Perhaps, but that's not consistent with DOD statements. Milley, for example, recently said he is comfortable that Ukraine will have sufficient armor of all types to mount a major spring offensive, and that was even before Germany agreed that other countries may donate their Leo's.BQ78 said:
Which sadly sends the message that we expect this conflict to grind on for years. Which is a tragedy for the entire world, especially Ukraine.
***Russian - Ukraine War Tactical and Strategic Updates*** [Warning on OP]
7,741,892 Views |
48160 Replies |
Last: 7 hrs ago by 74OA
I predict an offensive, not a decisive one. Sending assets that won't be self sustaining in Ukraine until 2024 says we don't think this is over in three months.
What is the alternative?
I didn't suggest a timeline, just that our senior general believes the delivery of Bradleys and Strykers, plus ongoing transfers of upgraded European T-72s will enable a significant spring offensive. Leos should only add to that confidence. By spring, Ukraine will have more and better armor of all types than it started the war with.BQ78 said:
I predict an offensive, not a decisive one. Sending assets that won't be self sustaining in Ukraine until 2024 says we don't think this is over in three months.
We'll ensure our armor deliveries are sustainable and the Leo will be sustained by its multinational support infrastructure in next-door Europe.
LMCane said:90 seconds to nuclear midnight!Waffledynamics said:
Wait WHATThe Biden administration is leaning toward sending “a significant number” of M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine, two U.S. officials told me and @alexbward. An announcement could come as early as this week. https://t.co/Mzwvjrth15
— Lara Seligman (@laraseligman) January 24, 2023
it seems very strange that the messaging for an entire year has been "it doesn't make sense to send Abrams to Ukraine"
and suddenly in one day it becomes "yeah we are sending a lot of Abrams to Ukraine"
Gotta be in response to Russia wanting to open up multiple fronts
Get some peace talks going to cool the fire and not throw more logs on it.
I also find it very disconcerting that we have to do this in order for a "good ally," who is still buying Russian energy, to do what they ought to consider as the right thing, without us conceding a reckless act.
I also find it very disconcerting that we have to do this in order for a "good ally," who is still buying Russian energy, to do what they ought to consider as the right thing, without us conceding a reckless act.
Russia has no interest in peace talks.
They told you that?
A few months ago they almost ended the thing but the UK and US nixed the deal. So I don't buy that. At this point the Russians would love to find a graceful way out.
A few months ago they almost ended the thing but the UK and US nixed the deal. So I don't buy that. At this point the Russians would love to find a graceful way out.
BQ78 said:
They told you that?
A few months ago they almost ended the thing but the UK and US nixed the deal. So I don't buy that. At this point the Russians would love to find a graceful way out.
I've been following the war and have never seen anyone say Russia was close to ending it. In fact, all their actions say they are not close to ending it.
Also you seem to be misremembering. A few months ago Pentagon officials were publicly saying Ukraine needed to peacefully end the fight while they still held good cards (a view I personally agreed with).
Zelensky has put out a peace plan. Russia dismissed it out of hand. Russia has no intention of giving up the lands it has taken. If that is the peace you are after, yes, Russia is interested in peace where they occupy Ukraine and are not attacked.
Germany no longer imports any Russian energy.BQ78 said:
Get some peace talks going to cool the fire and not throw more logs on it.
I also find it very disconcerting that we have to do this in order for a "good ally," who is still buying Russian energy, to do what they ought to consider as the right thing, without us conceding a reckless act.
Peace talks? Anything short of total Ukrainian annexation and Putin will be murdered by his own citizens. The death toll on this war has been in the tens of thousands at the minimum (Six digits by some accounts) and has been at the expense of the ordinary Russian citizen's ability to be incorporated into the global economy. Russia is all the way in. Unless Moscow gets taken, or Russia runs out of men, they will not negotiate.
Teslag said:
Russia has no interest in peace talks.
This.
Like with any tinpot wannabe dictator, it's all ego with Putin. He'll sacrifice every last Russian before he even thinks about peace talks.
Nothing in that statement is accurate. Kiev has always refused peace talks predicated on Russia retaining all its illegally annexed territory in Ukraine--which Moscow has consistently said is a requirement to even begin negotiations--and the US has always said it would not push Ukraine into a bad deal just to end hostilities.BQ78 said:
They told you that?
A few months ago they almost ended the thing but the UK and US nixed the deal. So I don't buy that. At this point the Russians would love to find a graceful way out.
Significantly reduced is not stopped.
Sheer speculation. That report has been debunked long ago. Russia never offered to reverse its invasion and Ukraine had already said it didn't intend to apply to NATO even before the invasion began, but that didn't satisfy Putin.BQ78 said:
Guess you all missed this:
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/09/02/diplomacy-watch-why-did-the-west-stop-a-peace-deal-in-ukraine/
Russia feigned interest in talks as a ploy to stall Ukraine or distract them when Russia was reeling from multiple battlefield defeats in the fall. They were trying to get a halt in the Ukrainian counteroffensive so Russia could rebuild their defensive lines.
It was a very obvious ploy given the timing.
It was a very obvious ploy given the timing.
Well I withdraw my suggestion then, "Cry Havoc! and let slip the dogs of war."
I'm sorry man, but how could you have come to that conclusion.
What conclusion, that the US should try to end the war instead of ramp it up?
And BTW, I don't blame OA for doubting the article I posted, it is hard to tell what is truth with the propaganda that gets passed off as news by everybody. But enough people, who I find more trust worthy than others ,say the west nixed a peace deal as outlined in the article I posted..
And BTW, I don't blame OA for doubting the article I posted, it is hard to tell what is truth with the propaganda that gets passed off as news by everybody. But enough people, who I find more trust worthy than others ,say the west nixed a peace deal as outlined in the article I posted..
Russia is planning a major counteroffensive. They have chosen escalation. Arming Ukraine for defense of that offensive is not escalation.
I don't view sending armor to Ukraine as an escalation. The West just doesn't have the manufacturing capacity to produce Soviet spec munitions in large quantities and Ukraine is quietly running out.
We're providing armor and related munitions to help Ukraine maintain their current capabilities.
We're providing armor and related munitions to help Ukraine maintain their current capabilities.
is it a "peace" deal or a "surrender" dealBQ78 said:
What conclusion, that the US should try to end the war instead of ramp it up?
And BTW, I don't blame OA for doubting the article I posted, it is hard to tell what is truth with the propaganda that gets passed off as news by everybody. But enough people, who I find more trust worthy than others ,say the west nixed a peace deal as outlined in the article I posted..
if Russia gets to keep all the territory they have illegally conquered?
.......and the basis for "peace" offered by Putin is structured to perpetuate a truncated, weakened Ukraine and give Russia a strategic pause in which to catch its breath, rebuild its army and invade again.LMCane said:is it a "peace" deal or a "surrender" dealBQ78 said:
What conclusion, that the US should try to end the war instead of ramp it up?
And BTW, I don't blame OA for doubting the article I posted, it is hard to tell what is truth with the propaganda that gets passed off as news by everybody. But enough people, who I find more trust worthy than others ,say the west nixed a peace deal as outlined in the article I posted..
if Russia gets to keep all the territory they have illegally conquered?
So you think appropriate ending to the war is Russia gets to keep the most fertile and resource rich 20% of Ukraine through an illegal war. Doesn't have to disarm and has proven they'll do it again (see Ukraine, Chechnya, and Georgia) in 5 or 10 years?!?
Where did I say that?
That's the option unless you live in fantasy land.
That wasn't the option last June but I'm sure you must be right, because you say so.
That article is an article that pointificates on another article that states something may have been in talks. Give me a break.BQ78 said:
That wasn't the option last June but I'm sure you must be right, because you say so.
If you want to take something from that article as gospel, take this.
"Putin cannot be negotiated with"
BQ78 said:
That wasn't the option last June but I'm sure you must be right, because you say so.
What WAS the option last June? I'd be interested in hearing the confirmed details of the deal Russia put forward that guaranteed their full withdrawal and left the territorial integrity intact. I seem to have missed that. Thanks for the info.
BQ78 said:
it is hard to tell what is truth with the propaganda that gets passed off as news by everybody. ..
Let me help you out with" the truth ".
Russia and Putin started a war and were rolling tanks blitzkrieg style toward a foreign capital with the intention of decapitating a foreign Government. During the war effort the Russians have committed countless atrocity toward civilians.
- Our tanks have top secret armor
- export variants could be sent are in Morocco, Egypt, Iraq, Saudi, Australia
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/m1-abrams-tanks-in-u-s-inventory-have-armor-too-secret-to-send-to-ukraine
- export variants could be sent are in Morocco, Egypt, Iraq, Saudi, Australia
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/m1-abrams-tanks-in-u-s-inventory-have-armor-too-secret-to-send-to-ukraine
Now we're just bickering. How about just agreeing to disagree?
Quote:
Reports of incoming massive drones attack in Ukraine
https://liveuamap.com/en/2023/25-january-reports-of-incoming-massive-drones-attack-in-ukraine
That was posted 2 hours ago on LiveUaMap. Subsequent reports indicate these have been targeting the Zaporizhzhia and Dnipropetrovsk regions. My WAG is that they're targeting something to either blunt a Ukrainian attack or into soften defenses abd C2 ahead of a planned Russian attack.