and our children and money pay for it. All while the military and political machines reap the harvest.

 

[JaguarJaguarGolf]

Financial channel just said Russian sold about $50 Billion of oil in June.

 

[fresch]

As the cold war continues.

 

[Mosinitis]

Off to F-16 pilot training.

 

[Mosinitis]

Fucking idiots in Washington live in their own little world. COCKSUCKERS!!!!

 

[Mosinitis]

Ukraine’s army retreats from positions as Russia gets closer to seizing strategically important town - AOL

A spokesperson for Ukraine’s military said its army has retreated from a neighborhood in the outskirts of Chasiv Yar, a strategically important town in the eastern Donetsk region which has been reduced to rubble under a months-long Russian assault. Chasiv Yar lies a short distance west Bakhmut...

www.aol.com

 

[Mosinitis]

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

 

[Robin]

Well there ya go, now it all makes sense!

Robin

 

[Mosinitis]

Easier pill to swallow narratives are for intellectual cowards.

 

[Robin]

I'll bet you're just gleeful, what with the unintellectual scenario being presented as we speak. Meat assaults, yeah thats the ticket.
Robin

 

[Mosinitis]

You don't like what this country is doing, but you can't admit Russia is the good guy in this.
From Domino theory to Stand with Ukraine, U.S. foreign policy cost millions if lives around the world in countries that were never a threat to us. Russia is fighting for her own survival after all peaceful means failed.