Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine (/thread-23071.html)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 01-31-2023

(01-31-2023, 04:05 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Maybe, finally, longer range rockets (GLSDB) going to Ukraine, eventually.

Yes, eventually being the operative word. Too bad in many ways. This weapon would add very little training or logistics burden while providing a significant range and destructive power benefit. It is however not yet really "available".
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/saab-expects-first-contract-soon-for-new-glsdb-artillery-weapon
As of November 2022 nobody from any nation had bought one. If this was a "normal" procurement, none would deliver for probably two years. Maybe this time we can do "better", but this weapon has not yet really been tested "officially" yet. Problems often do crop up.

Quote:If we gave Ukraine ATACMS in appreciable numbers, an assault on Crimea could probably be successfully prosecuted, and pretty quickly. Kerch bridge would be dropped day one of an assault (and if we do ever send ATACMS I don't think it would be announced ahead of time).

For sure, although you are more certain than I am that we wouldn't announce it in advance. The main thing is that Ukraine needs it, and not "just" to blow up the Kerch bridge. The toll ATACMS would take on Russian logistics by it's mere existence would be "of immense proportions", let alone what it actually would destroy.

Quote:GLSDBs could eventually be in range of Kerch bridge if Ukraine retakes all of their territory to the Azov coast, but would be at very limit of range, likely making it possible to intercept.

I don't think that would be a factor. Shooting down missiles of this class is real difficult. I haven't seen anything from Russia that indicates their air defense system can actually do it. In theory, and in product brochures, yes. Lots of things Russia has claimed haven't worked as advertised. That said, I would bet you lots of money that Russia has several high-power GPS jammers covering that bridge and the surrounding area. They probably don't use them all the time, but if they get advance warning that could make hitting the target a lot more difficult. Russian GPS jammers work. The hope is that they will only do so once, but Ukraine doesn't have adequate anti-radiation capability to ensure that.

Quote:And would need to use a lot to appreciably damage the bridge.

Yep.

Quote:It seems to me the US is giving Ukraine the tools that could enable them to eventually win back most of their territory, but not the tools that could enable a quick rout.

It's not just the tools, although that matters. It will take a while to learn how to use them even if you have them, and that skill is necessary for a "rout". Hopefully once the skill is mostly in place, we can see such results. Supposedly there is a training course being designed to teach the Leopard 2A6 in 5 weeks.
UPDATE: https://www.yahoo.com/news/poland-aims-training-time-leopard-184108114.html
We shall see, but I am a skeptic on that one. OTOH Russian morale isn't that strong, so if Ukraine can keep it that way getting the Russians to "run" may not be so hard.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-01-2023

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA429075.pdf

This document may require a bit more time than most readers want to commit, but it does analyze some important questions. The most important question is how can Ukraine mount a SEAD effort with very limited air force capability. The answer is that ATACMS can pretty much do the job on targets within it's range. The US used a JSTARS platform (as well as I am sure other platforms not mentioned in the document) to "find" the "time sensitive targets" and kill them. ATACMS has the range to kill all the BUKs, S-300s and S-400s in Crimea and the rest of occupied Ukraine. Obviously shorter range systems are vulnerable as well. As the paper point out, fixed wing aircraft have some advantages in destroying enemy air defenses (as well as some significant relative disadvantages). Ukraine doesn't have enough assets to even contemplate a serious large-scale SEAD operation with fixed wing aircraft. With ATACMS they could do a credible job and open the sky above 10k ft to at least some of their aircraft. That makes JDAM attacks on virtually everything possible with relatively little risk to the attacking aircraft. If that point is reached, Russia is totally screwed.

Russia could still put up an umbrella over most of Donbas using S-400 type systems located in Russia proper, which are presumably still "off limits" even if Ukraine gets ATACMS. The effectiveness of this would be limited by bad geometry in many cases, and long range intercepts are always "harder". They can also use fighter aircraft to kill Ukrainian attack aircraft in Donbas. However, the Russian aircraft will be vulnerable to Ukrainian missile systems in that case. Russia probably does not have enough TBMs (Iskanders mostly) available to go after Ukrainian air defense or they would have already done it.

Obviously, there are "issues". First, Ukraine would need to have ATACMS. Second, they would need to "find" the targets. The US probably doesn't want to get in the business of directly giving them that data, and this data needs to be "near real time" (10s of minutes, not days). There are older assets that both the US (RC-12s of various vintages) and the EU have that can be given to Ukraine to do this job. Ukraine already has the people to do it, just no platforms any more. Two or three non-combat aircraft that we don't need anymore wouldn't even move the $ meter, and Russia can't bitch because they aren't even armed!  Ukraine may not "own" the airspace above 10k ft over their country after this effort is made, but the could assuredly use it safely at least some of the time. They can also find and kill the GPS jammers protecting high value target areas :-). IFF will remain a problem until Ukraine isn't flying Soviet era aircraft, but that affects both sides more or less equally.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 02-01-2023

More on GLSDB

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-expected-to-send-ukraine-longer-range-smart-bombs-in-next-aid-package-11675270504

This was the newsiest bit to me

Quote:The weapon hasn’t previously attracted any orders, and while Boeing confirmed it had available stocks, it declined to comment on any potential transfer to Ukraine.

It does seem that long range precision munitions such as ATACMS or GLSDB would be so much more valuable, and particularly more cost effective, than jets. They can accomplish many similar things but cheaper, less dangerously, and far easier to train/maintain.

F16s would be cool, but an equivalent dollar value of HIMARS, GLSDB, or ATACMS would a lot more useful.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-01-2023

(02-01-2023, 01:39 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  More on GLSDB

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-expected-to-send-ukraine-longer-range-smart-bombs-in-next-aid-package-11675270504

This was the newsiest bit to me

Quote:The weapon hasn’t previously attracted any orders, and while Boeing confirmed it had available stocks, it declined to comment on any potential transfer to Ukraine.

I believe Boeing is playing fast and loose with the truth. They probably have some significant number of test items built, but nobody builds weapons for inventory (particularly weapons that have no targeted requirement and no previous customers). Also, I can't imagine the US would supply a weapon (that "we" pay for) that has never been through a government approved test program. What if due to some undiscovered design fault some of the missiles explode on launch, for example.

Quote:It does seem that long range precision munitions such as ATACMS or GLSDB would be so much more valuable, and particularly more cost effective, than jets. They can accomplish many similar things but cheaper, less dangerously, and far easier to train/maintain.

F16s would be cool, but an equivalent dollar value of HIMARS, GLSDB, or ATACMS would a lot more useful.

You are absolutely correct. While there are some things the rockets can't do, if it is a "one or the other" situation HIMARS/M270 firing ATACMS (or PrSM if we are ignoring reality) is the way to go. GLSDB would be a close second if we could actually get them and they do actually work. Of course, IMO both is the "right" answer. F-16s consume different Ukrainian resources so they don't conflict. ATACMS is great because it uses existing infrastructure and training. It also checks a lot of boxes.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BigJohn043 - 02-02-2023

(01-30-2023, 08:44 AM)Goose Wrote:  

(01-30-2023, 12:01 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:  A pretty well-sourced article on the possibility of supplying F-16s and other military equipment: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/28/pentagon-send-f-16s-ukraine-00080045?utm_medium=social&utm_source=Twitter

Spoiler, Goose is going to be upset that, apparently, training won’t start until a decision is made to supply the jets.

It appears that almost everybody has finally realized that time is NOT on Ukraine's side. https://news.yahoo.com/zelenskyy-russia-expects-prolong-war-184832219.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall Their economy is a shambles, their cities are attacked by missiles constantly, and Russia seems willing to lose an arbitrarily large number of it's citizens to "win" this conflict. Ukraine can win, but they can't take 5 years to do it. IMO they can't take 3 years to do it, but there are a lot of variables in that assessment. For months "everybody" has been estimating that Russia is "almost" out of missiles and "almost" out of artillery ammunition. Russia isn't going to run out of artillery ammunition. They may be firing stuff that won't go of half the time, but 50% of a big number is still a big number. They are still building missiles and are now using newer S-400 vintage missiles as ground attack weapons. It is a poor weapon for this application, and very expensive for what it does. However, if you have thousands of them, which Russia does, that isn't a problem. Throw in a few KH-22s for a good measure. This bombardment  isn't going to stop. It may ebb and flow, but Russia is doing everything it can to make sure it continues.

I don't get this idea that time is not on Ukraine's side.

I agree that their economy has been totally destroyed.  GDP down ~50% or so.  But as long as the West is willing to finance the war and provide some form of humanitarian aid they can fight on.  And what are their options?  They can try for peace but whatever Russia agrees to they won't let NATO in so you just get another war in a couple of years.  And it will be hard to get the west to help them rebuild in that scenario.  And given the relatively low price tag I see no signs that the West isn't willing to finance this thing for a long time.  Maybe I am wrong in that but it seems like the only limiting factor for Ukraine.

OTOH, the Russian economy is also in the tank.  GDP is down ~20%  And they have to finance this war themselves with no external help.  Militarily they have also been on a long losing streak since the first few weeks on the war.  And Russia has some pretty clear options.  They can just retreat to the pre-war lines.  That probably dries up all of the Western military aid and turns it into rebuilding aid.

The worst case for Russia is they start to lose Crimea and the Dombass and the west lets Ukraine take those back.  And they might.

My guess is time in actually on Ukraine's side but would be happy to be told why I am wrong.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-02-2023

(02-02-2023, 03:35 PM)BigJohn043 Wrote:  I don't get this idea that time is not on Ukraine's side.



I agree that their economy has been totally destroyed.  GDP down ~50% or so.  But as long as the West is willing to finance the war and provide some form of humanitarian aid they can fight on.  And what are their options?  They can try for peace but whatever Russia agrees to they won't let NATO in so you just get another war in a couple of years.  And it will be hard to get the west to help them rebuild in that scenario.  And given the relatively low price tag I see no signs that the West isn't willing to finance this thing for a long time.  Maybe I am wrong in that but it seems like the only limiting factor for Ukraine.

I think there are two limiting factors for Ukraine. One is that eventually they will have suffered so much economic and material damage that they can't effectively use the military hardware they have/can get. They will of course try to fight on but eventually Russia can literally "win" the war and occupy the country. Ukraine's options in that case are exactly none. Right now, the western part of Ukraine still functions, and the Ukrainian railroads still function. The Russians blowing up the power grid piece by piece will eventually bring the railroads to a halt. Ukraine simply can't repair it fast enough because the required quantity of replacement equipment simply doesn't exist. If the major cities are not functional because there is no power their economic activity will fall still further. The economic aid provided Ukraine to this point, while generous, is inadequate to compensate for the destruction, and the destruction is ongoing. It won't stop unless Russia becomes physically unable to continue delivering it or quits for some other reason. As of now, neither appear likely. Under those conditions, Ukraine will just get weaker militarily. Eventually they will be unable to stop the Russians. Germany didn't "quit" in WWII, but eventually they just didn't have the economic or political ability to continue.

The second limiting factor is how much political stability can persist in Ukraine as losses mount. Zelenskyy has done a great job, but eventually he, like Lincoln, will face a lot of people who don't like how he is running the war. At best, this political infighting will force Zelenskyy to run the war differently than he "should". It may result in negotiations or treachery by some part of the population. Ukraine already has a significant minority that actually wants Russia to win. There are a whole lot of other people who just want the war to stop. That second group may decide that being part of Russia is better than being part of a frozen war or a war they are losing.

Quote:OTOH, the Russian economy is also in the tank.  GDP is down ~20%  And they have to finance this war themselves with no external help.  Militarily they have also been on a long losing streak since the first few weeks on the war.  And Russia has some pretty clear options.  They can just retreat to the pre-war lines.

Putin can't retreat and survive. It is also unclear that his replacement wouldn't be even more of a "hawk" than Putin is. While it is arguable that the Russian population won't put up with this situation forever, so far they aren't showing any signs they have the will to change it. Russia has the advantage that while it is suffering economic damage it is not having it's infrastructure systematically reduced to rubble. Ukraine is suffering that damage. Russia is also a totalitarian state so political pressure, while it does exist, is not nearly as much of an issue as it is in Ukraine.

Quote:The worst case for Russia is they start to lose Crimea and the Dombass and the west lets Ukraine take those back.  And they might.

Indeed Ukraine might, and I don't think they need the west's permission. They just need to do it while they can still use their railroads to move the tanks and while there is enough cohesion to organize the effort. I think that is the way to victory. If Ukraine can take back Crimea I think that will make Russia quit the war. The political fallout would be too much for the hawks to overcome. The Donbas is much tougher, and while I think Ukraine maybe could do it, start with Crimea :-). If Ukraine can't do this, Russia will eventually grind them down with missiles against civilian infrastructure. There are those that say Russia can't do that forever, but so far their predictions have been incorrect. I wouldn't bet that Russia will "run out" of missiles. They will do what it takes to keep making them, and Putin doesn't care how many of his troops die while this process goes on.



Victory in Crimea is a much better scenario :-)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - fullmetal - 02-02-2023

Agreed with Goose, time is not on Ukraine's side.  AFAIK, Russia continues to deport/traffick Ukrainian civilians into the remote recesses of Russian geography while eroding civilian infrastructure with waves of missile strikes.  Even if the casualty ratio between Ukrainian and Russian troops is 1:10, who would bet against the sheer numbers of troops that Russia can eventually (if painfully) mobilize?  And continued war crimes against ethnic Ukrainians in contested regions merely increases the likelihood of political unrest even if those areas are retaken by Ukraine.  I'm just not feeling a victory unless the West acts decisively sooner rather than later.  If we're not doing our best, Ukrainian blood is surely on our hands as well, and they may quietly resent our reluctance to act sooner.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 02-02-2023

I think this war will likely be going on for several more years. And I expect the US and the West should be able to sustain high levels of aid for at least a few more years. The aid to Ukraine is a very small fraction of US overall military spending and its probably the best value on the dollar of that.

Zelensky's support remains very high, and hard to foresee that changing absent a major defeat, which Ukraine hasn't suffered since Mariupol.

Russia hasn't been able to shut down Ukrainian railways or keep the lights off in major cities for sustained periods of time yet, in spite of using up all their best stuff already. Hard to see that changing any time soon.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-02-2023

(02-02-2023, 07:11 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  And I expect the US and the West should be able to sustain high levels of aid for at least a few more years. The aid to Ukraine is a very small fraction of US overall military spending and its probably the best value on the dollar of that.

I agree with this idea. The US can continue at the current level for as long as we want without creating big problems. I would prefer us to increase it in order to achieve faster results.

Quote:Zelensky's support remains very high, and hard to foresee that changing absent a major defeat, which Ukraine hasn't suffered since Mariupol.

This is an area we disagree. I think Zelenskyy's support will survive defeat but not stagnation. The Ukrainian people right now believe they are going to win. The problem will arise when it appears this war is going to go on forever. At that point people will start looking for an alternative. They have to see a way ahead. Right now, they do. When they don't is when trouble arises. Zelenskyy is very aware of this and that is one reason he is pushing back so hard on the US intelligence estimate regarding Ukraine's ability to execute an offensive in the near term. He knows his nation doesn't want to face that.

Quote:Russia hasn't been able to shut down Ukrainian railways or keep the lights off in major cities for sustained periods of time yet, in spite of using up all their best stuff already. Hard to see that changing any time soon.

Russia hasn't "used up all their best stuff". They are undoubtedly in a "hand to mouth" mode on Kalibr-KH-101 class missiles, but they keep making them. Every raid features several of them. These are the weapons that wreck specific targets with high accuracy. The S-400 missiles will undoubtedly be used in greater quantities to complicate the air defense problem  as well as to damage areas in somewhat random ways. The KH-22s are also a nuisance that inflicts damage somewhat at random. They carry a big warhead so they do lots of damage even when they miss their notional target.

As far as keeping the lights off in major cities, Russia has been relatively successful.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraine-struggles-to-repair-power-grid-as-russian-airstrikes-continue/
The damage to infrastructure tends to be cumulative with a tipping point. Once the damage gets too bad, things can go downhill fast. The Ukrainian's urgent requests for more air defense systems shows they know this is a problem. It is not just that the winter brings on situations where no electricity means no heat. It also means that many manufacturing facilities can't function at all in any season. In no way has Ukraine reached a steady state where things are getting fixed as fast as they are being destroyed. Ukraine also uses electric traction on most of it's main rail lines. Trains are still running, but as the damage to the power grid accumulates, that can change.

I still think Ukraine can win. However, like Zelenskyy I believe now is the time. He too believes time is not on Ukraine's side. As I previously cited:
https://news.yahoo.com/zelenskyy-russia-expects-prolong-war-184832219.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - TrumpCard - 02-03-2023

Holy smokes. The US now estimates 200,000 Russian deaths in the conflict. 

https://t.co/CmuFu0J7Uy

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 02-03-2023

200k casualties. Maybe 50k dead, 150k wounded.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-03-2023

(02-03-2023, 09:24 AM)dabigv13 Wrote:  200k casualties. Maybe 50k dead, 150k wounded.

You are correct that casualties does not mean dead. As far as the ratio goes, in this war it is probably harder to know than in other wars. This is because 1) neither side publishes a breakdown of KIA vs WIA that is reliable and 2) the Russian army at least seems to not place a priority on rescuing the wounded. This may lead to more deaths than "normal". I think you might have accounted for that in your estimate, in so far as anyone can. 3:1 WIA vs KIA is a WW2 type number. Russia may actually be worse if they aren't taking care of their wounded very well.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - gocard14 - 02-03-2023

Ukraine’s most recent tally of Russian dead is 129870. As Goose alludes; no way to know the real number. It is worth noting though that leaks of Russian documents for payments owed to the families of dead or missing have been closer to Ukraines numbers then western numbers, and those payments exclude DPR and LLR soldiers. Of course leaks may not be accurate. 

In short, who knows? But it is a brobdingnagian number.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 02-03-2023

More newly revealed info on GDSLBs. They will initially need their own distinct launcher.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraines-new-weapon-will-force-russian-shift-2023-02-02/

Quote:It is not yet compatible with HIMARS, but the United States will provide Ukraine new launchers for the rockets, said sources. GLSDB could be delivered as early as spring 2023, according to a document reviewed by Reuters.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/1621573743888719879?s=20&t=UJwDktFR2UMz-CIC7Q5WmQ[/tweet]

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BigJohn043 - 02-03-2023

(02-02-2023, 08:38 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(02-02-2023, 07:11 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  And I expect the US and the West should be able to sustain high levels of aid for at least a few more years. The aid to Ukraine is a very small fraction of US overall military spending and its probably the best value on the dollar of that.

I agree with this idea. The US can continue at the current level for as long as we want without creating big problems. I would prefer us to increase it in order to achieve faster results.

Quote:Zelensky's support remains very high, and hard to foresee that changing absent a major defeat, which Ukraine hasn't suffered since Mariupol.

This is an area we disagree. I think Zelenskyy's support will survive defeat but not stagnation. The Ukrainian people right now believe they are going to win. The problem will arise when it appears this war is going to go on forever. At that point people will start looking for an alternative. They have to see a way ahead. Right now, they do. When they don't is when trouble arises. Zelenskyy is very aware of this and that is one reason he is pushing back so hard on the US intelligence estimate regarding Ukraine's ability to execute an offensive in the near term. He knows his nation doesn't want to face that.

Quote:Russia hasn't been able to shut down Ukrainian railways or keep the lights off in major cities for sustained periods of time yet, in spite of using up all their best stuff already. Hard to see that changing any time soon.

Russia hasn't "used up all their best stuff". They are undoubtedly in a "hand to mouth" mode on Kalibr-KH-101 class missiles, but they keep making them. Every raid features several of them. These are the weapons that wreck specific targets with high accuracy. The S-400 missiles will undoubtedly be used in greater quantities to complicate the air defense problem  as well as to damage areas in somewhat random ways. The KH-22s are also a nuisance that inflicts damage somewhat at random. They carry a big warhead so they do lots of damage even when they miss their notional target.

As far as keeping the lights off in major cities, Russia has been relatively successful.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/ukraine-struggles-to-repair-power-grid-as-russian-airstrikes-continue/
The damage to infrastructure tends to be cumulative with a tipping point. Once the damage gets too bad, things can go downhill fast. The Ukrainian's urgent requests for more air defense systems shows they know this is a problem. It is not just that the winter brings on situations where no electricity means no heat. It also means that many manufacturing facilities can't function at all in any season. In no way has Ukraine reached a steady state where things are getting fixed as fast as they are being destroyed. Ukraine also uses electric traction on most of it's main rail lines. Trains are still running, but as the damage to the power grid accumulates, that can change.

I still think Ukraine can win. However, like Zelenskyy I believe now is the time. He too believes time is not on Ukraine's side. As I previously cited:
https://news.yahoo.com/zelenskyy-russia-expects-prolong-war-184832219.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

I agree that damage to infrastructure at some level is cumulative and at some point makes it impossible to put up a defense.  I would note that unlike WWII, the supply of arms to Ukraine comes from outside the country and will continue to flow.  You do have to get it to the battlefield however.

So the best case for the Russians is that Ukraine collapses and they take the country.  Of course this leads to a humanitarian disaster that Russia has to deal with but maybe they don't care.  The Ukraine army is not going to go away.  It probably becomes a guerilla force that fights the Russians for the next 20 years supplied by the West.  And that is the best case for the Russians.

I disagree with the idea that Ukraine has any real  option other than to fight.  How do you do a deal with the Russians even if you are willing to give up territory.  And surrendering is way worse than even the hell of war.  Zelensky will remain popular and Ukraine will continue to fight even in a stalemate because they don't have any other real alternatives.

And of course Zelensky is saying that time isn't on their side.  His people are suffering and dying.  He wants as much aid as fast as he can get it.  FWIW, I also support more aid but I don't really believe this argument.

I also disagree that the Russians don't have alternatives.  Putin has absolute power in that country and why can't he simply declare victory, claim they have punished the Nazis, and go back to the pre-war borders.  So not only does Russia have alternatives but don't forget their economy is being trashed.  And they have to fund the war.

Maybe I am wrong but that is my current thinking.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-03-2023

(02-03-2023, 11:49 AM)BigJohn043 Wrote:  Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

Ditto. This is actually a difficult topic because there are piles of unknowns.

Quote:I agree that damage to infrastructure at some level is cumulative and at some point makes it impossible to put up a defense.  I would note that unlike WWII, the supply of arms to Ukraine comes from outside the country and will continue to flow.  You do have to get it to the battlefield however.

So the best case for the Russians is that Ukraine collapses and they take the country.  Of course this leads to a humanitarian disaster that Russia has to deal with but maybe they don't care.  The Ukraine army is not going to go away.  It probably becomes a guerilla force that fights the Russians for the next 20 years supplied by the West.  And that is the best case for the Russians.

It indeed makes no sense for Russia to subjugate Ukraine in a war that will create "bad blood" for at least a generation. OTOH, one must remember this isn't the first time Russia has done exactly that. How long and how well the Ukrainian population would resist is anybody's guess. Ukraine chose not to join the Russian federation at least in large degree because they believed they would be treated like Poland. They expected lots of western aid that they did not get. Whether that was a realistic expectation or not, it didn't happen. We can say that really disappointed lots of Ukrainians, to put it mildly. Subsequently Ukraine spent a lot of years with a government that was aligned with Russia. The Maidan revolution that happened in 2014 was the first clear break with the idea Ukraine and Russia were joined at the hip, kind of like the US and the UK at least. It is clear that plenty of Ukrainians today don't want anything to do with Russia, but how long that feeling will sustain them is unknown.

Quote:I disagree with the idea that Ukraine has any real  option other than to fight.  How do you do a deal with the Russians even if you are willing to give up territory.

Totally agree. A negotiated peace that leaves Ukraine with no access to the Sea of Azov and Russia still in Crimea/Kherson is a "no go". Russia can just come back whenever they wish.

Quote:And surrendering is way worse than even the hell of war.  Zelensky will remain popular and Ukraine will continue to fight even in a stalemate because they don't have any other real alternatives.

Surrendering is a formality when you are going to be defeated anyway, so that case is not "important". Historically almost all "stalemates" lead to a change of government (on one or both sides) after a while. People become unwilling to continue doing the same thing and expecting a different result. They decide to try "something different". Sometimes trying to agree on a new course of action is impossible, leaving regime weakened by dissent that then loses the war.

Quote:And of course Zelensky is saying that time isn't on their side.  His people are suffering and dying.  He wants as much aid as fast as he can get it.  FWIW, I also support more aid but I don't really believe this argument.
[quote]
You are right that Zelenskyy has every reason to want to end the war ASAP no matter what he thinks the future would hold. The problem is that Ukraine is suffering more than Russia is. That is clear. To believe Ukraine will hold on and Russia will quit goes against that ratio. That may indeed happen, but from a distance that view is counter-intuitive.

I think, FWIW, Zelenskyy doesn't want to test the hypothesis that Ukraine's superior motivation will allow them to hang on and Russia will quit. I think Zelenskyy realizes that even "victory" doesn't destroy Russia as an aggressive problem for Ukraine. Only regime change can do that, and even regime change doesn't guarantee Russia will be come a "good neighbor". He needs a victory that allows him to bring in outside agents to ensure Russia can't do this again. Right now, even the US is in a "wait and see" mode regarding security guarantees for Ukraine. Only with such guarantees made credible by actual force presence can Ukraine expect a tranquil future.

[quote]
I also disagree that the Russians don't have alternatives.  Putin has absolute power in that country and why can't he simply declare victory, claim they have punished the Nazis, and go back to the pre-war borders.  So not only does Russia have alternatives but don't forget their economy is being trashed.  And they have to fund the war.

Putin could indeed do that, but his rule wouldn't survive such an action. Putin's power is based on his ability to satisfy his "base", which is a diverse set of oligarchs, military, and security forces. As long as Putin can hold out the idea to them that victory in Ukraine will bring these people benefits can he remain in power. Many of these people are becoming skeptical as it is already. A retreat to the pre-war borders where he declares victory may satisfy the populace but it won't satisfy his base. He can't do that. He is in the same situation Mussolini found himself in WWII. Once he got in the war, anything less than victory and he was gone. So with Putin. Russia may indeed have alternatives, but he does not.

Even worse, the "system" that exists in Putin's base may also feel that failure in Ukraine threatens the system that benefits them. They remove Putin because he is a "loser", not because he is a monster. They then replace him with another monster who is not (yet) a loser.

Quote:Maybe I am wrong but that is my current thinking.

Totally understand that there isn't "one answer" to these questions. Unfortunately none of us here know what any of the main players actually believe, so at best we can guess. We also don't really know what the populace of these areas really believes either. This is one reason why "miscalculations" are so possible in war.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BigJohn043 - 02-04-2023

(02-03-2023, 02:23 PM)Goose Wrote:  [quote="BigJohn043" pid='381145' dateline='1675450141']
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

Ditto. This is actually a difficult topic because there are piles of unknowns.

Quote:I agree that damage to infrastructure at some level is cumulative and at some point makes it impossible to put up a defense.  I would note that unlike WWII, the supply of arms to Ukraine comes from outside the country and will continue to flow.  You do have to get it to the battlefield however.

So the best case for the Russians is that Ukraine collapses and they take the country.  Of course this leads to a humanitarian disaster that Russia has to deal with but maybe they don't care.  The Ukraine army is not going to go away.  It probably becomes a guerilla force that fights the Russians for the next 20 years supplied by the West.  And that is the best case for the Russians.

It indeed makes no sense for Russia to subjugate Ukraine in a war that will create "bad blood" for at least a generation. OTOH, one must remember this isn't the first time Russia has done exactly that. How long and how well the Ukrainian population would resist is anybody's guess. Ukraine chose not to join the Russian federation at least in large degree because they believed they would be treated like Poland. They expected lots of western aid that they did not get. Whether that was a realistic expectation or not, it didn't happen. We can say that really disappointed lots of Ukrainians, to put it mildly. Subsequently Ukraine spent a lot of years with a government that was aligned with Russia. The Maidan revolution that happened in 2014 was the first clear break with the idea Ukraine and Russia were joined at the hip, kind of like the US and the UK at least. It is clear that plenty of Ukrainians today don't want anything to do with Russia, but how long that feeling will sustain them is unknown.

Quote:I disagree with the idea that Ukraine has any real  option other than to fight.  How do you do a deal with the Russians even if you are willing to give up territory.

Totally agree. A negotiated peace that leaves Ukraine with no access to the Sea of Azov and Russia still in Crimea/Kherson is a "no go". Russia can just come back whenever they wish.

Quote:And surrendering is way worse than even the hell of war.  Zelensky will remain popular and Ukraine will continue to fight even in a stalemate because they don't have any other real alternatives.

Surrendering is a formality when you are going to be defeated anyway, so that case is not "important". Historically almost all "stalemates" lead to a change of government (on one or both sides) after a while. People become unwilling to continue doing the same thing and expecting a different result. They decide to try "something different". Sometimes trying to agree on a new course of action is impossible, leaving regime weakened by dissent that then loses the war.

Quote:And of course Zelensky is saying that time isn't on their side.  His people are suffering and dying.  He wants as much aid as fast as he can get it.  FWIW, I also support more aid but I don't really believe this argument.
[quote]
You are right that Zelenskyy has every reason to want to end the war ASAP no matter what he thinks the future would hold. The problem is that Ukraine is suffering more than Russia is. That is clear. To believe Ukraine will hold on and Russia will quit goes against that ratio. That may indeed happen, but from a distance that view is counter-intuitive.

I think, FWIW, Zelenskyy doesn't want to test the hypothesis that Ukraine's superior motivation will allow them to hang on and Russia will quit. I think Zelenskyy realizes that even "victory" doesn't destroy Russia as an aggressive problem for Ukraine. Only regime change can do that, and even regime change doesn't guarantee Russia will be come a "good neighbor". He needs a victory that allows him to bring in outside agents to ensure Russia can't do this again. Right now, even the US is in a "wait and see" mode regarding security guarantees for Ukraine. Only with such guarantees made credible by actual force presence can Ukraine expect a tranquil future.

[quote]
I also disagree that the Russians don't have alternatives.  Putin has absolute power in that country and why can't he simply declare victory, claim they have punished the Nazis, and go back to the pre-war borders.  So not only does Russia have alternatives but don't forget their economy is being trashed.  And they have to fund the war.

Putin could indeed do that, but his rule wouldn't survive such an action. Putin's power is based on his ability to satisfy his "base", which is a diverse set of oligarchs, military, and security forces. As long as Putin can hold out the idea to them that victory in Ukraine will bring these people benefits can he remain in power. Many of these people are becoming skeptical as it is already. A retreat to the pre-war borders where he declares victory may satisfy the populace but it won't satisfy his base. He can't do that. He is in the same situation Mussolini found himself in WWII. Once he got in the war, anything less than victory and he was gone. So with Putin. Russia may indeed have alternatives, but he does not.

Even worse, the "system" that exists in Putin's base may also feel that failure in Ukraine threatens the system that benefits them. They remove Putin because he is a "loser", not because he is a monster. They then replace him with another monster who is not (yet) a loser.

Quote:Maybe I am wrong but that is my current thinking.

Totally understand that there isn't "one answer" to these questions. Unfortunately none of us here know what any of the main players actually believe, so at best we can guess. We also don't really know what the populace of these areas really believes either. This is one reason why "miscalculations" are so possible in war.
[/quote]

Once again, thanks for your thoughtful response.

I think we agree that the Ukraine has really no options but to fight on.

I think we disagree on the source of Putin's support and if he can afford to retreat.

Putin originally rose to power in opposition to the Oligarchs.  He was the KGB guy that was going to oppose them and all that they stole from the Russian people.  Eventually he did a deal with them and made himself the richest man in the world.  But the Oligarchs hate him and always have.  That is why they have been getting murdered over the last year.

Putin gets his power from the military and the people.  Russians are intensely nationalistic and part of the reason he has a war every 5-10 years is to get the Russian homeland juices flowing.

But as this war continues to go poorly eventually the military is going to be sick of their guys getting slaughtered.  Maybe they don't care about the conscripts but brobdingnagian amounts of officers are dying as well.

My guess is in a stalemate the Ukraine has no choice to but fight on and the Russians / Putin do have a choice.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-04-2023

(02-04-2023, 03:55 PM)BigJohn043 Wrote:  I think we agree that the Ukraine has really no options but to fight on.


I think we disagree on the source of Putin's support and if he can afford to retreat.



Putin originally rose to power in opposition to the Oligarchs.  He was the KGB guy that was going to oppose them and all that they stole from the Russian people.  Eventually he did a deal with them and made himself the richest man in the world.  But the Oligarchs hate him and always have.  That is why they have been getting murdered over the last year.

Putin did a deal because 1) he couldn't beat them and 2) he wanted to be one of them. As you say, he succeeded financially, but the Oligarchs hate him and, in the main, each other. It is all about power.

Quote:Putin gets his power from the military and the people.  Russians are intensely nationalistic and part of the reason he has a war every 5-10 years is to get the Russian homeland juices flowing.

Indeed. These wars don't much please the constituencies unless they are successful. For the Russian people, the jury is still out. If Putin captures the Ukraine, he can indeed claim victory, no matter the cost. That will "work" in the short term for sure, maybe not in the long term.

Quote:But as this war continues to go poorly eventually the military is going to be sick of their guys getting slaughtered.  Maybe they don't care about the conscripts but of immense proportions amounts of officers are dying as well.



My guess is in a stalemate the Ukraine has no choice to but fight on and the Russians / Putin do have a choice.

As you say, we disagree on this. If Putin can't take the entire Ukraine and attempts to freeze the war, Ukraine will keep fighting and thaw it out. If Putin attempts to return to the borders of 24 Feb, 1) Ukraine will say no, and 2) the Russian people won't stand for it. That will be a clear "loss" and Putin can't spin his way out of that. I agree Russia has a choice, but I don't think Putin does. We shall see.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 02-05-2023

Stay classy Colorado state…

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/35592920/colorado-state-sorry-russia-chant-ukrainian-player

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 02-06-2023

https://www.yahoo.com/news/eu-ukraine-wartime-summit-deliver-231557316.html

I am really concerned about the following from the article:

Quote:"If weapon (supplies) are accelerated, specifically long- range weapons, not only will we not abandon Bakhmut but we will also begin to remove the occupiers from the Donbas (region of eastern Ukraine), occupied since 2014," Zelenskiy said.

The U.S. military aid announced on Friday included rockets known as Ground Launched Small Diameter Bombs (GLSDB), whose 151 km (94 mile) range would put all of Russia's supply lines in eastern Ukraine within reach, as well as part of the Crimea peninsula, also seized by Moscow in 2014.

The GLSDB would be a great weapon in lots of ways for use by any military. It is relatively "cheap". However, I fear it just isn't ready for large scale deployment anytime soon, and the idea that it is going to get to Ukraine in the next two months or so seems far-feteched at best, fanciful at worst.

We would be relying on a weapon that nobody has ever bought. We would be relying on the idea that Boeing and Saab have already built enough of them on their own dime to supply a major combatant in a major war. These missiles admittedly can't yet be launched from a HIMARS/M270 and will require an as-of-now unspecified "new launcher" or the development of software for the HIMARS (and associated testing). This whole thing is just "too good to be true". It allows the Administration to theoretically get some of the benefits of ATACMS without going back on their categorical statement that we would not supply ATACMS to Ukraine. That's great if it can actually happen, but I don't see how that is possible. Now is not the time to deal in wishful thinking. We need to stay grounded in reality.

---