[BostonCard]

Oops.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ralee85/status/1580306517949001728?s=46&t=xJm5xQga1FhEVMt1co8TcQ[/tweet]

How did they not see the mine?

BC

[BostonCard]

Oops.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ralee85/status/1580306517949001728?s=46&t=xJm5xQga1FhEVMt1co8TcQ[/tweet]

How did they not see the mine?

BC

[GK3]

Oops.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ralee85/status/1580306517949001728?s=46&t=xJm5xQga1FhEVMt1co8TcQ[/tweet]

How did they not see the mine?

BC

Either a desire to get of the war in any manner possible, or an indication that no one in a Russian AV can see anything.

---

There is starting to be some movement in getting Ukraine "long range weapons."  I'm not quite sure if that means ATACMS, or possibly something else.  Apparently Lloyd Austin at the Ramstein 6 meeting today, "Ukraine needs long range weapons." 

My first question to Goose would would be, what are some realistic options?  

My second question to Goose would be, if ATACMS were on the table (I know we've had this discussion for months) what are the chances that various Russian air defense systems would be more effective against those, compared to the current munitions, which Russian air defense seems ineffective at stopping?

ATACMS are slightly faster, > Mach 3, than GMLRS, >Mach 2.5, per open source information, and a bit larger. They would probably be a bit easier to detect on radar, but I think it's pretty safe to say that if they aren't shooting down GMLRS, they probably won't be shooting down ATACMS.

Now if they concentrated their air defense for a particularly high value target they have a chance of shooting one down, if you go by the theoretical or declared capabilities of Russian AD systems. However as we have seen the real world Russian performance typically does not measure up to theoretical capabilities.

I think dabigv13 is pretty much correct. Shooting down GMLRS doesn't happen for many reasons. The S-X00 systems that can do it are located pretty "far back". Their missiles would have to be fast enough to reach the GMLRS before they reached their targets. The GMLRS also don't fly real high, so the radars of the potential interceptors won't see them "early" in their flight path. This makes the required response time very short. On top of that, most of the missiles that could even hope to get there in time are SARH. The illuminator however would have to be able to "see" the target area, which generally it couldn't. On top of that, usually "several" GMLRS are launched, often full salvos. Shooting down one, even if you could, wouldn't much matter. If by some chance a GMLRS salvo flew directly over a TOR, some might get shot down. However, its target tracker probably would ignore them and the TOR wouldn't even launch :-).

The ATACMS is a bit of a different case. Since it is a ballistic missile with greater range it does fly higher and will be in the detection space much longer. It is also probable the S-X00 is much closer to the target (which may be in fact behind it). The geometry is potentially much better in this case. While a boost-phase intercept is unlikely a transit phase or "downhill" phase intercept is possible. The illuminator would have a reasonable elevation angle to work with. The ATACMS is also used as a single missile, so there won't be many targets that need simultaneous attention.

If the S-X00 system actually works as advertised, it would have a reasonable "shot". One data point on that is the Ukraine has flat out stated that their S-300 systems cannot intercept Iskander-m missiles. The ATACMS is an analog of this missile, so there is reason to believe Russia probably can't reliably shoot down an ATACMS. As I have pointed out before, Russia is apparently not using Big Bird/Tomb Stone/Grave Stone radars or their Mainstay AEW aircraft to task S-X00 batteries. These batteries must therefore find their own targets, and that can be problematic. It is also probable that the crews have not drilled on shooting down ballistic missiles as a priority. The Russian systems are generally manpower intensive. If you are well trained, they are great. If you are not, they don't work so well.

As far as "other" types of long-range weapons the US could provide, there is one that would possibly work. The US has already provided Harpoon missile systems to Ukraine. We could therefore presumably provide SLAM-ER missiles for those launchers. This may be politically more acceptable to the administration because they have not made a big deal about NOT doing so. Otherwise, we don't have any currently active tactical ballistic missiles available. Israel does, but I doubt they would go along with selling them to Ukraine. China does, and ditto.

I am sure this is a stupid question, but do we have any mothballed M107 guns still around.  Those are the ones I remember. Lots of problems, but decent range.
Another stupid question, why are we so adverse to training Ukrainian pilots in the F16? We are apparently still refusing to do this and I just don't see the problem. F22, F35, F15EX ok, but what is the F16 issue beyond the year it takes to get them up to speed? If the Russians are launching their cruise missles from bombers over the Black Sea, then maybe we don't want F16's shooting down those bombers. It is always very hard to fight a war when you can't attack the enemy infrastructure and lines drawn on a map stop you from advancing.

[GK3]

Oops.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ralee85/status/1580306517949001728?s=46&t=xJm5xQga1FhEVMt1co8TcQ[/tweet]

How did they not see the mine?

BC

Either a desire to get of the war in any manner possible, or an indication that no one in a Russian AV can see anything.

---

There is starting to be some movement in getting Ukraine "long range weapons."  I'm not quite sure if that means ATACMS, or possibly something else.  Apparently Lloyd Austin at the Ramstein 6 meeting today, "Ukraine needs long range weapons." 

My first question to Goose would would be, what are some realistic options?  

My second question to Goose would be, if ATACMS were on the table (I know we've had this discussion for months) what are the chances that various Russian air defense systems would be more effective against those, compared to the current munitions, which Russian air defense seems ineffective at stopping?

ATACMS are slightly faster, > Mach 3, than GMLRS, >Mach 2.5, per open source information, and a bit larger. They would probably be a bit easier to detect on radar, but I think it's pretty safe to say that if they aren't shooting down GMLRS, they probably won't be shooting down ATACMS.

Now if they concentrated their air defense for a particularly high value target they have a chance of shooting one down, if you go by the theoretical or declared capabilities of Russian AD systems. However as we have seen the real world Russian performance typically does not measure up to theoretical capabilities.

I think dabigv13 is pretty much correct. Shooting down GMLRS doesn't happen for many reasons. The S-X00 systems that can do it are located pretty "far back". Their missiles would have to be fast enough to reach the GMLRS before they reached their targets. The GMLRS also don't fly real high, so the radars of the potential interceptors won't see them "early" in their flight path. This makes the required response time very short. On top of that, most of the missiles that could even hope to get there in time are SARH. The illuminator however would have to be able to "see" the target area, which generally it couldn't. On top of that, usually "several" GMLRS are launched, often full salvos. Shooting down one, even if you could, wouldn't much matter. If by some chance a GMLRS salvo flew directly over a TOR, some might get shot down. However, its target tracker probably would ignore them and the TOR wouldn't even launch :-).

The ATACMS is a bit of a different case. Since it is a ballistic missile with greater range it does fly higher and will be in the detection space much longer. It is also probable the S-X00 is much closer to the target (which may be in fact behind it). The geometry is potentially much better in this case. While a boost-phase intercept is unlikely a transit phase or "downhill" phase intercept is possible. The illuminator would have a reasonable elevation angle to work with. The ATACMS is also used as a single missile, so there won't be many targets that need simultaneous attention.

If the S-X00 system actually works as advertised, it would have a reasonable "shot". One data point on that is the Ukraine has flat out stated that their S-300 systems cannot intercept Iskander-m missiles. The ATACMS is an analog of this missile, so there is reason to believe Russia probably can't reliably shoot down an ATACMS. As I have pointed out before, Russia is apparently not using Big Bird/Tomb Stone/Grave Stone radars or their Mainstay AEW aircraft to task S-X00 batteries. These batteries must therefore find their own targets, and that can be problematic. It is also probable that the crews have not drilled on shooting down ballistic missiles as a priority. The Russian systems are generally manpower intensive. If you are well trained, they are great. If you are not, they don't work so well.

As far as "other" types of long-range weapons the US could provide, there is one that would possibly work. The US has already provided Harpoon missile systems to Ukraine. We could therefore presumably provide SLAM-ER missiles for those launchers. This may be politically more acceptable to the administration because they have not made a big deal about NOT doing so. Otherwise, we don't have any currently active tactical ballistic missiles available. Israel does, but I doubt they would go along with selling them to Ukraine. China does, and ditto.

I am sure this is a stupid question, but do we have any mothballed M107 guns still around.  Those are the ones I remember. Lots of problems, but decent range.
Another stupid question, why are we so adverse to training Ukrainian pilots in the F16? We are apparently still refusing to do this and I just don't see the problem. F22, F35, F15EX ok, but what is the F16 issue beyond the year it takes to get them up to speed? If the Russians are launching their cruise missles from bombers over the Black Sea, then maybe we don't want F16's shooting down those bombers. It is always very hard to fight a war when you can't attack the enemy infrastructure and lines drawn on a map stop you from advancing.

[GK3]

Oops.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ralee85/status/1580306517949001728?s=46&t=xJm5xQga1FhEVMt1co8TcQ[/tweet]

How did they not see the mine?

BC

Either a desire to get of the war in any manner possible, or an indication that no one in a Russian AV can see anything.

---

There is starting to be some movement in getting Ukraine "long range weapons."  I'm not quite sure if that means ATACMS, or possibly something else.  Apparently Lloyd Austin at the Ramstein 6 meeting today, "Ukraine needs long range weapons." 

My first question to Goose would would be, what are some realistic options?  

My second question to Goose would be, if ATACMS were on the table (I know we've had this discussion for months) what are the chances that various Russian air defense systems would be more effective against those, compared to the current munitions, which Russian air defense seems ineffective at stopping?

ATACMS are slightly faster, > Mach 3, than GMLRS, >Mach 2.5, per open source information, and a bit larger. They would probably be a bit easier to detect on radar, but I think it's pretty safe to say that if they aren't shooting down GMLRS, they probably won't be shooting down ATACMS.

Now if they concentrated their air defense for a particularly high value target they have a chance of shooting one down, if you go by the theoretical or declared capabilities of Russian AD systems. However as we have seen the real world Russian performance typically does not measure up to theoretical capabilities.

I think dabigv13 is pretty much correct. Shooting down GMLRS doesn't happen for many reasons. The S-X00 systems that can do it are located pretty "far back". Their missiles would have to be fast enough to reach the GMLRS before they reached their targets. The GMLRS also don't fly real high, so the radars of the potential interceptors won't see them "early" in their flight path. This makes the required response time very short. On top of that, most of the missiles that could even hope to get there in time are SARH. The illuminator however would have to be able to "see" the target area, which generally it couldn't. On top of that, usually "several" GMLRS are launched, often full salvos. Shooting down one, even if you could, wouldn't much matter. If by some chance a GMLRS salvo flew directly over a TOR, some might get shot down. However, its target tracker probably would ignore them and the TOR wouldn't even launch :-).

The ATACMS is a bit of a different case. Since it is a ballistic missile with greater range it does fly higher and will be in the detection space much longer. It is also probable the S-X00 is much closer to the target (which may be in fact behind it). The geometry is potentially much better in this case. While a boost-phase intercept is unlikely a transit phase or "downhill" phase intercept is possible. The illuminator would have a reasonable elevation angle to work with. The ATACMS is also used as a single missile, so there won't be many targets that need simultaneous attention.

If the S-X00 system actually works as advertised, it would have a reasonable "shot". One data point on that is the Ukraine has flat out stated that their S-300 systems cannot intercept Iskander-m missiles. The ATACMS is an analog of this missile, so there is reason to believe Russia probably can't reliably shoot down an ATACMS. As I have pointed out before, Russia is apparently not using Big Bird/Tomb Stone/Grave Stone radars or their Mainstay AEW aircraft to task S-X00 batteries. These batteries must therefore find their own targets, and that can be problematic. It is also probable that the crews have not drilled on shooting down ballistic missiles as a priority. The Russian systems are generally manpower intensive. If you are well trained, they are great. If you are not, they don't work so well.

As far as "other" types of long-range weapons the US could provide, there is one that would possibly work. The US has already provided Harpoon missile systems to Ukraine. We could therefore presumably provide SLAM-ER missiles for those launchers. This may be politically more acceptable to the administration because they have not made a big deal about NOT doing so. Otherwise, we don't have any currently active tactical ballistic missiles available. Israel does, but I doubt they would go along with selling them to Ukraine. China does, and ditto.

I am sure this is a stupid question, but do we have any mothballed M107 guns still around.  Those are the ones I remember. Lots of problems, but decent range.
Another stupid question, why are we so adverse to training Ukrainian pilots in the F16?  We are apparently still refusing to do this and I just don't see the problem.  F22, F35, F15EX  ok, but what is the F16 issue beyond the year it takes to get them up to speed?  If the Russians are launching their cruise missles from bombers over the Black Sea, then maybe we don't want F16's shooting down those bombers.  It is always very hard to fight a war when you can't attack the enemy infrastructure and lines drawn on a map stop you from advancing. Edit:
Did anything ever come of the roughly 2017 SOCOM proposal for US arms companies to produce ammunition for Russian designed weapons and in some cases make the weapons too?

[GK3]

Oops.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ralee85/status/1580306517949001728?s=46&t=xJm5xQga1FhEVMt1co8TcQ[/tweet]

How did they not see the mine?

BC

Either a desire to get of the war in any manner possible, or an indication that no one in a Russian AV can see anything.

---

There is starting to be some movement in getting Ukraine "long range weapons."  I'm not quite sure if that means ATACMS, or possibly something else.  Apparently Lloyd Austin at the Ramstein 6 meeting today, "Ukraine needs long range weapons." 

My first question to Goose would would be, what are some realistic options?  

My second question to Goose would be, if ATACMS were on the table (I know we've had this discussion for months) what are the chances that various Russian air defense systems would be more effective against those, compared to the current munitions, which Russian air defense seems ineffective at stopping?

ATACMS are slightly faster, > Mach 3, than GMLRS, >Mach 2.5, per open source information, and a bit larger. They would probably be a bit easier to detect on radar, but I think it's pretty safe to say that if they aren't shooting down GMLRS, they probably won't be shooting down ATACMS.

Now if they concentrated their air defense for a particularly high value target they have a chance of shooting one down, if you go by the theoretical or declared capabilities of Russian AD systems. However as we have seen the real world Russian performance typically does not measure up to theoretical capabilities.

I think dabigv13 is pretty much correct. Shooting down GMLRS doesn't happen for many reasons. The S-X00 systems that can do it are located pretty "far back". Their missiles would have to be fast enough to reach the GMLRS before they reached their targets. The GMLRS also don't fly real high, so the radars of the potential interceptors won't see them "early" in their flight path. This makes the required response time very short. On top of that, most of the missiles that could even hope to get there in time are SARH. The illuminator however would have to be able to "see" the target area, which generally it couldn't. On top of that, usually "several" GMLRS are launched, often full salvos. Shooting down one, even if you could, wouldn't much matter. If by some chance a GMLRS salvo flew directly over a TOR, some might get shot down. However, its target tracker probably would ignore them and the TOR wouldn't even launch :-).

The ATACMS is a bit of a different case. Since it is a ballistic missile with greater range it does fly higher and will be in the detection space much longer. It is also probable the S-X00 is much closer to the target (which may be in fact behind it). The geometry is potentially much better in this case. While a boost-phase intercept is unlikely a transit phase or "downhill" phase intercept is possible. The illuminator would have a reasonable elevation angle to work with. The ATACMS is also used as a single missile, so there won't be many targets that need simultaneous attention.

If the S-X00 system actually works as advertised, it would have a reasonable "shot". One data point on that is the Ukraine has flat out stated that their S-300 systems cannot intercept Iskander-m missiles. The ATACMS is an analog of this missile, so there is reason to believe Russia probably can't reliably shoot down an ATACMS. As I have pointed out before, Russia is apparently not using Big Bird/Tomb Stone/Grave Stone radars or their Mainstay AEW aircraft to task S-X00 batteries. These batteries must therefore find their own targets, and that can be problematic. It is also probable that the crews have not drilled on shooting down ballistic missiles as a priority. The Russian systems are generally manpower intensive. If you are well trained, they are great. If you are not, they don't work so well.

As far as "other" types of long-range weapons the US could provide, there is one that would possibly work. The US has already provided Harpoon missile systems to Ukraine. We could therefore presumably provide SLAM-ER missiles for those launchers. This may be politically more acceptable to the administration because they have not made a big deal about NOT doing so. Otherwise, we don't have any currently active tactical ballistic missiles available. Israel does, but I doubt they would go along with selling them to Ukraine. China does, and ditto.

I am sure this is a stupid question, but do we have any mothballed M107 guns still around.  Those are the ones I remember. Lots of problems, but decent range.
Another stupid question, why are we so adverse to training Ukrainian pilots in the F16?  We are apparently still refusing to do this and I just don't see the problem.  F22, F35, F15EX  ok, but what is the F16 issue beyond the year it takes to get them up to speed?  If the Russians are launching their cruise missles from bombers over the Black Sea, then maybe we don't want F16's shooting down those bombers.  It is always very hard to fight a war when you can't attack the enemy infrastructure and lines drawn on a map stop you from advancing. Edit:
Did anything ever come of the roughly 2017 SOCOM proposal for US arms companies to produce ammunition for Russian designed weapons and in some cases make the weapons too?

[Goose]

I am sure this is a stupid question, but do we have any mothballed M107 guns still around.  Those are the ones I remember. Lots of problems, but decent range.

I don't know about the weapons but I am pretty sure there is no ammunition available. Supposedly all the M-107s were upgraded to M-110, i.e. from 175mm to 203mm. The ammunition would be in the 25-30 year old range, if it exists, which makes me doubt it does. Since the weapon was phased out, they wouldn't keep making the ammo. It may be they transferred it to other countries that kept the gun longer.

Another stupid question, why are we so adverse to training Ukrainian pilots in the F16?  We are apparently still refusing to do this and I just don't see the problem.  F22, F35, F15EX  ok, but what is the F16 issue beyond the year it takes to get them up to speed?  .

The main "technical" issues with the F-16 are the year it takes to get up to speed and (more importantly) the major brobdingnagian maintenance and logistics burden that comes with supporting a type of aircraft that is totally "foreign". It could be done, but it would be difficult. First, we would have to locate some F-16s that we would be able to part with. It doesn't make much sense to give just "a few" because those few impose 90% of the support issues anyway. Then we would have to figure out how to train the pilots and maintenance personnel without gutting the existing Ukrainian efforts. Then we would have to locate and ship all the tooling and spare parts necessary to keep the planes flying. Again, possible but not very easy.

If the Russians are launching their cruise missles from bombers over the Black Sea, then maybe we don't want F16's shooting down those bombers. It is always very hard to fight a war when you can't attack the enemy infrastructure and lines drawn on a map stop you from advancing.

If you think those are bad, try the ones from the Caspian Sea. This issue is a pervasive one that goes far beyond the F-16s. In the limiting case, Ukraine could drive the Russians totally out of all Ukrainian territory, including Crimea, and still be in a war if Russia simply refuses to quit. As long as Russia can with impunity launch missiles and aircraft from invulnerable Russian territory to destroy Ukrainian civilian and military targets, Ukraine has a problem. There is an inherent assumption that if things got that bad for Russia, they would quit. That may be wrong.

It is certainly true that they could restart if they wished, and it is certainly true that as long as they have this "sanctuary" it will make it much more difficult (maybe impossible) for Ukraine to clear all their territory. So, quo vadis? As was asked at the "end" of the war in Iraq, "How does this end?"
I think all of us in the west assume Russia will eventually be forced to give up and some kind of regime change will occur. If that assumption is wrong, we have a problem.

[Goose]

I am sure this is a stupid question, but do we have any mothballed M107 guns still around.  Those are the ones I remember. Lots of problems, but decent range.

I don't know about the weapons but I am pretty sure there is no ammunition available. Supposedly all the M-107s were upgraded to M-110, i.e. from 175mm to 203mm. The ammunition would be in the 25-30 year old range, if it exists, which makes me doubt it does. Since the weapon was phased out, they wouldn't keep making the ammo. It may be they transferred it to other countries that kept the gun longer.

Another stupid question, why are we so adverse to training Ukrainian pilots in the F16?  We are apparently still refusing to do this and I just don't see the problem.  F22, F35, F15EX  ok, but what is the F16 issue beyond the year it takes to get them up to speed?  .

The main "technical" issues with the F-16 are the year it takes to get up to speed and (more importantly) the major brobdingnagian maintenance and logistics burden that comes with supporting a type of aircraft that is totally "foreign". It could be done, but it would be difficult. First, we would have to locate some F-16s that we would be able to part with. It doesn't make much sense to give just "a few" because those few impose 90% of the support issues anyway. Then we would have to figure out how to train the pilots and maintenance personnel without gutting the existing Ukrainian efforts. Then we would have to locate and ship all the tooling and spare parts necessary to keep the planes flying. Again, possible but not very easy.

If the Russians are launching their cruise missles from bombers over the Black Sea, then maybe we don't want F16's shooting down those bombers. It is always very hard to fight a war when you can't attack the enemy infrastructure and lines drawn on a map stop you from advancing.

If you think those are bad, try the ones from the Caspian Sea. This issue is a pervasive one that goes far beyond the F-16s. In the limiting case, Ukraine could drive the Russians totally out of all Ukrainian territory, including Crimea, and still be in a war if Russia simply refuses to quit. As long as Russia can with impunity launch missiles and aircraft from invulnerable Russian territory to destroy Ukrainian civilian and military targets, Ukraine has a problem. There is an inherent assumption that if things got that bad for Russia, they would quit. That may be wrong.

It is certainly true that they could restart if they wished, and it is certainly true that as long as they have this "sanctuary" it will make it much more difficult (maybe impossible) for Ukraine to clear all their territory. So, quo vadis? As was asked at the "end" of the war in Iraq, "How does this end?"
I think all of us in the west assume Russia will eventually be forced to give up and some kind of regime change will occur. If that assumption is wrong, we have a problem.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukrainian-pil...10125.html

This article is interesting. It says the Ukrainian pilot "destroyed five Shahed-136 drones" and also "shot down two Russian cruise missiles". The distinction is telling. Later, the Ukrainian pilot "For unspecified technical reasons, the pilot began to lose control of the aircraft,". It appears that the Ukrainians are indeed using the jet wash to destroy these Iranian drones. They are quite a bit bigger than the "quadcopter" style drones, but I imagine you can disrupt them the same way. The "unspecified technical reasons" probably were that he got too close and/or actually hit one. It damaged his jet or the jet ingested parts of it. At least he got out.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ukrainian-pil...10125.html

This article is interesting. It says the Ukrainian pilot "destroyed five Shahed-136 drones" and also "shot down two Russian cruise missiles". The distinction is telling. Later, the Ukrainian pilot "For unspecified technical reasons, the pilot began to lose control of the aircraft,". It appears that the Ukrainians are indeed using the jet wash to destroy these Iranian drones. They are quite a bit bigger than the "quadcopter" style drones, but I imagine you can disrupt them the same way. The "unspecified technical reasons" probably were that he got too close and/or actually hit one. It damaged his jet or the jet ingested parts of it. At least he got out.

[GK3]

I am sure this is a stupid question, but do we have any mothballed M107 guns still around.  Those are the ones I remember. Lots of problems, but decent range.

Another stupid question, why are we so adverse to training Ukrainian pilots in the F16?  We are apparently still refusing to do this and I just don't see the problem.  F22, F35, F15EX  ok, but what is the F16 issue beyond the year it takes to get them up to speed?  .

The main "technical" issues with the F-16 are the year it takes to get up to speed and (more importantly) the major of immense proportions maintenance and logistics burden that comes with supporting a type of aircraft that is totally "foreign". It could be done, but it would be difficult. First, we would have to locate some F-16s that we would be able to part with. It doesn't make much sense to give just "a few" because those few impose 90% of the support issues anyway. Then we would have to figure out how to train the pilots and maintenance personnel without gutting the existing Ukrainian efforts. Then we would have to locate and ship all the tooling and spare parts necessary to keep the planes flying. Again, possible but not very easy.

If the Russians are launching their cruise missles from bombers over the Black Sea, then maybe we don't want F16's shooting down those bombers. It is always very hard to fight a war when you can't attack the enemy infrastructure and lines drawn on a map stop you from advancing.

If you think those are bad, try the ones from the Caspian Sea. This issue is a pervasive one that goes far beyond the F-16s. In the limiting case, Ukraine could drive the Russians totally out of all Ukrainian territory, including Crimea, and still be in a war if Russia simply refuses to quit. As long as Russia can with impunity launch missiles and aircraft from invulnerable Russian territory to destroy Ukrainian civilian and military targets, Ukraine has a problem. There is an inherent assumption that if things got that bad for Russia, they would quit. That may be wrong.

It is certainly true that they could restart if they wished, and it is certainly true that as long as they have this "sanctuary" it will make it much more difficult (maybe impossible) for Ukraine to clear all their territory. So, quo vadis? As was asked at the "end" of the war in Iraq, "How does this end?"
I think all of us in the west assume Russia will eventually be forced to give up and some kind of regime change will occur. If that assumption is wrong, we have a problem.
[/quote]

I don't know about the weapons but I am pretty sure there is no ammunition available. Supposedly all the M-107s were upgraded to M-110, i.e. from 175mm to 203mm. The ammunition would be in the 25-30 year old range, if it exists, which makes me doubt it does. Since the weapon was phased out, they wouldn't keep making the ammo. It may be they transferred it to other countries that kept the gun longer.
[quote]

I appreciate your responses.  From my view point there remain a lot of problems with how support the Ukraine is being handled.

1.  I don't see there supply of Russian designed aircraft lasting forever.  Is there some source for replacement aircraft and parts?  If not why do we keep kicking the can down the road in terms of getting started training them in some sort of decent NATO aircraft?

2.  HIMARS has been a life saver but they need more longer range artillery, at least from what I read.  I presume at this point we are eating into our own stores and don't to go much further.  Is there any prospect of any other NATO country outside of the USA being able to provide a reasonable number of longer range guns, or is everyone scrapping the bottom of the barrel?

3.  Does the Ukraine have an adequate source of Russian type infantry weapons and ammunition?  I believe back around 2017 we looked at maybe making our own supply of Russian infantry ammunition etc.

4.  Last Question - How significant an impact are Western Sanctions making it for Russia?

Even the untrained Russian masses can win if the other side has no guns or ammunition.  Unfortunately you can't just issue a directive and suddenly be flooded with all the stuff you need.  At best we are talking months and in terms of aircraft possibly years.  If Putin continues on as the leader of Russian, this conflict can rage on until he dies.

I ran across this Crowd Funding Project for the Ukraine - Read through all the links in the article, there are some fascinating systems out there.
https://www.defenceprocurementinternatio...ng-project

[GK3]

I am sure this is a stupid question, but do we have any mothballed M107 guns still around.  Those are the ones I remember. Lots of problems, but decent range.

Another stupid question, why are we so adverse to training Ukrainian pilots in the F16?  We are apparently still refusing to do this and I just don't see the problem.  F22, F35, F15EX  ok, but what is the F16 issue beyond the year it takes to get them up to speed?  .

The main "technical" issues with the F-16 are the year it takes to get up to speed and (more importantly) the major of immense proportions maintenance and logistics burden that comes with supporting a type of aircraft that is totally "foreign". It could be done, but it would be difficult. First, we would have to locate some F-16s that we would be able to part with. It doesn't make much sense to give just "a few" because those few impose 90% of the support issues anyway. Then we would have to figure out how to train the pilots and maintenance personnel without gutting the existing Ukrainian efforts. Then we would have to locate and ship all the tooling and spare parts necessary to keep the planes flying. Again, possible but not very easy.

If the Russians are launching their cruise missles from bombers over the Black Sea, then maybe we don't want F16's shooting down those bombers. It is always very hard to fight a war when you can't attack the enemy infrastructure and lines drawn on a map stop you from advancing.

If you think those are bad, try the ones from the Caspian Sea. This issue is a pervasive one that goes far beyond the F-16s. In the limiting case, Ukraine could drive the Russians totally out of all Ukrainian territory, including Crimea, and still be in a war if Russia simply refuses to quit. As long as Russia can with impunity launch missiles and aircraft from invulnerable Russian territory to destroy Ukrainian civilian and military targets, Ukraine has a problem. There is an inherent assumption that if things got that bad for Russia, they would quit. That may be wrong.

It is certainly true that they could restart if they wished, and it is certainly true that as long as they have this "sanctuary" it will make it much more difficult (maybe impossible) for Ukraine to clear all their territory. So, quo vadis? As was asked at the "end" of the war in Iraq, "How does this end?"
I think all of us in the west assume Russia will eventually be forced to give up and some kind of regime change will occur. If that assumption is wrong, we have a problem.
[/quote]

I don't know about the weapons but I am pretty sure there is no ammunition available. Supposedly all the M-107s were upgraded to M-110, i.e. from 175mm to 203mm. The ammunition would be in the 25-30 year old range, if it exists, which makes me doubt it does. Since the weapon was phased out, they wouldn't keep making the ammo. It may be they transferred it to other countries that kept the gun longer.
[quote]

I appreciate your responses.  From my view point there remain a lot of problems with how support the Ukraine is being handled.

1.  I don't see there supply of Russian designed aircraft lasting forever.  Is there some source for replacement aircraft and parts?  If not why do we keep kicking the can down the road in terms of getting started training them in some sort of decent NATO aircraft?

2.  HIMARS has been a life saver but they need more longer range artillery, at least from what I read.  I presume at this point we are eating into our own stores and don't to go much further.  Is there any prospect of any other NATO country outside of the USA being able to provide a reasonable number of longer range guns, or is everyone scrapping the bottom of the barrel?

3.  Does the Ukraine have an adequate source of Russian type infantry weapons and ammunition?  I believe back around 2017 we looked at maybe making our own supply of Russian infantry ammunition etc.

4.  Last Question - How significant an impact are Western Sanctions making it for Russia?

Even the untrained Russian masses can win if the other side has no guns or ammunition.  Unfortunately you can't just issue a directive and suddenly be flooded with all the stuff you need.  At best we are talking months and in terms of aircraft possibly years.  If Putin continues on as the leader of Russian, this conflict can rage on until he dies.

I ran across this Crowd Funding Project for the Ukraine - Read through all the links in the article, there are some fascinating systems out there.
https://www.defenceprocurementinternatio...ng-project

[Goose]

From my view point there remain a lot of problems with how support the Ukraine is being handled.

1.  I don't see there supply of Russian designed aircraft lasting forever.  Is there some source for replacement aircraft and parts?  If not why do we keep kicking the can down the road in terms of getting started training them in some sort of decent NATO aircraft?

It is entirely possible there are training efforts in progress right now that are not public. I give this at least 50/50 odds. As I said before, Ukraine has no viable training pipeline for it's existing planes because 1) they are all committed to the fight, 2) there is no "safe" place in Ukraine to train (the weather also sucks in winter) and 3) pilots sometimes survive getting shot down, jets almost never do. They probably already have more pilots than they can use. Doing training in the US for the "next gen" Ukrainian pilots makes complete sense even if we aren't giving them the planes right now. I dearly hope we are doing the training. I also hope we are making contingency plans to provide them jets. A competent military force would be doing that even if it wasn't "for sure" we would ever do it.

2.  HIMARS has been a life saver but they need more longer range artillery, at least from what I read.  I presume at this point we are eating into our own stores and don't to go much further.  Is there any prospect of any other NATO country outside of the USA being able to provide a reasonable number of longer range guns, or is everyone scrapping the bottom of the barrel?

Longer range guns have been "out of style" for years. I doubt any NATO country has much bigger than 155mm and if they do they are in questionable shape, small numbers, and poorly supplied with ammunition. FWIW, I think the Ukrainian "need" for "long range artillery" is really somewhat psychological and overblown. They don't like getting pounded by missiles and want to hit back. They (legitimately) want to take the entire Russian logistics chain under fire. They also dearly want to hit Russian targets in Crimea, particularly the bridge. While these things all would help, and maybe help a lot, they are not "war winners".

It would be real nice if the US could just give Ukraine ATACMS. It is worthy of note that other nations purchased ATACMS. Korea even manufactures them under license. These aren't the "latest and greatest" but do give the HIMARS longer (300km) reach. That would be a potential "compromise" in that the Ukrainians would get M39A1s (rather than M57E1). The US no longer has the ability to manufacture ATACMS. The US is transitioning to the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) with IOC expected in 2023. Given that, expending the existing ATACMS we have shouldn't be a significant issue. They are effectively obsolete in US service. Just make sure we build PrSMs faster :-). Obviously, this is a political football. Terry rule prevents further analysis.

3.  Does the Ukraine have an adequate source of Russian type infantry weapons and ammunition?  I believe back around 2017 we looked at maybe making our own supply of Russian infantry ammunition etc.

Pretty sure small arms and ammunition isn't a problem. Lots of it available in the world and I believe several somewhat friendly countries still make it. If Ukraine had to transition to NATO weapons, I think that could also be accommodated.

4.  Last Question - How significant an impact are Western Sanctions making it for Russia?

Economic sanctions are above my pay grade. I assume they are causing problems, possibly serious ones, but I just don't know. I think the technical embargo is giving Russia fits. I just hope we are aggressively defeating their attempts to subvert it. Historically, we have been just "OK" at that, and in this case we need to be much better than that. Make sure they can't build any precision guided weapons.

Even the untrained Russian masses can win if the other side has no guns or ammunition.  Unfortunately you can't just issue a directive and suddenly be flooded with all the stuff you need.  At best we are talking months and in terms of aircraft possibly years.  If Putin continues on as the leader of Russian, this conflict can rage on until he dies.

Unfortunately, that is correct. It is actually worse than that. I greatly fear that the "west" hasn't really thought this one through. We might get lucky and Putin gets replaced by a more reasonable regime. It is also possible he gets replaced by a more effective but equally evil regime. Then even Putin's death doesn't end this mess. In fact, Putin's death could become a "martyrdom" for the new regime. While I think what we are doing in Ukraine is basically "right", I think it is to our great advantage to plan for all eventualities, even if some of the choices are grim. Hope is not a strategy.

[Goose]

From my view point there remain a lot of problems with how support the Ukraine is being handled.

1.  I don't see there supply of Russian designed aircraft lasting forever.  Is there some source for replacement aircraft and parts?  If not why do we keep kicking the can down the road in terms of getting started training them in some sort of decent NATO aircraft?

It is entirely possible there are training efforts in progress right now that are not public. I give this at least 50/50 odds. As I said before, Ukraine has no viable training pipeline for it's existing planes because 1) they are all committed to the fight, 2) there is no "safe" place in Ukraine to train (the weather also sucks in winter) and 3) pilots sometimes survive getting shot down, jets almost never do. They probably already have more pilots than they can use. Doing training in the US for the "next gen" Ukrainian pilots makes complete sense even if we aren't giving them the planes right now. I dearly hope we are doing the training. I also hope we are making contingency plans to provide them jets. A competent military force would be doing that even if it wasn't "for sure" we would ever do it.

2.  HIMARS has been a life saver but they need more longer range artillery, at least from what I read.  I presume at this point we are eating into our own stores and don't to go much further.  Is there any prospect of any other NATO country outside of the USA being able to provide a reasonable number of longer range guns, or is everyone scrapping the bottom of the barrel?

Longer range guns have been "out of style" for years. I doubt any NATO country has much bigger than 155mm and if they do they are in questionable shape, small numbers, and poorly supplied with ammunition. FWIW, I think the Ukrainian "need" for "long range artillery" is really somewhat psychological and overblown. They don't like getting pounded by missiles and want to hit back. They (legitimately) want to take the entire Russian logistics chain under fire. They also dearly want to hit Russian targets in Crimea, particularly the bridge. While these things all would help, and maybe help a lot, they are not "war winners".

It would be real nice if the US could just give Ukraine ATACMS. It is worthy of note that other nations purchased ATACMS. Korea even manufactures them under license. These aren't the "latest and greatest" but do give the HIMARS longer (300km) reach. That would be a potential "compromise" in that the Ukrainians would get M39A1s (rather than M57E1). The US no longer has the ability to manufacture ATACMS. The US is transitioning to the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) with IOC expected in 2023. Given that, expending the existing ATACMS we have shouldn't be a significant issue. They are effectively obsolete in US service. Just make sure we build PrSMs faster :-). Obviously, this is a political football. Terry rule prevents further analysis.

3.  Does the Ukraine have an adequate source of Russian type infantry weapons and ammunition?  I believe back around 2017 we looked at maybe making our own supply of Russian infantry ammunition etc.

Pretty sure small arms and ammunition isn't a problem. Lots of it available in the world and I believe several somewhat friendly countries still make it. If Ukraine had to transition to NATO weapons, I think that could also be accommodated.

4.  Last Question - How significant an impact are Western Sanctions making it for Russia?

Economic sanctions are above my pay grade. I assume they are causing problems, possibly serious ones, but I just don't know. I think the technical embargo is giving Russia fits. I just hope we are aggressively defeating their attempts to subvert it. Historically, we have been just "OK" at that, and in this case we need to be much better than that. Make sure they can't build any precision guided weapons.

Even the untrained Russian masses can win if the other side has no guns or ammunition.  Unfortunately you can't just issue a directive and suddenly be flooded with all the stuff you need.  At best we are talking months and in terms of aircraft possibly years.  If Putin continues on as the leader of Russian, this conflict can rage on until he dies.

Unfortunately, that is correct. It is actually worse than that. I greatly fear that the "west" hasn't really thought this one through. We might get lucky and Putin gets replaced by a more reasonable regime. It is also possible he gets replaced by a more effective but equally evil regime. Then even Putin's death doesn't end this mess. In fact, Putin's death could become a "martyrdom" for the new regime. While I think what we are doing in Ukraine is basically "right", I think it is to our great advantage to plan for all eventualities, even if some of the choices are grim. Hope is not a strategy.

[dabigv13]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1580635697219706880?s=20&t=tyFFrAzrVfZul9DFYw0ycw[/tweet]

These are older systems, originally designed in the 50s, but these are modernized version and can integrate with modern radar systems the US has sent. Medium range, should be capable against Russian jets, helos, drones, maybe cruise missiles but probably not anything very fast.

Ukrainian integration of all these disparate systems will be an interesting story.

Part of it involves VR and videoconferencing.
[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/AbraxasSpa/status/15...QC-ClZd9ZQ[/tweet]

https://www.popularmechanics.com/militar...ix-weapons

[dabigv13]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/status/1580635697219706880?s=20&t=tyFFrAzrVfZul9DFYw0ycw[/tweet]

These are older systems, originally designed in the 50s, but these are modernized version and can integrate with modern radar systems the US has sent. Medium range, should be capable against Russian jets, helos, drones, maybe cruise missiles but probably not anything very fast.

Ukrainian integration of all these disparate systems will be an interesting story.

Part of it involves VR and videoconferencing.
[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/AbraxasSpa/status/15...QC-ClZd9ZQ[/tweet]

https://www.popularmechanics.com/militar...ix-weapons

[Goose]

https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/statu...l9DFYw0ycw



These are older systems, originally designed in the 50s, but these are modernized version and can integrate with modern radar systems the US has sent. Medium range, should be capable against Russian jets, helos, drones, maybe cruise missiles but probably not anything very fast.



Ukrainian integration of all these disparate systems will be an interesting story.

The most modern HAWKS are indeed pretty good, but the system is SARH. The Russians have jammers that turn HAWKs into bricks. They never sold them or exported them (smart). We got some at the end of the Cold War. The good news is that cruise missiles can't carry these jammers. The bad news is that even the crappy Russian anti-radiation missiles like the K-58 are a threat to the Hawk illuminator. While the missile is in flight, the illuminator must stay on. It is high PRF, easy to find  (the "original" was CW, even easier). The modern HAWKs also have an optical tracker, which is helpful if the target can be seen. However, the missile still "needs" the illuminator to guide on the target.

I am not totally "happy" about these systems being provided. Quite a bit of effort will be required to make the "lash-up" work. I think the Ukrainians are going to expect better results than they will get. I think the Russians will simply blow up the illuminators. That said, the S-300 has SARH modes as well, and the Ukraine has continued to use these successfully. The HAWK can shoot down low altitude cruise missiles. That said, we don't have anything else readily available. The entire HAWK system as multiple radars involved in acquisition of targets. I assume the Ukrainians are getting the entire suite. Substituting other radars will greatly increase the probability of something not working.

[Goose]

https://twitter.com/Osinttechnical/statu...l9DFYw0ycw



These are older systems, originally designed in the 50s, but these are modernized version and can integrate with modern radar systems the US has sent. Medium range, should be capable against Russian jets, helos, drones, maybe cruise missiles but probably not anything very fast.



Ukrainian integration of all these disparate systems will be an interesting story.

The most modern HAWKS are indeed pretty good, but the system is SARH. The Russians have jammers that turn HAWKs into bricks. They never sold them or exported them (smart). We got some at the end of the Cold War. The good news is that cruise missiles can't carry these jammers. The bad news is that even the crappy Russian anti-radiation missiles like the K-58 are a threat to the Hawk illuminator. While the missile is in flight, the illuminator must stay on. It is high PRF, easy to find  (the "original" was CW, even easier). The modern HAWKs also have an optical tracker, which is helpful if the target can be seen. However, the missile still "needs" the illuminator to guide on the target.

I am not totally "happy" about these systems being provided. Quite a bit of effort will be required to make the "lash-up" work. I think the Ukrainians are going to expect better results than they will get. I think the Russians will simply blow up the illuminators. That said, the S-300 has SARH modes as well, and the Ukraine has continued to use these successfully. The HAWK can shoot down low altitude cruise missiles. That said, we don't have anything else readily available. The entire HAWK system as multiple radars involved in acquisition of targets. I assume the Ukrainians are getting the entire suite. Substituting other radars will greatly increase the probability of something not working.

[dabigv13]

The bad news is that even the crappy Russian anti-radiation missiles like the K-58 are a threat to the Hawk illuminator.

My impression is that Russia has very rarely been running SEAD missions in Ukraine, and their ability to do so has probably been degraded by their ongoing losses whenever they operate close to the front line. This missile outranges the Kh58 as well, so should help to continue to deny Russia airspace or could be use closer to urban centers to try and shoot down drones or take a stab at some cruise missiles. Ukraine has similar systems but may be running low on missile stocks so every bit helps.

[dabigv13]

The bad news is that even the crappy Russian anti-radiation missiles like the K-58 are a threat to the Hawk illuminator.

My impression is that Russia has very rarely been running SEAD missions in Ukraine, and their ability to do so has probably been degraded by their ongoing losses whenever they operate close to the front line. This missile outranges the Kh58 as well, so should help to continue to deny Russia airspace or could be use closer to urban centers to try and shoot down drones or take a stab at some cruise missiles. Ukraine has similar systems but may be running low on missile stocks so every bit helps.

[BostonCard]

Agree with danish.  The next time that Russia does something smart in this war will be the first.  Just because taking out the illuminates would be the first order of business for the US in this situation doesn’t mean that Russia will. Time and again, it has made poor tactical choices but doing stuff “for show”.

BC

[BostonCard]

Agree with danish.  The next time that Russia does something smart in this war will be the first.  Just because taking out the illuminates would be the first order of business for the US in this situation doesn’t mean that Russia will. Time and again, it has made poor tactical choices but doing stuff “for show”.

BC

[dabigv13]

Apparently France will be providing Crotale SAM systems soon as well. 

More on that and the HAWK systems Spain is providing here.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/uk...from-spain

[dabigv13]

Apparently France will be providing Crotale SAM systems soon as well. 

More on that and the HAWK systems Spain is providing here.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/uk...from-spain

[Goose]

The bad news is that even the crappy Russian anti-radiation missiles like the K-58 are a threat to the Hawk illuminator.

My impression is that Russia has very rarely been running SEAD missions in Ukraine, and their ability to do so has probably been degraded by their ongoing losses whenever they operate close to the front line. This missile outranges the Kh58 as well, so should help to continue to deny Russia airspace or could be use closer to urban centers to try and shoot down drones or take a stab at some cruise missiles. Ukraine has similar systems but may be running low on missile stocks so every bit helps.

One thing that for some reason nobody has pointed out (AFAIK) is that a very large part of the Russian poor SEAD/EA performance is that the Russians designed their systems to counter NATO radars, NOT their own missile systems. That especially matters on the Soviet designed systems which are not software driven and predate wide band microwave amplifiers. Much like the original HARM, the Kh58 has different "heads" for different frequencies. You can't easily reprogram any of it's recognition systems. It was never designed to attack an S-X00 system and probably can't be modified to do so very well without major R&D as well as testing. OTOH, the Russians spent years building systems to counter, in particular, the HAWK system. The have training manuals and combat experience (via surrogates) against it. They have many recording of the engagement radars and the aircraft positions to go with them. Western Europe was at one time covered with HAWK batteries. The Russians have many captured batteries to dissect and test against. They have the manuals.

For that reason, I expect their performance against that system to be quite good, much better than against the S-300 for example. They have tactics (that we have actually observed) using EA to get close enough to use the Kh58. The Russians in the past were also very good at saturating a HAWK battery with too many targets. The HAWK as originally designed could only engage as many targets as it had illuminators. The LASH equipped HAWK was built to share an illuminator among targets, but how well that worked is questionable.

I do agree that the HAWK is "better than nothing". I just hope Ukraine realizes that it probably won't work as well or be as survivable as their S-300s are, not because it is a "worse" system, but rather because it is something the Russians have explicitly developed weapons and tactics to defeat and destroy.

[Goose]

The bad news is that even the crappy Russian anti-radiation missiles like the K-58 are a threat to the Hawk illuminator.

My impression is that Russia has very rarely been running SEAD missions in Ukraine, and their ability to do so has probably been degraded by their ongoing losses whenever they operate close to the front line. This missile outranges the Kh58 as well, so should help to continue to deny Russia airspace or could be use closer to urban centers to try and shoot down drones or take a stab at some cruise missiles. Ukraine has similar systems but may be running low on missile stocks so every bit helps.

One thing that for some reason nobody has pointed out (AFAIK) is that a very large part of the Russian poor SEAD/EA performance is that the Russians designed their systems to counter NATO radars, NOT their own missile systems. That especially matters on the Soviet designed systems which are not software driven and predate wide band microwave amplifiers. Much like the original HARM, the Kh58 has different "heads" for different frequencies. You can't easily reprogram any of it's recognition systems. It was never designed to attack an S-X00 system and probably can't be modified to do so very well without major R&D as well as testing. OTOH, the Russians spent years building systems to counter, in particular, the HAWK system. The have training manuals and combat experience (via surrogates) against it. They have many recording of the engagement radars and the aircraft positions to go with them. Western Europe was at one time covered with HAWK batteries. The Russians have many captured batteries to dissect and test against. They have the manuals.

For that reason, I expect their performance against that system to be quite good, much better than against the S-300 for example. They have tactics (that we have actually observed) using EA to get close enough to use the Kh58. The Russians in the past were also very good at saturating a HAWK battery with too many targets. The HAWK as originally designed could only engage as many targets as it had illuminators. The LASH equipped HAWK was built to share an illuminator among targets, but how well that worked is questionable.

I do agree that the HAWK is "better than nothing". I just hope Ukraine realizes that it probably won't work as well or be as survivable as their S-300s are, not because it is a "worse" system, but rather because it is something the Russians have explicitly developed weapons and tactics to defeat and destroy.

[BostonCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1580603516254818305?s=46&t=HjH4pmAqux6CMSs_imMjRA[/tweet]

Hope the assessment is true.

BC

[BostonCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/1580603516254818305?s=46&t=HjH4pmAqux6CMSs_imMjRA[/tweet]

Hope the assessment is true.

BC

[Goose]

https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/158...MSs_imMjRA

Hope the assessment is true.

BC

Unfortunately it may also signal that Russia is doing the tactically correct thing and evacuating a position it cannot hold. The hope was that Ukraine could seriously damage the Russian military by cutting off their forces on the right bank. While even a well-executed planned retreat wouldn't be "loss free", it would be far superior to a crushing defeat. It is not "for sure" Russia intends to retreat, and even if they do they have limited GLOCs to use. However, Chosin Reservoir bad it isn't.

Still, taking back territory, especially a major city, would be a "good thing". There is still no rain in the 10 day forecast.

[Goose]

https://twitter.com/maxseddon/status/158...MSs_imMjRA

Hope the assessment is true.

BC

Unfortunately it may also signal that Russia is doing the tactically correct thing and evacuating a position it cannot hold. The hope was that Ukraine could seriously damage the Russian military by cutting off their forces on the right bank. While even a well-executed planned retreat wouldn't be "loss free", it would be far superior to a crushing defeat. It is not "for sure" Russia intends to retreat, and even if they do they have limited GLOCs to use. However, Chosin Reservoir bad it isn't.

Still, taking back territory, especially a major city, would be a "good thing". There is still no rain in the 10 day forecast.

[BostonCard]

Russia is evacuating civilians from Kherson.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-urge...lewebshare

BC

[BostonCard]

Russia is evacuating civilians from Kherson.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-urge...lewebshare

BC

[Softball Fan]

When the war first started I was 100% in favor of supporting Ukraine.  My position has evolved slowly over time to where I now feel this war has to come to an end sooner rather than later.  The U.S. can not provide financial and military aid to Ukraine for years, possibly decades.  Putin can keep the war going indefinitely even if it means only attacking from his home land.  

I believe the process of Ukraine becoming a NATO member could take years.  Also one or more NATO countries may get cold feet about Ukraine's membership at the last moment.  If Ukraine does officially make it into NATO, that will force the U.S. and NATO countries to aggressively seek a peace treaty with Russia; the alternative being an unimaginable conflict.

The U.S. has to actively start discussion with Ukraine about an end game which will unfortunately mean compromise.  It's the best option out of all the bad options available.   Putin is not going to unconditionally surrender.

[Softball Fan]

When the war first started I was 100% in favor of supporting Ukraine.  My position has evolved slowly over time to where I now feel this war has to come to an end sooner rather than later.  The U.S. can not provide financial and military aid to Ukraine for years, possibly decades.  Putin can keep the war going indefinitely even if it means only attacking from his home land.  

I believe the process of Ukraine becoming a NATO member could take years.  Also one or more NATO countries may get cold feet about Ukraine's membership at the last moment.  If Ukraine does officially make it into NATO, that will force the U.S. and NATO countries to aggressively seek a peace treaty with Russia; the alternative being an unimaginable conflict.

The U.S. has to actively start discussion with Ukraine about an end game which will unfortunately mean compromise.  It's the best option out of all the bad options available.   Putin is not going to unconditionally surrender.

[Softball Fan]

To the poster who seems to have deleted his comment before my response was uploaded.

My opinion is not based in any way on political parties.  I do not know what the current administration is planning.  I do not know what any potential new administration plans to do in future years.

[Softball Fan]

To the poster who seems to have deleted his comment before my response was uploaded.

My opinion is not based in any way on political parties.  I do not know what the current administration is planning.  I do not know what any potential new administration plans to do in future years.

[TrumpCard]

When the war first started I was 100% in favor of supporting Ukraine.  My position has evolved slowly over time to where I now feel this war has to come to an end sooner rather than later.  The U.S. can not provide financial and military aid to Ukraine for years, possibly decades.  Putin can keep the war going indefinitely even if it means only attacking from his home land.  

I believe the process of Ukraine becoming a NATO member could take years.  Also one or more NATO countries may get cold feet about Ukraine's membership at the last moment.  If Ukraine does officially make it into NATO, that will force the U.S. and NATO countries to aggressively seek a peace treaty with Russia; the alternative being an unimaginable conflict.

The U.S. has to actively start discussion with Ukraine about an end game which will unfortunately mean compromise.  It's the best option out of all the bad options available.   Putin is not going to unconditionally surrender.

FWLIW, I have the opposite view regarding the U.S.'s best strategy.  I think the degradation of Russia's army is the best thing to happen to NATO since the high water mark for democracy building in the late 90s.  IMHO, it's worth the financial investment multiple times over and, again, IMHO, seems as likely to deter Russia from a future conflict with NATO as it is to spark such a conflict.  I have no designs on admitting Ukraine to NATO, nor do I think that is necessary for NATO to achieve its goal of deterring Russia and other rogue/imperialist nations from trying to colonize/annex sovereign nations.  Based on public indications, I suspect the Biden Administration would fall somewhere in between our respective views, but probably closer to mine than yours.

[TrumpCard]

When the war first started I was 100% in favor of supporting Ukraine.  My position has evolved slowly over time to where I now feel this war has to come to an end sooner rather than later.  The U.S. can not provide financial and military aid to Ukraine for years, possibly decades.  Putin can keep the war going indefinitely even if it means only attacking from his home land.  

I believe the process of Ukraine becoming a NATO member could take years.  Also one or more NATO countries may get cold feet about Ukraine's membership at the last moment.  If Ukraine does officially make it into NATO, that will force the U.S. and NATO countries to aggressively seek a peace treaty with Russia; the alternative being an unimaginable conflict.

The U.S. has to actively start discussion with Ukraine about an end game which will unfortunately mean compromise.  It's the best option out of all the bad options available.   Putin is not going to unconditionally surrender.

FWLIW, I have the opposite view regarding the U.S.'s best strategy.  I think the degradation of Russia's army is the best thing to happen to NATO since the high water mark for democracy building in the late 90s.  IMHO, it's worth the financial investment multiple times over and, again, IMHO, seems as likely to deter Russia from a future conflict with NATO as it is to spark such a conflict.  I have no designs on admitting Ukraine to NATO, nor do I think that is necessary for NATO to achieve its goal of deterring Russia and other rogue/imperialist nations from trying to colonize/annex sovereign nations.  Based on public indications, I suspect the Biden Administration would fall somewhere in between our respective views, but probably closer to mine than yours.

[Goose]

The U.S. has to actively start discussion with Ukraine about an end game which will unfortunately mean compromise.  It's the best option out of all the bad options available.   Putin is not going to unconditionally surrender.

There are lots of possible end games. Putin may indeed not surrender unconditionally but if Putin is no longer calling the shots, what then? The problem with any solution that does not actively prevent Russia from continuing this war at a later date, no matter what compromises were made, isn't viable either for Ukraine, the EU, or the US. It will just be kicking the can down the road. Been there, done that (the Trilateral Agreement).

The end game is going to cost money and involve measurable actions by the US and NATO. IMHO that is just a fact. The US has troops in Korea not because they can single-handedly stop a North Korean attack (nuclear or otherwise), but rather as "hostages" to our commitment to defend South Korea. IMHO we and the rest of NATO are looking at something like that here. Less won't sell. Nobody in Ukraine is going to trust Russia's word or our "word" that we would stop a rerun of this mess.

[Goose]

The U.S. has to actively start discussion with Ukraine about an end game which will unfortunately mean compromise.  It's the best option out of all the bad options available.   Putin is not going to unconditionally surrender.

There are lots of possible end games. Putin may indeed not surrender unconditionally but if Putin is no longer calling the shots, what then? The problem with any solution that does not actively prevent Russia from continuing this war at a later date, no matter what compromises were made, isn't viable either for Ukraine, the EU, or the US. It will just be kicking the can down the road. Been there, done that (the Trilateral Agreement).

The end game is going to cost money and involve measurable actions by the US and NATO. IMHO that is just a fact. The US has troops in Korea not because they can single-handedly stop a North Korean attack (nuclear or otherwise), but rather as "hostages" to our commitment to defend South Korea. IMHO we and the rest of NATO are looking at something like that here. Less won't sell. Nobody in Ukraine is going to trust Russia's word or our "word" that we would stop a rerun of this mess.