***** OFFICIAL Russia v. Ukraine *****

1,111,990 Views | 10330 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by TRM
Rossticus
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Debt • 9:26p, 3/31/22
The Debt said:
BreNayPop said:
Based on Russian troop interviews, they really believed they were coming to relieve oppressed people and underestimated what it would take. That's why they didn't bring as many troops.
in the donbass yes.

Heres the problem with seeing this war in binary eyes. You keep seeing Ls in the central and Western regions "hardeeharhar farmer got an abandoned tank." But those types of things are happening far from the main Russian forces. They are intentionally probing with "trucks with half a tank of gas." And everyone gets a good laugh, but that's not where the allocation of forces are, thus you have to question why a truck with few support are isolated.

The dullard will say "that's russian incompetency" and leave it at that.


No. The dullard refuses to see what's plainly in front of their face but instead constructs a complex alternative to protect their perception of the viability of a preferred narrative.

You don't sacrifice a butt ton of personnel, equipment, and supplies to execute a feint when it could have been accomplished without doing so.
Reply Quote
15
1 edit
mickeyrig06sq3
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rossticus • 9:27p, 3/31/22
AG
Rossticus said:
The Debt said:
Again, Russia didnt bring enough to seize cities. Now you are highfiving that they didnt take the cities, while claiming strategic victory for a something never desired.

Why would Russia enter these cities? ANSWER THAT QUESTION. What tactical advantage does that provide? Its nothing but a PITA, just ask the American GI in Tikrit.


Russia didn't bring enough because their battle plan was garbage. Their strategy was garbage. Their intel was garbage. Their logistics were garbage. They expected to execute something, and in a fashion, that they were not remotely capable of.

They've entered and attempted to enter many cities along their multiple axies of advance and have been happy to occupy those that were lightly or undefended. They've suffered heavy losses in and around those that either were defended or that Ukraine has moved to re-take. Many that they held firmly are now contested or have been lost. That's not a feint in any shape form or fashion.

They were overconfident and thought they'd execute a decal strike on Kyiv. This has been confirmed via their actions and losses. They failed.

Next they tried to encircle Kyiv for a siege. This is also confirmed by their heavy commitment of forces, observable actions, actions and resultant heavy losses.

This is not how any commander would execute a feint. Ever. This is not part of some grand strategy. They. Just. Effed. Up. BIGLY.

Hubris, the destroyer of great generals and great empires since the beginning of time.
Reply Quote
11
ATX_AG_08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:31p, 3/31/22
AG
Yup, it's quite apparent this has gone exactly according to plan for Russia. Look incompetent as absolutely earthy possible, then surprise them with a 4d chess move.

They went to Ukraine with 200,000 men and called it "special military operation", because they mistakenly thought they would take Kyiv in couple of days. There is no strategic shift or feint, just an attempt to present the failure to russians in a palatable way.
Reply Quote
14
1 edit
JB!98
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to aggiehawg • 9:31p, 3/31/22
AG
aggiehawg said:
JB!98 said:
Rossticus said:
I think they may possibly have some foreign volunteers lined up with experience on those airframes. My guess anyway.
To be effective the Western aviators would need AWACS also. Not sure where they would get that unless NATO was to provide it. I also do not know how effective an F-16 would be in that type of EADS environment.
There have been a crap ton of AWACs and other listening platforms circling just at the borders since this started. Not just ours, either.
I would listen to GAC06 or Brewski's before you paid attention to what I had to say! They have been there and done that. But I digress, F-16's are fairly common, F-15C or F-15E not so much (I think only us, Saudi, Israel, and Japan operate the F-15. Any 4th generation Western aircraft without the support of AWACS or a dedicated SEAD/DEAD operation would not fare any better than a 30 year old Polish Mig-29 in my opinion.

I think we are probably providing the Ukes close to real time information from the AWACS and other aircraft that you see around the Polish border, but the real time information would be difficult to provide without a poop load of training and incorporation of things like Link-16 etc.

I say give them the Migs, but more importantly give them the S-300's. They know how to operate these systems and they can have the quickest impact.

Now, should Ukraine survive this conflict, give them all the F-16's they can handle and train them up on their use. They could cross train with the Turks just as easily as they can from us on the F-16.
Today, unfortunately, many Americans have good reason to fear that they will be victimized if they are unable to protect themselves. And today, no less than in 1791, the Second Amendment guarantees their right to do so. - Justice Samuel Alito 2022
Reply Quote
4
Rossticus
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Proc92 • 9:35p, 3/31/22
Proc92 said:
Eat western propaganda or Russian? Impossible to know what is the truth.


Not when it's all easily observable via satellite and being mapped daily. That much is fact. Troop movements, battles, and destroyed equipment shown via satellite is as real and above propaganda as you're going to get.
Reply Quote
8
TheCougarHunter
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:40p, 3/31/22
AG
A dozen or two Mig-29As would be completely useless as they have antiquated radar and almost no defense against Russian SAMs, and very little surface to air capability.

Training Ukes how to effectively operate an F-15 or 16 in anything under 6 months is just not possible.

Getting them some S-300s and a whole lot of manpads however will definitely make a difference.
Reply Quote
The Debt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to mickeyrig06sq3 • 9:41p, 3/31/22
mickeyrig06sq3 said:
The Debt said:
GAC06 said:
They were "supposed" to seize Kiev in days. Now they're retreating. So yeah the fuel and food may have been a thing.

This is American disinformation. Seizing Kiev was not part of the maneuver warfare that Russia is engaged in. If you seize cities, you sideline those forces to garrison a city. It's a terrible strategy.

The first order of importance is defeating or forcing surrender of Uke military. What's spectacular about this is the Uke force is 260k, the Russians brought 200k. Usually you need a 3:1 to overwhelm, yet Russia didnt even bring 1:1. Yet Russia is defeating the superior force through thier execution of maneuver warfare.

Kiev has what 3mil people? The amount of troops to garrison a city that large would be roughly 400k. So if you need that many and you only brought 200k across ALL of Ukraine, explain how capturing Kiev was even on Russias tactical goals?

Kiev was a feint. It forces Uke to divert resources to defense of the capital, meaning they arent in the Donbass fighting. If you can send 10k russians to tease kiev and Zelensky allocates 50k to kiev, the 260k/200k margin disappears.

Iraq 2003(invasion, not insurgency). We came in with 309k total from the coalition. Iraq had 375k. Baghdad had a population of 5 million+. Putin thought Russia was just as good as the US, so why shouldn't they be able to pull off a quick strike and topple zelensky? Especially if the population is supposed to cheer you and welcome you with flowers?

Iraq had a population of 25mil, we brought 309k.
Ukraine has a population of 42mil, russia brings 200k.

These are not comparable. So again if Russia thought to emulate Iraq, they had fewer troops and more population to manage. AGAIN, FOR THE CHEAP SEATS, TAKING CITIES WAS NEITHER POSSIBLE NOR DESIRED. From Day 2 rubio was tweeting the intention to engage in "medieval style seiges" meaning cut supplies and starve em.

You guys are going to be in for a rude awakening after these talks are over. Ukraine is already willing to concede NATO membership, no foreign weapons, and relinquishing of crimea and donbass...and all 48 hours after the Ukrainian military in the donestk gets beheaded.
Reply Quote
2
Eliminatus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ATX_AG_08 • 9:42p, 3/31/22
AG
ATX_AG_08 said:
Yup, it's quite apparent this has gone exactly according to plan for Russia. Look incompetent as absolutely earthy possible, then surprise them with a 4d chess move.


Just a person desperately grasping at straws, trying to save face and redeem his glorious fighting force and their prowess in battle. Have no idea why some of y'all continue to engage with them.

I think the Debt is a Russian mother.
Reply Quote
17
TRM
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Debt • 9:43p, 3/31/22
AG
I believe you and I'm looking forward to the Easter Bunny bringing some Easter Eggs, too!
Reply Quote
6
TheCougarHunter
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eliminatus • 9:44p, 3/31/22
AG
Eliminatus said:
ATX_AG_08 said:
Yup, it's quite apparent this has gone exactly according to plan for Russia. Look incompetent as absolutely earthy possible, then surprise them with a 4d chess move.


Just a person desperately grasping at straws, trying to save face and redeem his glorious fighting force and their prowess in battle. Have no idea why some of y'all continue to engage with them.

I think the Debt is a Russian mother.


He's either an Ivan or a troll
Reply Quote
16
Rossticus
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Debt • 9:54p, 3/31/22
The Debt said:
mickeyrig06sq3 said:
The Debt said:
GAC06 said:
They were "supposed" to seize Kiev in days. Now they're retreating. So yeah the fuel and food may have been a thing.

This is American disinformation. Seizing Kiev was not part of the maneuver warfare that Russia is engaged in. If you seize cities, you sideline those forces to garrison a city. It's a terrible strategy.

The first order of importance is defeating or forcing surrender of Uke military. What's spectacular about this is the Uke force is 260k, the Russians brought 200k. Usually you need a 3:1 to overwhelm, yet Russia didnt even bring 1:1. Yet Russia is defeating the superior force through thier execution of maneuver warfare.

Kiev has what 3mil people? The amount of troops to garrison a city that large would be roughly 400k. So if you need that many and you only brought 200k across ALL of Ukraine, explain how capturing Kiev was even on Russias tactical goals?

Kiev was a feint. It forces Uke to divert resources to defense of the capital, meaning they arent in the Donbass fighting. If you can send 10k russians to tease kiev and Zelensky allocates 50k to kiev, the 260k/200k margin disappears.

Iraq 2003(invasion, not insurgency). We came in with 309k total from the coalition. Iraq had 375k. Baghdad had a population of 5 million+. Putin thought Russia was just as good as the US, so why shouldn't they be able to pull off a quick strike and topple zelensky? Especially if the population is supposed to cheer you and welcome you with flowers?

Iraq had a population of 25mil, we brought 309k.
Ukraine has a population of 42mil, russia brings 200k.

These are not comparable. So again if Russia thought to emulate Iraq, they had fewer troops and more population to manage. AGAIN, FOR THE CHEAP SEATS, TAKING CITIES WAS NEITHER POSSIBLE NOR DESIRED. From Day 2 rubio was tweeting the intention to engage in "medieval style seiges" meaning cut supplies and starve em.

You guys are going to be in for a rude awakening after these talks are over. Ukraine is already willing to concede NATO membership, no foreign weapons, and relinquishing of crimea and donbass...and all 48 hours after the Ukrainian military in the donestk gets beheaded.


Have you not seen Zelensky say every day for the last week that there will be no territorial concessions? No?

And "no foreign weapons" means no weapons under foreign control. Ukraine will have full military security guarantees outside of NATO and be armed to the teeth with the best that UK and US can provide.

Even IF they got Donbas and Crimea then it's a monumental failure based on the damage they'll have inflicted on themselves, all for territory that they largely already held anyway. Seems like a monumentally stupid strategy if that's the planned end game. Inconceivably dumb.
Reply Quote
11
GAC06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:28p, 3/31/22
AG
I can't imagine being a paid shill or being dumb enough to try to run cover for the absolute embarrassment that is the Russian military. I salute you The Debt.

I would say keep up the good work but it's embarrassingly bad.
Reply Quote
19
Rossticus
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:43p, 3/31/22
Reply Quote
4
TheCougarHunter
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rossticus • 10:45p, 3/31/22
AG
Rossticus said:


Thanks a lot Russia
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
Rossticus
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:46p, 3/31/22
Reply Quote
2
Polaris75
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rossticus • 10:56p, 3/31/22
Rossticus said:
The Debt said:
mickeyrig06sq3 said:
The Debt said:
GAC06 said:
They were "supposed" to seize Kiev in days. Now they're retreating. So yeah the fuel and food may have been a thing.

This is American disinformation. Seizing Kiev was not part of the maneuver warfare that Russia is engaged in. If you seize cities, you sideline those forces to garrison a city. It's a terrible strategy.

The first order of importance is defeating or forcing surrender of Uke military. What's spectacular about this is the Uke force is 260k, the Russians brought 200k. Usually you need a 3:1 to overwhelm, yet Russia didnt even bring 1:1. Yet Russia is defeating the superior force through thier execution of maneuver warfare.

Kiev has what 3mil people? The amount of troops to garrison a city that large would be roughly 400k. So if you need that many and you only brought 200k across ALL of Ukraine, explain how capturing Kiev was even on Russias tactical goals?

Kiev was a feint. It forces Uke to divert resources to defense of the capital, meaning they arent in the Donbass fighting. If you can send 10k russians to tease kiev and Zelensky allocates 50k to kiev, the 260k/200k margin disappears.

Iraq 2003(invasion, not insurgency). We came in with 309k total from the coalition. Iraq had 375k. Baghdad had a population of 5 million+. Putin thought Russia was just as good as the US, so why shouldn't they be able to pull off a quick strike and topple zelensky? Especially if the population is supposed to cheer you and welcome you with flowers?

Iraq had a population of 25mil, we brought 309k.
Ukraine has a population of 42mil, russia brings

These are not comparable. So again if Russia thought to emulate Iraq, they had fewer troops and more population to manage. AGAIN, FOR THE CHEAP SEATS, TAKING CITIES WAS NEITHER POSSIBLE NOR DESIRED. From Day 2 rubio was tweeting the intention to engage in "medieval style seiges" meaning cut supplies and starve em.

You guys are going to be in for a rude awakening after these talks are over. Ukraine is already willing to concede NATO membership, no foreign weapons, and relinquishing of crimea and donbass...and all 48 hours after the Ukrainian military in the donestk gets beheaded.


Have you not seen Zelensky say every day for the last week that there will be no territorial concessions? No?

And "no foreign weapons" means no weapons under foreign control. Ukraine will have full military security guarantees outside of NATO and be armed to the teeth with the best that UK and US can provide.

Even IF they got Donbas and Crimea then it's a monumental failure based on the damage they'll have inflicted on themselves, all for territory that they largely already held anyway. Seems like a monumentally stupid strategy if that's the planned end game. Inconceivably dumb.
So Ukraine with flatten cities, who has spent over .5 trillion dollars defending their rural countryside and have increased the population of its neighbors by millions with desirable refugees are winning. No my friend, Russia will get real estate with rich farm land and minerals. They will lose a few thousand men and have to live without Facebook and Netflix for a short time.

This is a world rigged game, hence no planes for u or man power Ukraine, only enough firepower to piss off Putin even more. Sad too watch for sure. I think Ukraine is a corrupt country and Russia was taunted into this with the bio labs and NATO training next to Russia border. Biden piggy bank is getting hammered.

I am not a Putin fan, wish him death, he is evil but this Zelensky is evil and we all know how this ends.


Reply Quote
1
ABATTBQ11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Debt • 11:17p, 3/31/22
AG
The Debt said:
GAC06 said:
They were "supposed" to seize Kiev in days. Now they're retreating. So yeah the fuel and food may have been a thing.

This is American disinformation. Seizing Kiev was not part of the maneuver warfare that Russia is engaged in. If you seize cities, you sideline those forces to garrison a city. It's a terrible strategy.

The first order of importance is defeating or forcing surrender of Uke military. What's spectacular about this is the Uke force is 260k, the Russians brought 200k. Usually you need a 3:1 to overwhelm, yet Russia didnt even bring 1:1. Yet Russia is defeating the superior force through thier execution of maneuver warfare.

Kiev has what 3mil people? The amount of troops to garrison a city that large would be roughly 400k. So if you need that many and you only brought 200k across ALL of Ukraine, explain how capturing Kiev was even on Russias tactical goals?

Kiev was a feint. It forces Uke to divert resources to defense of the capital, meaning they arent in the Donbass fighting. If you can send 10k russians to tease kiev and Zelensky allocates 50k to kiev, the 260k/200k margin disappears.


Except this is all stupid bull**** because the Russians had 60% of their forces built up around the Russian/Belarusian border area in the north immediately before the invasion. They didn't dedicate 10k troops to a "feint" towards Kiev, they dedicated 100k. And they were repulsed with heavy losses.

And feints don't last over a month before dealing a decisive blow from another direction. Ukraine knows Russian forces are retreating in the north and can redeploy as needed to the east.

They only brought 200k for the same reason we brought 300k to Iraq. Baghdad is twice the size of Kiev. You'd think we'd have brought 800k troops to garrison it, but we didn't because we overestimated how welcome we would be and how orderly the country would be once the army was defeated. And they simply don't have that many ground troops. Their military has 1.1 million troops, but they're not all ground combat troops and cannot all be deployed to the same theater. They've thrown just about everything they can at this. Russia assumed a quick and easy victory, cutting of the Ukrainian government and installing their own with the backing of armor and air power. Having their tanks and other armored vehicles getting blown to bits by ATGMS and getting bogged down with poor logistical support didn't factor into those plans. Now they're trying to save face.
Reply Quote
14
ATX_AG_08
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:20p, 3/31/22
AG
Reply Quote
18
ABATTBQ11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Polaris75 • 11:27p, 3/31/22
AG
Except they're facing import sanctions to cripple their supply chains as well. When you have factory closures because you can't get spare parts or source components, you're going to wish not using Netflix and Facebook was the worst of your problems.
Reply Quote
6
Rossticus
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:28p, 3/31/22



They misspelled feint but I'll allow it.
Reply Quote
21
1 edit
Rossticus
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:36p, 3/31/22
Reply Quote
11
GAC06
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rossticus • 11:38p, 3/31/22
AG
Rossticus said:



They misspelled feint but I'll allow it.


Perfect
Reply Quote
5
TheCougarHunter
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Polaris75 • 11:52p, 3/31/22
AG
Polaris75 said:
Rossticus said:
The Debt said:
mickeyrig06sq3 said:
The Debt said:
GAC06 said:
They were "supposed" to seize Kiev in days. Now they're retreating. So yeah the fuel and food may have been a thing.

This is American disinformation. Seizing Kiev was not part of the maneuver warfare that Russia is engaged in. If you seize cities, you sideline those forces to garrison a city. It's a terrible strategy.

The first order of importance is defeating or forcing surrender of Uke military. What's spectacular about this is the Uke force is 260k, the Russians brought 200k. Usually you need a 3:1 to overwhelm, yet Russia didnt even bring 1:1. Yet Russia is defeating the superior force through thier execution of maneuver warfare.

Kiev has what 3mil people? The amount of troops to garrison a city that large would be roughly 400k. So if you need that many and you only brought 200k across ALL of Ukraine, explain how capturing Kiev was even on Russias tactical goals?

Kiev was a feint. It forces Uke to divert resources to defense of the capital, meaning they arent in the Donbass fighting. If you can send 10k russians to tease kiev and Zelensky allocates 50k to kiev, the 260k/200k margin disappears.

Iraq 2003(invasion, not insurgency). We came in with 309k total from the coalition. Iraq had 375k. Baghdad had a population of 5 million+. Putin thought Russia was just as good as the US, so why shouldn't they be able to pull off a quick strike and topple zelensky? Especially if the population is supposed to cheer you and welcome you with flowers?

Iraq had a population of 25mil, we brought 309k.
Ukraine has a population of 42mil, russia brings

These are not comparable. So again if Russia thought to emulate Iraq, they had fewer troops and more population to manage. AGAIN, FOR THE CHEAP SEATS, TAKING CITIES WAS NEITHER POSSIBLE NOR DESIRED. From Day 2 rubio was tweeting the intention to engage in "medieval style seiges" meaning cut supplies and starve em.

You guys are going to be in for a rude awakening after these talks are over. Ukraine is already willing to concede NATO membership, no foreign weapons, and relinquishing of crimea and donbass...and all 48 hours after the Ukrainian military in the donestk gets beheaded.


Have you not seen Zelensky say every day for the last week that there will be no territorial concessions? No?

And "no foreign weapons" means no weapons under foreign control. Ukraine will have full military security guarantees outside of NATO and be armed to the teeth with the best that UK and US can provide.

Even IF they got Donbas and Crimea then it's a monumental failure based on the damage they'll have inflicted on themselves, all for territory that they largely already held anyway. Seems like a monumentally stupid strategy if that's the planned end game. Inconceivably dumb.
So Ukraine with flatten cities, who has spent over .5 trillion dollars defending their rural countryside and have increased the population of its neighbors by millions with desirable refugees are winning. No my friend, Russia will get real estate with rich farm land and minerals. They will lose a few thousand men and have to live without Facebook and Netflix for a short time.

This is a world rigged game, hence no planes for u or man power Ukraine, only enough firepower to piss off Putin even more. Sad too watch for sure. I think Ukraine is a corrupt country and Russia was taunted into this with the bio labs and NATO training next to Russia border. Biden piggy bank is getting hammered.

I am not a Putin fan, wish him death, he is evil but this Zelensky is evil and we all know how this ends.




Get out of here Ivan
Reply Quote
18
aezmvp
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:55p, 3/31/22
I'm sure the Russians dedicated most of their elite troops, guard armies, paratrooper forces in motorized and helicopter assaults at the political center of gravity and 3 transportation hubs in Chernkhiv, Sumy, and Kharkiv in an elaborate feint while only using their poorly equipped separatist armies to execute their main attack in the first 5 weeks of the war.

I have no words.

That doesnt mean the Russians wont try and take the eastern and south eastern oblasts but if the Ukes can shift forces it will be very hard. Their main assault outside of Kyiv was Kharkiv and it went no where.
Reply Quote
8
ABATTBQ11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ABATTBQ11 • 11:57p, 3/31/22
AG
And on top of this, the Russians haven't lost, "a few thousand men." They've lost over 10k (and probably closer to 15k) KIA. That means 30k-45k total casualties, which is in no way insignificant when they started with 200k. If they do go on another offensive, they will lose thousands more KIA and tens of thousands more wounded.

They're also going to be sanctioned for the foreseeable future. Not just SWIFT, oil, and luxury goods, but technology imports crucial to their supply chains. The companies that have left will not come crawling back soon, and they're far more important than "Netflix and Facebook." Boeing supported most of Russia's civil aviation fleet. As parts wear, the Russians will be forced to cannibalize places until they can't. Microsoft supported the majority of operating systems and vital business programs like Excel and Outlook. As licenses expire, updates are missed, or access is cutoff, businesses will suffer. And no one is going to want to be called out as the first to go back. Western companies going back to Russia after all this will be crucified under idealism and cancel culture, as much as we hate it. As time goes on, Russia will be punished, even after hostilities have ceased.

Ultimately, they're not going to get what they came for and they will pay a very steep price.
Reply Quote
6
2 edits
W
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:05a, 4/1/22
AG
Russia made a big mistake in attacking on so many axes / fronts. Should have massed their forces and attacked on only 1 axis or 2 at the most.

there's a reason why the principles of war...are the principles of war
Reply Quote
3
TheCougarHunter
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to W • 12:43a, 4/1/22
AG
W said:
Russia made a big mistake in attacking on so many axes / fronts. Should have massed their forces and attacked on only 1 axis or 2 at the most.

there's a reason why the principles of war...are the principles of war


I could see it would make sense to do what they did. They started with Ukraine nearly surrounded and could attack from 3 cardinal directions, and Kiev is not far from their northern border. With a surprise attack with cruise missiles and bombers, take out the Ukrainian Air Force in the first hour and send in the tanks to mop up.

It seems they underestimated Ukrainian will to fight and failed in shutting down Ukrainian air defense network and communications, which really would have crippled them.

Good plan that was executed very very poorly.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Rossticus
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TheCougarHunter • 12:50a, 4/1/22
Best plan in the world isn't worth isht if you can't execute. Excellent point.
Reply Quote
1
pagerman @ work
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TheCougarHunter • 1:58a, 4/1/22
AG
TheCougarHunter said:
W said:
Russia made a big mistake in attacking on so many axes / fronts. Should have massed their forces and attacked on only 1 axis or 2 at the most.

there's a reason why the principles of war...are the principles of war


I could see it would make sense to do what they did. They started with Ukraine nearly surrounded and could attack from 3 cardinal directions, and Kiev is not far from their northern border. With a surprise attack with cruise missiles and bombers, take out the Ukrainian Air Force in the first hour and send in the tanks to mop up.

It seems they underestimated Ukrainian will to fight and failed in shutting down Ukrainian air defense network and communications, which really would have crippled them.

Good plan that was executed very very poorly.

The first mistake they made was the timing of the invasion. They should have either jumped off in the dead of winter or waited until after the thaw when the ground had solidified. Instead they went in the beginning of the thaw where the fields are a morass of mud that vehicles can't get through which meant they had to stay on roads. That's fine if you expect very little resistance and to be welcomed as liberators. If that doesn't happen it creates logistical nightmares and creates huge tactical issues because you can't maneuver. Everyone knows where you are going and how you are going to get there.

That said, I think it is entirely possible that Putin originally didn't want to invade, and what he really wanted was to bring the west (particularly the US) to the table to get a Helsinki 2.0 type agreement. But when the west didn't go for it he had backed himself into a corner. He either keeps his military deployed on "exercises" to try to keep pressure up (which is expensive both in terms of direct cost and in terms of wear and tear on equipment) or shut everything down and look like he and Russia had been humiliated again on the world stage. Since option #2 isn't really an option for him, he almost is forced to invade. But he can't wait several more months for the weather to improve because of the costs, but he doesn't want to go prior to the end of the Olympics (no doubt at China's behest). So he is left with attacking with an ill prepared army at the worst time of the year against an opponent that had been given months to prepare because the goal was always a negotiation not an invasion. Add to that an undertrained conscript military with overrated equipment and serious logistical issues against a motivated enemy fighting for their literal existence and you have a recipe for disaster.
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. It's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill
Reply Quote
3
Brewskis
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to JB!98 • 3:13a, 4/1/22
AG
JB!98 said:
aggiehawg said:
JB!98 said:
Rossticus said:
I think they may possibly have some foreign volunteers lined up with experience on those airframes. My guess anyway.
To be effective the Western aviators would need AWACS also. Not sure where they would get that unless NATO was to provide it. I also do not know how effective an F-16 would be in that type of EADS environment.
There have been a crap ton of AWACs and other listening platforms circling just at the borders since this started. Not just ours, either.
I would listen to GAC06 or Brewski's before you paid attention to what I had to say! They have been there and done that. But I digress, F-16's are fairly common, F-15C or F-15E not so much (I think only us, Saudi, Israel, and Japan operate the F-15. Any 4th generation Western aircraft without the support of AWACS or a dedicated SEAD/DEAD operation would not fare any better than a 30 year old Polish Mig-29 in my opinion.

I think we are probably providing the Ukes close to real time information from the AWACS and other aircraft that you see around the Polish border, but the real time information would be difficult to provide without a poop load of training and incorporation of things like Link-16 etc.

I say give them the Migs, but more importantly give them the S-300's. They know how to operate these systems and they can have the quickest impact.

Now, should Ukraine survive this conflict, give them all the F-16's they can handle and train them up on their use. They could cross train with the Turks just as easily as they can from us on the F-16.


As much as I am a fan of what the UkrAF is doing, I think getting them to transition to western equipment during the conflict is a tough ask. You could probably transition a small experienced cadre of pilots who have worked with NATO before in 3-4 months to operate an F-15 at a basic combat capability level. The F-15 is probably the most similar to what they are currently flying, and I think an F-16 maybe a jump for them based on fly by wire controls, single engine operation etc. And we'd probably only offer them F-15s that take them to a mid to late 90s period of technology (at best).

AWACS isn't required if they have a solid GCI (Ground Based Intercept) system, especially for local/homeland defense. An AWACS operating in Ukrainian air space wouldn't last long anyways.

All of the above doesn't matter because the technical and logistical know-how to keep newer western fighters going will take much much longer to learn than the pilots flying.

An ideal solution would be to source advanced Flanker variants to them, but that isn't possible because all of the countries that fly those range from "non-aligned countries" (India) at best to openly supporting Russia at worst (Venezuela, China, etc).

Unfortunately I think Polish MiG-29s that are upgraded to NATO-standard are the best thing for them in the short term, which only slightly increases their current capability and they can operate Western fighters for their next war with Russia.

Honestly more SA-10s is the most realistic option in play, but that's not bad because I think the SA-10s are a serious problem for the RuAF overall.
Reply Quote
3
The Debt
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rossticus • 6:48a, 4/1/22
Rossticus said:
The Debt said:
mickeyrig06sq3 said:
The Debt said:
GAC06 said:
They were "supposed" to seize Kiev in days. Now they're retreating. So yeah the fuel and food may have been a thing.

This is American disinformation. Seizing Kiev was not part of the maneuver warfare that Russia is engaged in. If you seize cities, you sideline those forces to garrison a city. It's a terrible strategy.

The first order of importance is defeating or forcing surrender of Uke military. What's spectacular about this is the Uke force is 260k, the Russians brought 200k. Usually you need a 3:1 to overwhelm, yet Russia didnt even bring 1:1. Yet Russia is defeating the superior force through thier execution of maneuver warfare.

Kiev has what 3mil people? The amount of troops to garrison a city that large would be roughly 400k. So if you need that many and you only brought 200k across ALL of Ukraine, explain how capturing Kiev was even on Russias tactical goals?

Kiev was a feint. It forces Uke to divert resources to defense of the capital, meaning they arent in the Donbass fighting. If you can send 10k russians to tease kiev and Zelensky allocates 50k to kiev, the 260k/200k margin disappears.

Iraq 2003(invasion, not insurgency). We came in with 309k total from the coalition. Iraq had 375k. Baghdad had a population of 5 million+. Putin thought Russia was just as good as the US, so why shouldn't they be able to pull off a quick strike and topple zelensky? Especially if the population is supposed to cheer you and welcome you with flowers?

Iraq had a population of 25mil, we brought 309k.
Ukraine has a population of 42mil, russia brings 200k.

These are not comparable. So again if Russia thought to emulate Iraq, they had fewer troops and more population to manage. AGAIN, FOR THE CHEAP SEATS, TAKING CITIES WAS NEITHER POSSIBLE NOR DESIRED. From Day 2 rubio was tweeting the intention to engage in "medieval style seiges" meaning cut supplies and starve em.

You guys are going to be in for a rude awakening after these talks are over. Ukraine is already willing to concede NATO membership, no foreign weapons, and relinquishing of crimea and donbass...and all 48 hours after the Ukrainian military in the donestk gets beheaded.


Have you not seen Zelensky say every day for the last week that there will be no territorial concessions? No?

And "no foreign weapons" means no weapons under foreign control. Ukraine will have full military security guarantees outside of NATO and be armed to the teeth with the best that UK and US can provide.

Even IF they got Donbas and Crimea then it's a monumental failure based on the damage they'll have inflicted on themselves, all for territory that they largely already held anyway. Seems like a monumentally stupid strategy if that's the planned end game. Inconceivably dumb.

Hence the rude awakening.

Rossticus, you still act like Zelensky is actually in control and not a puppet. LIKE ALL POLITICIANS what is said publicly is for one audience and what is done is not congruent.

Oh course he is going to say "no concessions, not one inch, not now, not ever." Do you really expect him to say he is willing to give up ground, while people are dying? This would undermine Ukraine's bargaining position, especially if the troops sense concessions. (Russia would prolong the talks and continue to push).

What is a real problem with these talks, for western minds to grasp, is that you see them as some sort of conflict resolution that will end the invasion. Ukrainians and Russians do not see agreements like this, which is why the cold war was such a PITA for western powers. (We would get kruschev to agree to something, then the next day "circumstances" changed and they would say "yesterday we agreed to it, but that was then.") In today's conflict, the war is just an extension of the political negotiations, and those never end, because they evolve. There is never dry ink.
Reply Quote
1
Not a Bot
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:43a, 4/1/22
AG
Reply Quote
1
JFABNRGR
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rossticus • 9:16a, 4/1/22
AG
No doubt. Here take my queen, rooks, bishops with your pawns so I can sneak around the other side with my pawn to take your King. Brilliant.

For some real numbers assuming 50% attributed losses on Kyiv AO.

180 MBTs
126 AFVs
215 IFVs&APCs
75 IDF Guns

Greatest faint in history not approved by the Budget Director!
Reply Quote
5
will25u
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:18a, 4/1/22
Most likely fake.

Reply Quote
1
1 edit
TRM
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to will25u • 9:21a, 4/1/22
AG
They don't have on blue armbands.
Reply Quote
3
First Page Last Page
Page 260 of 296 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.