Revelation wrote:

So, with a sufficient number of ATACMS, Ukraine could greatly weaken the Russian occupation forces throughout the occupied territories, which would make it far easier for them to eventually win this war instead of being bogged down in a never-ending stalemate. As noted the Ukrainians already are using MLRS/HIMARS with GMLRS missiles, so the training excuse doesn't work.

The only US response I could find on the record is: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/20 ... es-nasams/

Colin Kahl, the U.S. undersecretary of defense for policy, said last month that Ukraine did not require ATACMS to strike targets “that are directly relevant to the current fight.”

This almost feels like the goal is to keep the meat grinder going as long as possible. I personally hope there was at least a behind-the-scenes threat of supplying ATACMS to get the Russians to stop bombing the civilian infrastructure.

The interesting thing about that quote is that the US military in particular the Air Force is very high on ensuring that in any conflict, the ability of its enemy to resupply and reinforce is greatly diminished, if that strategy is sound, then Ukraine has boatloads of logistical targets they can hit....my bet is that they do not want them to hit the Kerch bridge...

Guys,

ATACMs is not a panacea.

GMLRS are smaller and harder to defeat.

Did y'all saw the video from Denis on the rumor of an advanced missile that Ukraine may get? That would be more difficult to shoot out from the sky.

par13del wrote:

The interesting thing about that quote is that the US military in particular the Air Force is very high on ensuring that in any conflict, the ability of its enemy to resupply and reinforce is greatly diminished, if that strategy is sound, then Ukraine has boatloads of logistical targets they can hit....my bet is that they do not want them to hit the Kerch bridge...

If we take the statement at face value, US is saying they're OK with Ukraine being able to strike targets 50 miles away with a 50 pound warhead, but not OK with Ukraine being able to strike a target at 190 mile range with a 250 pound warhead.

The same WaPo article linked above says:

Russia’s Foreign Ministry said earlier this month that supplying longer-range weapons would cross a “red line,” drawing the United States into the conflict.

I agree that one of the first targets they would want to hit would be the Kerch bridge, but I'm not sure that fits the "within Ukraine" mandate. Maybe if they wiped out the approaches on the Crimean side it would?

As above, I wish we had drawn our own "red line" at targeting civilian infrastructure in Ukraine, but it seems that ship has sailed.

I guess the unspoken fear is if Ukraine was in desperation mode they could go back on their word and attack military targets within Russia itself and perhaps even civilian infrastructure too, which would make Russia fully mobilize, threaten NATO borders, start to use NBC weapons, start taking out satellites, etc. Russia internally speaks of NATO aggression, any escalation gets portrayed as even more persecution.

I guess senior US leadership feels it is best to not create such a path to escalation and so they keep that asset out of the theater. Personally I don't think Russia is in any position to escalate, but I don't get paid to make such decisions, and I don't have access to all the info that the decision makers have.

Revelation wrote:

par13del wrote:

The interesting thing about that quote is that the US military in particular the Air Force is very high on ensuring that in any conflict, the ability of its enemy to resupply and reinforce is greatly diminished, if that strategy is sound, then Ukraine has boatloads of logistical targets they can hit....my bet is that they do not want them to hit the Kerch bridge...

If we take the statement at face value, US is saying they're OK with Ukraine being able to strike targets 50 miles away with a 50 pound warhead, but not OK with Ukraine being able to strike a target at 190 mile range with a 250 pound warhead.

The same WaPo article linked above says:

Russia’s Foreign Ministry said earlier this month that supplying longer-range weapons would cross a “red line,” drawing the United States into the conflict.

I agree that one of the first targets they would want to hit would be the Kerch bridge, but I'm not sure that fits the "within Ukraine" mandate. Maybe if they wiped out the approaches on the Crimean side it would?

As above, I wish we had drawn our own "red line" at targeting civilian infrastructure in Ukraine, but it seems that ship has sailed.

I guess the unspoken fear is if Ukraine was in desperation mode they could go back on their word and attack military targets within Russia itself and perhaps even civilian infrastructure too, which would make Russia fully mobilize, threaten NATO borders, start to use NBC weapons, start taking out satellites, etc. Russia internally speaks of NATO aggression, any escalation gets portrayed as even more persecution.

I guess senior US leadership feels it is best to not create such a path to escalation and so they keep that asset out of the theater. Personally I don't think Russia is in any position to escalate, but I don't get paid to make such decisions, and I don't have access to all the info that the decision makers have.

I wonder if Ukraine is working on something indigenous and that is partly why other countries are holding off on supplying longer-ranged weapons?

mjgbtv wrote:

I wonder if Ukraine is working on something indigenous and that is partly why other countries are holding off on supplying longer-ranged weapons?

One source ( https://eurasiantimes.com/denied-atacms ... -its-1000/ ) suggests Ukraine is working on long-range drones.

Denys Davydov ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1m9uPp8Xrw ) says Storm Shadow / SCALP cruise missiles are being supplied to Ukraine, but doesn't give a source.

Another unsourced report: https://eurasiantimes.com/agm-88-harms- ... y-stealth/

I think missiles are doing a better job at penetrating defended airspace, so IMO they are preferable to drones or cruise missiles.

Revelation wrote:

I think missiles are doing a better job at penetrating defended airspace, so IMO they are preferable to drones or cruise missiles.

Two benefi of air launch cruise missiles vs ballistic missiles:

1) Logistics is easier. Just get the missiles across the border then mount it on an airplane. With a ballistic missed, you have to truck them to the front line.

2) Russian SAM may be able to counter a ballistic missile better than a low flying/maneuvering cruise missiles. Specially if those missiles are accompanied by HARMS.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

ATACMs is not a panacea.

GMLRS are smaller and harder to defeat.

True, yet they keep coming up because Ukraine has specifically asked for them and US has refused to supply them.

Maybe the US thinks they won't be able to penetrate defended airspace?

bikerthai wrote:

Did y'all saw the video from Denis on the rumor of an advanced missile that Ukraine may get? That would be more difficult to shoot out from the sky.

Yes, and I just gave the link in the post above.

Revelation wrote:

par13del wrote:

The interesting thing about that quote is that the US military in particular the Air Force is very high on ensuring that in any conflict, the ability of its enemy to resupply and reinforce is greatly diminished, if that strategy is sound, then Ukraine has boatloads of logistical targets they can hit....my bet is that they do not want them to hit the Kerch bridge...

If we take the statement at face value, US is saying they're OK with Ukraine being able to strike targets 50 miles away with a 50 pound warhead, but not OK with Ukraine being able to strike a target at 190 mile range with a 250 pound warhead.

The same WaPo article linked above says:

Russia’s Foreign Ministry said earlier this month that supplying longer-range weapons would cross a “red line,” drawing the United States into the conflict.

I agree that one of the first targets they would want to hit would be the Kerch bridge, but I'm not sure that fits the "within Ukraine" mandate. Maybe if they wiped out the approaches on the Crimean side it would?

As above, I wish we had drawn our own "red line" at targeting civilian infrastructure in Ukraine, but it seems that ship has sailed.

I guess the unspoken fear is if Ukraine was in desperation mode they could go back on their word and attack military targets within Russia itself and perhaps even civilian infrastructure too, which would make Russia fully mobilize, threaten NATO borders, start to use NBC weapons, start taking out satellites, etc. Russia internally speaks of NATO aggression, any escalation gets portrayed as even more persecution.

I guess senior US leadership feels it is best to not create such a path to escalation and so they keep that asset out of the theater. Personally I don't think Russia is in any position to escalate, but I don't get paid to make such decisions, and I don't have access to all the info that the decision makers have.

Mmm...

Russia to Ukraine: "It is acceptable for us to attack you from within our borders. It is unacceptable for you to attack us from within your borders. Do that and you cross a red line."

Countries supporting Ukraine to Russia: "You set the rules. We won't supply Ukraine with the means to cross your red line."

So what happens if Russia is pushed out of Ukraine? Russia can continue attacking Ukraine using weapons based inside Russia with no military response from Ukraine? That seems a good way to guarantee endless trouble to me.

bikerthai wrote:

Revelation wrote:

I think missiles are doing a better job at penetrating defended airspace, so IMO they are preferable to drones or cruise missiles.

Two benefi of air launch cruise missiles vs ballistic missiles:

1) Logistics is easier. Just get the missiles across the border then mount it on an airplane. With a ballistic missed, you have to truck them to the front line.

2) Russian SAM may be able to counter a ballistic missile better than a low flying/maneuvering cruise missiles. Specially if those missiles are accompanied by HARMS.

bt

The links I provided suggest SCALP would be integrated with Su-24. I agree the logistics are easier, but they presume you have control of the air. HIMARS/MLRS vehicles are somewhat vulnerable to counter-strikes. Su24 could be flown near the edges of controlled airspace then launch its cruise missiles.

art wrote:

Russia to Ukraine: "It is acceptable for us to attack you from within our borders. It is unacceptable for you to attack us from within your borders. Do that and you cross a red line."

Countries supporting Ukraine to Russia: "You set the rules. We won't supply Ukraine with the means to cross your red line."

So what happens if Russia is pushed out of Ukraine? Russia can continue attacking Ukraine using weapons based inside Russia with no military response from Ukraine? That seems a good way to guarantee endless trouble to me.

Supports the perpetual meat grinder theory...

Revelation wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

ATACMs is not a panacea.

GMLRS are smaller and harder to defeat.

True, yet they keep coming up because Ukraine has specifically asked for them and US has refused to supply them.

Maybe the US thinks they won't be able to penetrate defended airspace?

I think if they wanted to actually know they would give Ukraine 6 or 12 and let them have a go.....I don't think Ukraine would refuse even 1 test shot.
I am thinking the fear is that they would attempt to go after Putin himself.....

Revelation wrote:

-24. I agree the logistics are easier, but they presume you have control of the air.

A while back I used a CAD program to see how close to a target you can get by flying low and hide behind the curvature of the earth.

I was surprised how close you can get to a ground radar before getting to the line of sight.

Sure, Ukraine does not have air superiority, but I don't hear Russia sending its aircrafts across the front line either.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Revelation wrote:

-24. I agree the logistics are easier, but they presume you have control of the air.

A while back I used a CAD program to see how close to a target you can get by flying low and hide behind the curvature of the earth.

I was surprised how close you can get to a ground radar before getting to the line of sight.

Sure, Ukraine does not have air superiority, but I don't hear Russia sending its aircrafts across the front line either.

bt

Not sure what the capabilities are but Russia has AWACS aircraft flying, don't they?

And doesn't Storm Shadow still require someone (Britain/France?) to either provide the missiles or sign off on someone else providing them? And risk stepping on the US' toes?

I don't get how a 'meat grinder' would be in the interests of the West, since it prolongs the war, prolongs the economic disruption/energy problems.
The whole debate about longer range weapons seems to be about risking that ladder of escalation.
I am not convinced of the case against a limited number of MGM-140's.

What would help?
Mentioned above is the idea of integrating Storm Shadow/Scalp in to SU-24, I mentioned it before but on the battlefield at least, doing the same with Brimstone (already in Ukrainian service) on to SU-25.
More survivable, more accurate.

Ukraine asks for MGM-140 because nobody gives us Tomahawks.
I wonder if launch platforms, that US Army used in nuclear role during the Cold War, are still sitting in a warehouse somewhere, or are they scrapped?

Putin's idea of liberation. Drone footage of a horribly destroyed Maruipol:
https://twitter.com/GlasnostGone/status ... 0445175808

Phosphorus wrote:

Ukraine asks for MGM-140 because nobody gives us Tomahawks.
I wonder if launch platforms, that US Army used in nuclear role during the Cold War, are still sitting in a warehouse somewhere, or are they scrapped?

What would Ukraine target with Tomahawk or Scalp/Storm Shadow?



.

art wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

Ukraine asks for MGM-140 because nobody gives us Tomahawks.
I wonder if launch platforms, that US Army used in nuclear role during the Cold War, are still sitting in a warehouse somewhere, or are they scrapped?

What would Ukraine target with Tomahawk or Scalp/Storm Shadow
.

Kremlin?

GDB wrote:

I don't get how a 'meat grinder' would be in the interests of the West, since it prolongs the war, prolongs the economic disruption/energy problems.

Yet, when we apply critical thinking, we don't see any plan of action being acted on that leads to Ukraine meeting its goals of recapturing all of its lands, getting reparations, and ousting Putin, so the next question is, what theory fits the data points we do have?

I am not convinced of the case against a limited number of MGM-140's.

Neither am I, but unfortunately we don't get to decide what happens.

art wrote:

Phosphorus wrote:

Ukraine asks for MGM-140 because nobody gives us Tomahawks.
I wonder if launch platforms, that US Army used in nuclear role during the Cold War, are still sitting in a warehouse somewhere, or are they scrapped?

What would Ukraine target with Tomahawk or Scalp/Storm Shadow?



.

Shaykovka and Engels airfields, from which cruise missile-laden bombers take off, would be #1 targets, out of the question.
Any dispersal airfields, if these fields are taken out, but any bomber capability survives.

Next in line would be launch sites for land-based cruise missiles, if any. Similar in priority -- any fixed infrastructure for Iranian-made drone launches. If none found -- airfields, where Il-76, loaded with these drones, were known to land -- preferably during such landings, but if just Il-76 and/or their offloaded cargo would be taken out -- then still OK.

Oil refining infrastructure and storage facilities would be important targets, to starve enemy of logistics.
There are other useful targets, too. All military. No terror bombing. We aren't ruskies.

An internal rift over the supply of deadly drones to Russia for use in Ukraine has opened up in Iran, with a prominent conservative cleric and newspaper editor saying Russia is the clear aggressor in the war and the supply should stop.
...

A former Iranian ambassador to Moscow, Nematollah Izadi, said it appeared there had been no proper cooperation between the military and diplomatic wings of the Iranian state, possibly leaving the foreign ministry in the dark. It seemed one section of the government thought it profitable to sell drones to Moscow for the use in the war or otherwise, Izadi said, and “we seem to have succumbed to a deception operation by Russia, which, in my opinion, does not serve our national interests at all”.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... -by-russia

With luck, drone supplies will stop... but how many have been supplied? The article says that Ukraine thinks Iran shipped around 2,400 drones to Russia.

mjgbtv wrote:

Not sure what the capabilities are but Russia has AWACS aircraft flying, don't they?

Probably, but they would probably not risk flying them too near the border.

AWACs are the most sophisticated and maintenance heavy aircrafts. The US will be replacing the E-3 with the E-7 because of this. Now imagine even if effective, how many AWACs can the Russian keep in the air and how much of the electronics actually works with the chip shortages, et cetera.

art wrote:

What would Ukraine target with Tomahawk or Scalp/Storm Shadow?

For comparison, an MLRS warhead is approx 250, size of a SBD (small diameter bomb).

A storm shadow warhead is comparable to a 500 lb bomb

And a Tomahawk is the size off a 1000 lb bomb.


You would need fewer of the larger warhead to damage hardened targets like bunkers or bridges.

bt

art wrote:

India has remained non-committal on a plan proposed by the G7 group of nations to cap the price of oil purchased from Russia as a means of limiting Moscow's revenue
Russia has become India's top oil supplier in October, surpassing traditional sellers Saudi Arabia and Iraq, according to data from energy cargo tracker Vortexa.

Russia, which made up for just 0.2% of all oil imported by India in the year to March 31, 2022, supplied 9,35,556 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil to India in October — the highest ever.

It now makes up for 22% of India's total crude imports, ahead of Iraq's 20.5% and Saudi Arabia's 16%.

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 7s%2016%25.

So, the sanctions against Russia look to have precipitated a 100 fold increase in exports of Russian crude to India. Who is being hurt by the embargo on buying Russian oil imposed by many states - Russia or those many states imposing the embargo?

There is no oil embargo yet. It's only voluntary.

Soon, it will be a real embargo on shipping Russian oil. Then on top of countries applying the sanctions, there will be pressure on India and China to think about what customers they'd rather have, all the countries applying the sanctions, or all the countries not applying them. Make a choice.

Revelation wrote:

GDB wrote:

I don't get how a 'meat grinder' would be in the interests of the West, since it prolongs the war, prolongs the economic disruption/energy problems.

Yet, when we apply critical thinking, we don't see any plan of action being acted on that leads to Ukraine meeting its goals of recapturing all of its lands, getting reparations, and ousting Putin, so the next question is, what theory fits the data points we do have?

That seems to be plan though. Much like during the Cold war the West is just outspending Russia and having them bleed through a proxy conflict.

Escalating against an irrational enemy with nuclear weapons comes with risks no one seems to be willing to take. The slow bleed seems to be a compromise.

JJJ wrote:

Revelation wrote:

GDB wrote:

I don't get how a 'meat grinder' would be in the interests of the West, since it prolongs the war, prolongs the economic disruption/energy problems.

Yet, when we apply critical thinking, we don't see any plan of action being acted on that leads to Ukraine meeting its goals of recapturing all of its lands, getting reparations, and ousting Putin, so the next question is, what theory fits the data points we do have?

That seems to be plan though. Much like during the Cold war the West is just outspending Russia and having them bleed through a proxy conflict.

Escalating against an irrational enemy with nuclear weapons comes with risks no one seems to be willing to take. The slow bleed seems to be a compromise.

Why would the West have a 'plan of action' for Ukraine winning? Beyond provision of support, which as I mentioned, changed in what was supplied as the situation did.
The Ukrainian general staff seem pretty adept at not only planning but outfighting the Russians.
As to what more we should provide, while I agree on some MGM-140's, without a major servicing, logistical support facility, which might be coming if plans for one in Poland are true, providing Western MBT's and IFV's before that would mean they would only be used in penny packets and encounter logistic support problems.

Clarion calls for F-16's, F-15's etc, the former yes in the medium term but that ignores one thing.
Where IS the Russian AF?
Looks like Ukraine's AD, now being further augmented, is keeping them away, in terms of aircraft at least.

Again, what part of the huge instability, soaring fuel costs, refugee problem is in the interests of the West to continue, granted the latter will not affect the US.
What part of this war, which does make the prospect of a NATO vs Russia conflict, even if only through accident or carelessness, is beneficial? The longer it goes on the more likely it is, anyone actually considered that? Washington I suspect has.
We hear that Russia will have to hold back on some things as to not totally empty their arsenals.
Ever considered they are not the only ones thinking that?

Meanwhile, on the front line;
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... -in-attack

JJJ wrote:

Revelation wrote:

GDB wrote:

I don't get how a 'meat grinder' would be in the interests of the West, since it prolongs the war, prolongs the economic disruption/energy problems.

Yet, when we apply critical thinking, we don't see any plan of action being acted on that leads to Ukraine meeting its goals of recapturing all of its lands, getting reparations, and ousting Putin, so the next question is, what theory fits the data points we do have?

That seems to be plan though. Much like during the Cold war the West is just outspending Russia and having them bleed through a proxy conflict.

Escalating against an irrational enemy with nuclear weapons comes with risks no one seems to be willing to take. The slow bleed seems to be a compromise.

Putting Ukraine in a position where it can win back its sovereignty ASAP seems to be a risk that the west is unwilling to take. Temerity, not timidity, is what is needed. Who doesn't dare doesn't win as quickly as could be the case.

art wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Yet, when we apply critical thinking, we don't see any plan of action being acted on that leads to Ukraine meeting its goals of recapturing all of its lands, getting reparations, and ousting Putin, so the next question is, what theory fits the data points we do have?

That seems to be plan though. Much like during the Cold war the West is just outspending Russia and having them bleed through a proxy conflict.

Escalating against an irrational enemy with nuclear weapons comes with risks no one seems to be willing to take. The slow bleed seems to be a compromise.

Putting Ukraine in a position where it can win back its sovereignty ASAP seems to be a risk that the west is unwilling to take. Temerity, not timidity, is what is needed. Who doesn't dare doesn't win as quickly as could be the case.

Who dares might end at the wrong end of a nuclear strike.

You can bet all possible scenarios have been gamed.

art wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Yet, when we apply critical thinking, we don't see any plan of action being acted on that leads to Ukraine meeting its goals of recapturing all of its lands, getting reparations, and ousting Putin, so the next question is, what theory fits the data points we do have?

That seems to be plan though. Much like during the Cold war the West is just outspending Russia and having them bleed through a proxy conflict.

Escalating against an irrational enemy with nuclear weapons comes with risks no one seems to be willing to take. The slow bleed seems to be a compromise.

Putting Ukraine in a position where it can win back its sovereignty ASAP seems to be a risk that the west is unwilling to take. Temerity, not timidity, is what is needed. Who doesn't dare doesn't win as quickly as could be the case.

Or, Who dares wins, now where have I heard that motto before?

Russian history suggests a military collapse brings about a rapid political one.
It did in 1905, 1917, in 1941 after ignoring warnings for months, the German invasion and rapid advance, sent the 'man of steel' off to his dacha, out of contact for three days, in what may have been a nervous breakdown. He seemed to think when colleagues dared to arrive they were there to shoot him.

It is not fanciful to think that a rapid collapse in Ukraine could bring about a collapse of Putin's authority, however with the nuclear component it's more complicated.
Certainly not the ideas around 'we are fighting a proxy war'.
The stakes are higher than that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5SgQekDK6M

GDB wrote:

Why would the West have a 'plan of action' for Ukraine winning? Beyond provision of support, which as I mentioned, changed in what was supplied as the situation did.
The Ukrainian general staff seem pretty adept at not only planning but outfighting the Russians.
...
Again, what part of the huge instability, soaring fuel costs, refugee problem is in the interests of the West to continue, granted the latter will not affect the US.
What part of this war, which does make the prospect of a NATO vs Russia conflict, even if only through accident or carelessness, is beneficial? The longer it goes on the more likely it is, anyone actually considered that? Washington I suspect has.

The logic here is hard to follow: Support is provided, but with no agreed plan of action, yet a particular outcome ( rapid conclusion of hostilities, as opposed to, let's say degradation of the enemy's resources over time ) is the prioritized goal?

If there is a chosen goal ( e.g. rapid conclusion of hostilities ), wouldn't the supplier supply the best tools to achieve that outcome, and collaborate on a plan of action on how to use those tools to achieve that goal?

If the true situation is "here's a bunch of expensive stuff that we'll let you have, you figure out what you can do with it" then as a US taxpayer I'm pretty unhappy about that situation.

Revelation wrote:

GDB wrote:

Why would the West have a 'plan of action' for Ukraine winning? Beyond provision of support, which as I mentioned, changed in what was supplied as the situation did.
The Ukrainian general staff seem pretty adept at not only planning but outfighting the Russians.
...
Again, what part of the huge instability, soaring fuel costs, refugee problem is in the interests of the West to continue, granted the latter will not affect the US.
What part of this war, which does make the prospect of a NATO vs Russia conflict, even if only through accident or carelessness, is beneficial? The longer it goes on the more likely it is, anyone actually considered that? Washington I suspect has.

The logic here is hard to follow: Support is provided, but with no agreed plan of action, yet a particular outcome ( rapid conclusion of hostilities, as opposed to, let's say degradation of the enemy's resources over time ) is the prioritized goal?

If there is a chosen goal ( e.g. rapid conclusion of hostilities ), wouldn't the supplier supply the best tools to achieve that outcome, and collaborate on a plan of action on how to use those tools to achieve that goal?

If the true situation is "here's a bunch of expensive stuff that we'll let you have, you figure out what you can do with it" then as a US taxpayer I'm pretty unhappy about that situation.

Do we have to conclude that there is no plan just because it has not been publicized? Maybe the plan is to let Ukraine take it's time to some extent because that is judged to be best for them all things considered even if it's not so convenient for other countries.

Revelation wrote:

GDB wrote:

Why would the West have a 'plan of action' for Ukraine winning? Beyond provision of support, which as I mentioned, changed in what was supplied as the situation did.
The Ukrainian general staff seem pretty adept at not only planning but outfighting the Russians.
...
Again, what part of the huge instability, soaring fuel costs, refugee problem is in the interests of the West to continue, granted the latter will not affect the US.
What part of this war, which does make the prospect of a NATO vs Russia conflict, even if only through accident or carelessness, is beneficial? The longer it goes on the more likely it is, anyone actually considered that? Washington I suspect has.

The logic here is hard to follow: Support is provided, but with no agreed plan of action, yet a particular outcome ( rapid conclusion of hostilities, as opposed to, let's say degradation of the enemy's resources over time ) is the prioritized goal?

If there is a chosen goal ( e.g. rapid conclusion of hostilities ), wouldn't the supplier supply the best tools to achieve that outcome, and collaborate on a plan of action on how to use those tools to achieve that goal?

If the true situation is "here's a bunch of expensive stuff that we'll let you have, you figure out what you can do with it" then as a US taxpayer I'm pretty unhappy about that situation.

As before, it's not a fixed situation, early on the west provided for what we and they thought the war would be.
That changed, with the assault checked and then the grinding artillery war/slow advance began, advance from the Russians that is, hence the large amounts of artillery, which even before HIMARS was vital.
These and other systems and support helped enable the Ukrainian counter attack.
Now we have this issue of the drones and infrastructure, however the real focus is on the battlefield.

This idea of the West deliberately prolonging the war (again, why?) seems to rely on hindsight.

Along with the death and destruction, farce;
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... up-for-him

mjgbtv wrote:

Do we have to conclude that there is no plan just because it has not been publicized? Maybe the plan is to let Ukraine take it's time to some extent because that is judged to be best for them all things considered even if it's not so convenient for other countries.

Time does not favor Ukraine, it does Russia who has much more resources. We can talk about sanctions which did not prevent India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, South Africa from having nuclear programs, so I am not thinking that Russia will not be able to restart production of weapons of war.
Perun in one episode listed the capacity of the major parties Europe, Russia, USA, yes Europe has the capacity, do we think their will is greater than Russia?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKlIh_- ... nnel=Perun

GDB wrote:

This idea of the West deliberately prolonging the war (again, why?) seems to rely on hindsight.

Yet that is what is happening.

The US has ATACMS. The Ukrainian staff that you just praised requested it. US could put it on a C-17 and it could be in Ukraine the next day, but nope, the US refused to provide it, for whatever reasons they have. If we believe the Ukrainian staff knows what they need to bring the war to its quickest conclusion, we can say the war is deliberately being prolonged.

Given this is the case, the next question is why.

Me and a few others have put forth a theory. I'm ok if others criticize it, it's just a theory, yet to me it's a valid theory because it fits the data points we have.

If the reason is the US fears an escalation, the theory still holds. It just means the US feels the outcome of the various escalation paths Russia might take is worse than just letting the meat grinder continue, in the hopes that there is eventually a breakthrough on the ground. Either that, or as WaPo suggests, the US wants to highlight the possible path to a negotiated settlement instead of looking like they are escalating, and a stalemate makes a negotiated settlement more likely.

par13del wrote:

yes Europe has the capacity, do we think their will is greater than Russia?

Did we think Vietnam or Afganistan had greater capacity than the US? They sure had more will power.

Do we think Russia has more will power than Ukraine?

Afganistan and Vietnam had "friendly" border countries in the form of Pakistan and China. Ukraine will still have Poland even if the rest of Europe falls away.

The comparison is appropriate and so will be the result.

Note that it is in the best interest of the US to bleed Russia dry. Then it can focus solely on China. So we may debate on the US method, but debating on the intension is probably not useful.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

par13del wrote:

yes Europe has the capacity, do we think their will is greater than Russia?

Do we think Russia has more will power than Ukraine?
bt

A question for which I do not know the answer, however based on what we read, I would say they are equal, whether the Russian public has been fed lies for years or not.

bikerthai wrote:

Note that it is in the best interest of the US to bleed Russia dry. Then it can focus solely on China. So we may debate on the US method, but debating on the intension is probably not useful.
bt

I would suggest the USA military has been focused on China since the end of the cold war, the politicians have been the sticking point. Yes Russia has a nuclear deterrent, but their military equipment - planes, tanks, submarines etc - has been rotting on the vine. The Ukraine conflict I would say is confirming for the politicians, not the professional military.
Politically it has not been popular for the USA pivot to the Far East, even when Obama also endorsed the strategy.

Can you imagine being a fly on the wall during the discussions between the US National Security Agency and the Putin's advisers regarding nuclear de escalation?

"Amid nuclear war fears, US NSA Sullivan met Russian officials: Report
"https://www.wionews.com/world/amidst-nuclear-tensions-us-nsa-sullivan-met-russian-officials-report-531770

Revelation wrote:

GDB wrote:

This idea of the West deliberately prolonging the war (again, why?) seems to rely on hindsight.

Yet that is what is happening.

The US has ATACMS. The Ukrainian staff that you just praised requested it. US could put it on a C-17 and it could be in Ukraine the next day, but nope, the US refused to provide it, for whatever reasons they have. If we believe the Ukrainian staff knows what they need to bring the war to its quickest conclusion, we can say the war is deliberately being prolonged.

Given this is the case, the next question is why.

Me and a few others have put forth a theory. I'm ok if others criticize it, it's just a theory, yet to me it's a valid theory because it fits the data points we have.

If the reason is the US fears an escalation, the theory still holds. It just means the US feels the outcome of the various escalation paths Russia might take is worse than just letting the meat grinder continue, in the hopes that there is eventually a breakthrough on the ground. Either that, or as WaPo suggests, the US wants to highlight the possible path to a negotiated settlement instead of looking like they are escalating, and a stalemate makes a negotiated settlement more likely.

Thanks for that, not being sarcastic at all, actually it’s made me consider a new train of thought with ATACAMS.
Unlike a HIMARS, much less a BM-21 or modern equivalents, its a larger rocket still on a ballistic trajectory though with more, much more range.
That’s the key word, ballistic .

We know that NATO, the Pentagon, have been war gaming the hell out of this since day one or even before.
Coupled with direct allusions to the Cuba Crisis, 60 years ago but I suspect rather fresher in the minds of these doing this now, plus other situations where war was only narrowly avoided, so you have a ballistic track inside Russian airspace, Ukraine and NATO know it’s a MGM-140 but what if this time, there is no Stanislav Petrov to make the right call?
Or the Norwegian sounding rocket from 1995?

https://military-history.fandom.com/wik ... t_incident

I suspect this might be why they have not been supplied, it’s not as if the US has fallen down in anything else with helping Ukraine.

A recent Perun video on the European defence sector was mentioned, in that one, he mentioned that France, aside from its strategic SSBN deterrent, it has a sub strategic element in its ASMP-A air launched system, which he described as a ‘warning shot’.
Since the retirement of the last WE-177 bomb in 1998, the UK has had, it is thought but not confirmed, one or two of the Trident D5’s with the on station boat, with a single warhead, for the sub strategic role. Finally the unneeded accuracy of D5 for the general UK deterrence stance has a use!

Which is fine if you are deterring a rouge state with a limited nuclear arsenal or is thinking of supplying material or a weapon to a non state actor.
It doesn’t work for Russia. To deter them, that’s the job of the sub in general for the ability to destroy the main Russian centers of population, those infamous letters of last resort on board etc.

That’s something that lessons learned going forward might have to consider.

par13del wrote:

I would suggest the USA military has been focused on China since the end of the cold war

Even during the time of "pivot to the Pacific", I've always thought the US Arm Forces was built for a two front (or one and a half) war scenario (Russia and China).

If Russia gets depleted and Europe step up (including Sweden and Finland), then the US can truly pivot to the Pacific without worrying about Russia.

par13del wrote:

, I would say they are equal, whether the Russian public has been fed lies for years or not.

Just from the reaction to the mobilization effort, I'd say the Russian people, or at least the mobilized personel have the will power of a flock of sheep. I wouldn't call it war winning will power. I would also not say the Ukrainian people's will power as sheep like.

bt

par13del wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

par13del wrote:

yes Europe has the capacity, do we think their will is greater than Russia?

Do we think Russia has more will power than Ukraine?
bt

A question for which I do not know the answer, however based on what we read, I would say they are equal, whether the Russian public has been fed lies for years or not.

I think the lying is worth pointing out. It's not about the US's willpower, we have a relatively open society. Putin has clamped down on the media in Russia for two decades now. The people have only heard his point of view, all news is shaped to fit that world view. Putin has special police to crack down on dissent. There is a cost for being in opposition, up to and including an untimely death. Some will pay it, most will not. Like it or not, in general the Russian public appears to believe in Putin's statements regarding Ukraine. Many of the people who don't share that point of view have fled so are out of the picture now.

par13del wrote:

bikerthai wrote:

Note that it is in the best interest of the US to bleed Russia dry. Then it can focus solely on China. So we may debate on the US method, but debating on the intension is probably not useful.
bt

I would suggest the USA military has been focused on China since the end of the cold war, the politicians have been the sticking point. Yes Russia has a nuclear deterrent, but their military equipment - planes, tanks, submarines etc - has been rotting on the vine. The Ukraine conflict I would say is confirming for the politicians, not the professional military.
Politically it has not been popular for the USA pivot to the Far East, even when Obama also endorsed the strategy.

Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake -- Napoleon Bonaparte.

GDB wrote:

Thanks for that, not being sarcastic at all, actually it’s made me consider a new train of thought with ATACAMS.
Unlike a HIMARS, much less a BM-21 or modern equivalents, its a larger rocket still on a ballistic trajectory though with more, much more range.
That’s the key word, ballistic .

So, when Iskander missiles were / are fired, does NATO and the USA intel assets monitoring Ukraine do a double take? Putin has been on the nuclear threat for a while, when the first Iskander was fired, was there a pucker factor in the west?
Honestly surprised none of us bought this up before in relation to the ATACAMS or the Iskander, thinking further, do you think Russia would advise the USA when they were going to launch one? I think there is still an official notification when either side launches satellites, subject to confirmation.

par13del wrote:

mjgbtv wrote:

Do we have to conclude that there is no plan just because it has not been publicized? Maybe the plan is to let Ukraine take it's time to some extent because that is judged to be best for them all things considered even if it's not so convenient for other countries.

Time does not favor Ukraine, it does Russia who has much more resources.

This is not a straight Russia v Ukraine war. Russia is scrapping the bottom of the barrel of Cold war stocks and unreliable allies getting stuff from Iran.

Ukraine OTOH is getting all sorts of surplus equipment from everyone but also increasingly newer stuff. Not to mention invaluable help in Comms, SIGINT and top-notch training.

Yes, Russia has more population but a general mobilisation is a much harder pill to swallow when you're the aggressor. Ukraine OTOH is fighting in his home ground so much more willing to take casualties, and the ratios are in Ukraine favour by some good measure.

JJJ wrote:

Yes, Russia has more population but a general mobilisation is a much harder pill to swallow when you're the aggressor.

Based on the PR being fed to the majority of the Russian population, they are defending themselves from NATO / EU / USA aggression.
Now has some young men fled Russia to avoid conscription, yes, do we see mass demonstration against the war by the everyday Russian, not that I have seen.
As for those Russians who are always on social media, a lot of those are folks who immediately fled Crimea when the airfield was bombed, I do not think they are the majority.
It is still difficult for us to accept the nature or lack thereof of open communication in Russia, has it improved, yes, now compare it to China.

par13del wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Yes, Russia has more population but a general mobilisation is a much harder pill to swallow when you're the aggressor.

Based on the PR being fed to the majority of the Russian population, they are defending themselves from NATO / EU / USA aggression.
Now has some young men fled Russia to avoid conscription, yes, do we see mass demonstration against the war by the everyday Russian, not that I have seen.

Have you seen what happens to those that protest?

Russia is a repressive country, people will pretend to toe the line and then slink away or pay off whoever can be paid off (and this being Russia there's always someone)

par13del wrote:

GDB wrote:

Thanks for that, not being sarcastic at all, actually it’s made me consider a new train of thought with ATACAMS.
Unlike a HIMARS, much less a BM-21 or modern equivalents, its a larger rocket still on a ballistic trajectory though with more, much more range.
That’s the key word, ballistic .

So, when Iskander missiles were / are fired, does NATO and the USA intel assets monitoring Ukraine do a double take? Putin has been on the nuclear threat for a while, when the first Iskander was fired, was there a pucker factor in the west?
Honestly surprised none of us bought this up before in relation to the ATACAMS or the Iskander, thinking further, do you think Russia would advise the USA when they were going to launch one? I think there is still an official notification when either side launches satellites, subject to confirmation.

I don’t do false equivalence. We are talking about a paranoid leader, who is making nuclear threats. NATO is not doing this, when Russia fires an Iskander we know almost immediately where it will land.
Even in the more stable and better funded over decades USSR, their air defence system made plenty of disturbing errors, it might have been amusing but in 1987 some German kid managed to land his Cessna in Red Square.
At least back then there was a Politburo to restrain the General Secretary, as has been stated on here numerous times, that does not exist now.

I was just trying to reason why, almost alone in systems that could be supplied and more importantly, brought into use rapidly, ATACAMS stands out as being refused.
Can you think of any other reason?

Revelation wrote:

Many of the people who don't share that point of view have fled so are out of the picture now.

They aren't completely out of the picture, they have friends and relatives still in Russia; they have phones and internet. If you accept Ukrainian estimates of recent battlefield losses, we can expect that as Russian society becomes aware of what has happened and is happening to the recently drafted Russian citizens, discontent will grow; these aren't Chechens and Buryats that are dying en mass anymore, these are actual Russians. The Ukrainian soldier can be expected to be much better motivated and trained than his Russian counterpart from here on out.

On the material side, Ukraine has virtually unlimited resources, Russia is scraping the bottom of its only barrel.

I think Ukraine will continue to prevail, winter isn't going to be kind to the poorly supplied Russian army.

GDB wrote:

I don’t do false equivalence. We are talking about a paranoid leader, who is making nuclear threats. NATO is not doing this, when Russia fires an Iskander we know almost immediately where it will land.

I thought Putin was also threatening to nuke Ukraine and fallout in Europe was a concern, if that was / is not the case then you are correct, no need to think it is nuclear when a ballistic launch is detected.

JJJ wrote:

Russia is a repressive country, people will pretend to toe the line and then slink away or pay off whoever can be paid off (and this being Russia there's always someone)

Exactly, so the pressures that work in the west will not work in Russia. When the wall actually fell, Russia was still producing more military equipment than the USA and other Western nations, the western intel experts did not think that the long food lines in Moscow and other cities were significant, we now know how wrong they were.
When sanctions start having a major effect on everyday life - difficult transportation, food supplies, power, water etc - we may have the makings of another critical event in Russia.

My impression is that NATO strategy in supporting Ukraine is twofold:

1. Control the dynamic of the russian defeat, avoiding Ukraine to just roll them back in one go which would have a much higher probability of triggering a nuclear response than gradually degrading the russian forces to the point that they would be completely unable to control any territory even if they could win or just hold it, so Russia eventually just has no other option than to retreat without being annihilated by the ukrainian forces outright.

2. Degrading the russian forces while keeping them from rebuilding is an obvious strategic result in itself, declassing Russia from a has been / still almost superpower to only a low-grade regional threat with too many deficiencies in their forces to recover again, even making maintenance of the nuclear arsenal unfeasible in the medium term. (Yes, proliferation control will be a massive task even in that case but still probably be worth it, especially in case Putin is succeeded by a more cooperative government.)

par13del wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Russia is a repressive country, people will pretend to toe the line and then slink away or pay off whoever can be paid off (and this being Russia there's always someone)

Exactly, so the pressures that work in the west will not work in Russia.

Every regime has a breaking point. The Soviet Union broke precisely because of the real economy not keeping pace with military expenditure and ambitions.

It was not quick, but wars tend to accelerate things.

Weapons is one thing. Man power is another.

You really can't flood Ukraine with all sorts of weapons unless there is a corresponding ramp up of man power.

What use are tanks and artillery if there is no infantry to man the line.

NATO strategy of arming the Ukrainian have to dove tale with ramp up of troop.

Only until recently did Ukraine have enough troop to finally reinforce the Bakhmut sector and start pushing the Russian back.

I'm begining to think the training of troup is pacing what ground equipment NATO and the West is providing Ukraine.

bt