UKRAINE WAR - 1 YEAR AND GOING.

[Vympel]

Also, in Ukraine, military aged men are forbidden to leave the country. Was any such restriction ever imposed in the US during Vietnam?

If you tried to evade the draft by going overseas you could be prosecuted upon return, but there was never anything like a blanket ban on leaving the country.

Ultimately Jimmy Carter pardoned everyone who asked for one.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

On Breaking Points last week, Ryan Grim said that as many as half a million Ukrainian men of fighting age have either fled the country or refused to return from abroad out of fear of being drafted and fed to Russian artillery. The fact that just over 100,000 Americans fled to Canada and Sweden from 1965-73 was considered a huge detriment for the war effort in Vietnam and a major indictment of Johnson and Nixon. Proportionately that makes sense given that Ukraine has lost more men in the last two years than the US lost in ten years in Vietnam -and America had five times the population at the time.

This is the reason you've got warmongers in Europe and the US talking about somehow forcing Ukrainian military age refugees to go back to Ukraine, which is abhorrent and also flagrantly illegal. So far European countries have flatly refused, AFAIK.

Uncritical support to everyone everywhere who doesn't want to get slaughtered in a war like this.

And which warmongers would those be? That's the sort of shit I would expect from Putin if his invasion went the way he thought it would at the start- demand other countries surrender any Ukrainian refugees they have taken in.

[Vympel]

And which warmongers would those be? That's the sort of shit I would expect from Putin if his invasion went the way he thought it would at the start- demand other countries surrender any Ukrainian refugees they have taken in.

No one in positions of power thankfully, just idiots in the commentariat. There was enough of a hubbub that the Germans said they would not be doing that.

https://www.rferl.org/a/germany-ukraine ... 42896.html

Ukraine's problems with mobilizing soldiers to fend off the Russian invasion will have no practical consequences for Ukrainians living in Germany, according to German Justice Minister Marco Buschmann. "It will not be the case that we force people to do compulsory military service or military service against their will," Buschmann told dpa. Discussions are currently ongoing in Ukraine about how the army can recruit more soldiers. The military wants to mobilize an additional 450,000 to 500,000 men. The Ukrainian Defense Ministry has been appealing to Ukrainian men living abroad to return home and defend their country.

[PainRack]

There's a flaw in your argument - you are saying Russia is buying up tool presses from 3rd parties and that's fine, but the UK has to produce everything domestically from iron ore? Why, you expect Russia to branch out into U-boats and piracy? Why the double standard?

Russia still has a heavy machine industry capable of making every tool needed for every last step of their military production. They've plowed billions into that industry so they can crank out more tools of their own in addition to buying up everything they can on the world market. Which means they can expand their production more & faster than the UK which needs to import everything.

Also, many of the machine tools, especially heavy presses have lead times which are measured in many months or even years. Russia's got a 2 year head start from a much larger industrial base, have fun catching up.

This is what Russia's factories look like. Heavy machinery everywhere, lots of older manual machines but also a ton of modern CNC machining centres. Factories like this don't pop up overnight.

I think you ignoring the electronics that make war equipment viable in the modern battlefield. The refitted T62 don't have modern night scopes and etc, although they have survivability upgrades in the form of Komet ERA.

[PainRack]

Why... NO. I didn't. Why don't you pull those articles out of your ass like you do the rest of your commentary?

I've posted plenty of articles in this thread, and you know I have. You're just mad that you find their implications distressing, and are lashing out with snark as a consequence. I won't take it personally.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/11/worl ... draft.html

A crowd angry about the draft blocked a road outside a western Ukrainian village last week in a rowdy confrontation with drivers and the police that illustrated the political risks of expanding mobilization.

Villages in the west have been a primary source of soldiers for the Ukrainian army, and support for the war has been higher in the country’s west than overall in Ukraine. But the loss of male loved ones has taken a toll on many families.

The roadblock took place on Tuesday in the village of Kosmach, in the Ivano-Frankivsk region, and began with unfounded rumors in local chat groups that draft officials were coming to find the village’s remaining men, the police said in a statement. About 100 women blocked a road, and the protest turned violent when they mistook a woman from a neighboring village for a draft official, police officers said.

The woman, Ivanna Vandzhurak, wrote on Facebook that the crowd had yelled that she was a “spotter” for the local military recruitment office. The accusation echoed widespread worry in Ukrainian society that spies in their midst, known as spotters, are helping Russia identify missile targets, but in this case, the source of the anxiety was the military recruitment system.

The above story is just part of the article and the main thrust is talking about Ukraine's recruitment issues, but its in there to illustrate the overall point the article is making. As the initial blind euphoria of certain victory for Ukraine has faded, the willingness for the populace to entertain endless rounds of mobilisation is in decline.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/01/opin ... index.html

We must acknowledge the significant advantage enjoyed by the enemy in mobilizing human resources and how that compares with the inability of state institutions in Ukraine to improve the manpower levels of our armed forces without the use of unpopular measures.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/20 ... ry-russia/

The Ukrainian military is facing a critical shortage of infantry, leading to exhaustion and diminished morale on the front line, military personnel in the field said this week — a perilous new dynamic for Kyiv nearly two years into the grinding, bloody war with Russia.

In interviews across the front line in recent days, nearly a dozen soldiers and commanders told The Washington Post that personnel deficits were their most critical problem now, as Russia has regained the offensive initiative on the battlefield and is stepping up its attacks.

One battalion commander in a mechanized brigade fighting in eastern Ukraine said that his unit currently has fewer than 40 infantry troops — the soldiers deployed in front-line trenches who hold off Russian assaults. A fully equipped battalion would have more than 200, the commander said.

https://kyivindependent.com/avdiivka-de ... ification/

Among the most serious issues reported all along the front line is that Ukraine is facing a major personnel shortage – particularly in the infantry.

To reinforce infantry units after heavy losses, Ukraine has transferred soldiers from units specialized in artillery or logistics to infantry positions, according to the soldiers interviewed by the Kyiv Independent. This means soldiers deployed on the first defensive line may not even know the basic survival skills of an infantryman, which results in even more casualties.

Serhii, a 20-year-old artilleryman with the 59th, said that his originally 64-man artillery group had sent 15 men to the front line. He said most of them had been killed in their first days there. He attributes it to the fact they "knew almost nothing" about being in the infantry. Only four out of 15 survived.

A similar way of repurposing soldiers was previously reported by multiple soldiers in the Bakhmut sector, about 50 kilometers (31 miles) north of Avdiivka, during Ukraine’s costly defense of that city last year.

Hrabskyi says that circumstances force Ukrainians to use such "non-standard methods."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/ ... r-planners

he Kazan gunpowder plant, one of the country’s largest, took on more than 500 workers in a December hiring spree that increased average monthly salaries at the plant more than threefold, from 25,000 roubles (£217) to 90,000 roubles (£782), according to Alexander Livshits, the plant’s director. Job adverts offer night shifts from midnight to 8am and protection from military service for those trying to avoid the frontlines.

Many of those hired had to be lured from neighbouring regions, evidence of the severe shortage of skilled labour across Russia. In a twist, the main competition for workers at the factories can come from the military, which promises a salary of more than 200,000 roubles (£1,730) a month to those who sign up to fight in the war.

In regions across Russia, that kind of money can be transformative. “The war has led to an unprecedented redistribution of wealth, with the poorer classes profiting from government spending on the military-industrial complex,” said Denis Volkov, the director of the Levada Center, a polling and sociological research firm in Moscow. “Workers at military factories and families of soldiers fighting in Ukraine suddenly have much more money to spend. Their income has increased dramatically.”

Levada’s polling showed that 5-6% of those who “previously did not have enough money to buy consumer goods like a fridge now have moved upwards towards the middle classes”.

Maybe you'll actually read all this stuff, this time, IDK.

Of the two of you, I'm inclined to believe to MadDoctor over you. Unless you want to pull out SOURCES on how "Capability has been lost" to make new tanks?

Of course you are. Nevermind that just a few weeks ago maddoctor was claiming there was no artillery shell shortage in the west, NATO was instead doing "just in time" delivery.

Maddoctor's attempt to refute my statement was based entirely on the existence of the 'new' Challenger 3. Except the Challenger 3 is just a remanufactured Challenger 2 hull. They're not actually building a new vehicle. Here:

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-face ... -upgrades/

They also can't even make heavy gun barrels anymore.

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/land ... ms-admits/

aerius has already explained why this is so.

Oh.. Really?
SOURCE ASSHOLE.
Because the Ignorant one and the one that's already showing youself to be a Putin-kissing Tanksie is YOU.

Based on what? Not euphorically waving Ukraine pom poms as their situation gets worse and worse? All you're doing is shouting at me constantly while clinging to any other poster in here like a life raft and insisting they are right and I am wrong. But here, since you ask, from 2022, shortly after the mobilisation was announced.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/what-does ... ation-mean

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ru ... 023-07-25/

Conscripts cannot legally be deployed to fight outside Russia and were in theory exempted from a limited mobilisation last autumn that gathered at least 300,000 men with previous military training to fight in Ukraine - although some conscripts were sent to the front in error.

None of this stuff is esoteric knowledge, its been reported by western sources. You just don't know any of it because you've been inhabiting an echo chamber.

Russia has a manpower advantage over Ukraine based off of:

1. Well paid contract soldiers (refer to the Guardian article);
2. Mercenary units;
3. Stop loss of contract soldiers whose contract term has ended under the partial mobilisation law; and
4. Conscription of military reservists under the same partial mobilisation law.

That's the main composition of its force. Its actual 'official' conscript force is in the main entirely uncommitted, by law.

I notice you keep ignoring bits where the Russians increased the conscription age available to deploy in Ukraine, reservists of NCO rank increased to 40, widespread conscription evasion and firebombing of Russian offices and etc.
The Russian army from a young professional force of 20s fighting in Ukraine switched to one in their mid 30s fighting and dying as a result of mobilisation. MOD average age of recruits mobilised was 35, while at same time Ukraine was age 30-35.


And while it's true that Russia has a much larger manpower pool to draw from, the conflict between Zelensky and his general Vis mobilisation is a mix between popular support for a mobilisation and the costs involved of raising the numbers involved, with the total personnel costs of raising, equipping n arming them taking up 1/4 of the government budget.

Which IS a problem, but one solvable by Western governments increasing aid. Note that this is ALSO a problem the Russians faced, hence Putin holding off general mobilisation until losses mandated it last year. Ditto to pay issues https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/03/ ... nds-a80576

The suggested reduction in conscription age from 27-25 along with the new batch of available 27 yr old increase available pool to 500k. While a significant portion of this pool are overseas workers, the actual manpower limits hasn't been depleted yet.


If we use existing casualty rates, the Russian army would have to undergo another round of mobilisation again this year in order to maintain their current numerical advantage on the front.

The actual limits on the Ukranians as always is western aid.

[Vympel]

I think you ignoring the electronics that make war equipment viable in the modern battlefield. The refitted T62 don't have modern night scopes and etc, although they have survivability upgrades in the form of Komet ERA.

Yes they do, they're equipped with thermal sights - specifically the 1PN96MT-02, a recent lets say "mass production" thermal sight that's less complex than the top-of-the-line Russian stuff reserved for newer tanks like the T-90M etc. It also has sometimes been seen on upgraded T-72Bs and T-80Bs.

Kontakt ERA is not at all remarkable, it was fitted on T-62Ms back in the 1980s (T-62MV) though some variants built without it have been upgraded with it in the course of overhaul. There's T-62Ms without Kontakt equipped with 1PN96MT-02 too, like this one:

I notice you keep ignoring bits where the Russians increased the conscription age available to deploy in Ukraine, reservists of NCO rank increased to 40, widespread conscription evasion and firebombing of Russian offices and etc.

As noted in the NYT article quoting Rob Lee, the key feature of 2023 was Russia recruiting large numbers of volunteers while Ukraine is the one suffering a manpower shortage. No one ever said that conscription of reservists in Russia is a smooth process or there is no draft evasion. Its simply not material to the balance of forces or who has the advantage.

The Russian army from a young professional force of 20s fighting in Ukraine switched to one in their mid 30s fighting and dying as a result of mobilisation. MOD average age of recruits mobilised was 35, while at same time Ukraine was age 30-35.

The average Ukrainian soldier's age is 43.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ukra ... -zf5bqb26m

And while it's true that Russia has a much larger manpower pool to draw from, the conflict between Zelensky and his general Vis mobilisation is a mix between popular support for a mobilisation and the costs involved of raising the numbers involved, with the total personnel costs of raising, equipping n arming them taking up 1/4 of the government budget.

Which IS a problem, but one solvable by Western governments increasing aid.

Western aid to Ukraine is falling, not increasing. If the narrative is that Ukraine is going to see a huge influx of western cash that will allow it to put an additional 500K men under arms then this is not a serious strategy, its just wishcasting. The days of huge western outlays to Ukraine have already come and gone. The $61B that it'll eventually get from the US (probably) is a fraction of what they need, and that's meant to last until Sep 2025.

Note that this is ALSO a problem the Russians faced, hence Putin holding off general mobilisation until losses mandated it last year. Ditto to pay issues https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/03/ ... nds-a80576

The suggested reduction in conscription age from 27-25 along with the new batch of available 27 yr old increase available pool to 500k. While a significant portion of this pool are overseas workers, the actual manpower limits hasn't been depleted yet.

No one said their manpower pool is depleted. I've referred to the mobilisation law repeatedly after all.

If we use existing casualty rates, the Russian army would have to undergo another round of mobilisation again this year in order to maintain their current numerical advantage on the front.

The actual limits on the Ukranians as always is western aid.

No, its also society's willingness to endure a mass mobilisation of a very small and valuable demographic cohort in service of merely holding the line, while the prospects of achieving anything like a victory that doesn't result in the loss of territory has clearly evaporated.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

And which warmongers would those be? That's the sort of shit I would expect from Putin if his invasion went the way he thought it would at the start- demand other countries surrender any Ukrainian refugees they have taken in.

No one in positions of power thankfully, just idiots in the commentariat. There was enough of a hubbub that the Germans said they would not be doing that.

https://www.rferl.org/a/germany-ukraine ... 42896.html

Ukraine's problems with mobilizing soldiers to fend off the Russian invasion will have no practical consequences for Ukrainians living in Germany, according to German Justice Minister Marco Buschmann. "It will not be the case that we force people to do compulsory military service or military service against their will," Buschmann told dpa. Discussions are currently ongoing in Ukraine about how the army can recruit more soldiers. The military wants to mobilize an additional 450,000 to 500,000 men. The Ukrainian Defense Ministry has been appealing to Ukrainian men living abroad to return home and defend their country.

That's just Germany saying they're not going to send Ukrainian refugees back in response to appeals by the Ukrainian Defense Ministry, not because of "warmongers".

[PainRack]

Heh, yeah. I meant things like the rolling back of production of certain types of military goods because with the Cold War over we didn't see as much need for them and figured our stockpiles would be mor than sufficient in an emergency. Obviously the MIC kept finding new and exciting ways to acquire taxpayer money.

Are we discussing Europe or US? Because what happened to the US is .... Vastly different.

It's not so much the "peace dividend" but rather military procurement, although the end of the Cold War did fuck up procurement.

The Commache was immediately discarded because the Cold War era missions was no longer needed. Helicopters would be too vulnerable in a contested peer to peer war so long range attacks, pop up attacks would become the norm, although the Apache strike in Iraq showed that adequate SEAD could still allow helicopter strikes. But that's neither here nor there.


The US army lost Crusader, as the branches tried to pivot to expeditionary warfare. Again, Bush era miscalculation regarding FCS and etc. although as Ukraine shows, YES, you can use firepower and overwhelming intelligence n drones to stop an armoured assault, be it both Russian or Western tanks.

The USN then experiments on Zumwalt and LRGS, as well as the LCS was.... Problematic now for future growth. Although I argue that Zumwalt probably could be rationalised as a we have to try it to know if it could or couldn't work as it is now.

US F22 and F35 is ..... Well, unlimited money eventually works. The massed switchover to PGM under Clinton worked. What didn't work was finding successor AA missiles as we kept the AMRAAM 120. Europe now has Meteor and etc for the long range shoots, while Russia Archer and etc is doing well in Ukraine.


Essentially, production for munitions and etc were curtailed to "stand by" mode, especially problematic for platforms like the F22 as the US tried to develop next gen platforms and gear. PGM was a huge advent, but it's one involving retrofitting lots of dumb munitions. PAC 3 works.

The stinger for example, is supposed to be replaced but the program only gpt initiated in 2022(under Biden). One of the reasons WHY ... Is due to GOP sequestration and the impact it had.



So... The problem isn't so much the peace dividend fucked up the US. Clinton upgraded the forces with PGM, Patriot and etc. The problem was the next step in advances for the US met with setbacks, then under Bush was derailed because of Iraq war. Then finally GOP sequestration hurt the forces ability.

[Vympel]

That's just Germany saying they're not going to send Ukrainian refugees back in response to appeals by the Ukrainian Defense Ministry, not because of "warmongers".

The people I'm talking about are the chattering classes. It was a thing briefly when Ukraine made that appeal (naturally, because the topic came up). Finding the tweets is a pain in the ass. I think Luttwalk was one of them, but honestly I forget who.

[PainRack]

]

Yes they do, they're equipped with thermal sights - specifically the 1PN96MT-02, a recent lets say "mass production" thermal sight that's less complex than the top-of-the-line Russian stuff reserved for newer tanks like the T-90M etc. It also has sometimes been seen on upgraded T-72Bs and T-80Bs.

The 1PN96MT-02is ancient technology in comparison. It's range is up to 2 miles, half the range of the modern Russian Sansa sight.
This isn't just a range issue. Third gen optics allow you to zoom in, aim and hit faster than the 2nd gen optics like the 1PN96MT-02is.

We see this difference CLEARLY in the Bradley Vs Tank engagement, as the Bushmaster was able to attack faster and more accurately, scoring a mission kill.

As noted in the NYT article quoting Rob Lee, the key feature of 2023 was Russia recruiting large numbers of volunteers while Ukraine is the one suffering a manpower shortage. No one ever said that conscription of reservists in Russia is a smooth process or there is no draft evasion. Its simply not material to the balance of forces or who has the advantage.

Repeatedly claiming the Ukranians have to pressgang people, ban military age men from leaving as signs of their manpower issue however IS misleading when you ignore the Russians did that earlier

The average Ukrainian soldier's age is 43.

They went from an average age of 35 to become 40. Meanwhile, Russian forces went from average of 20 yrs old professional soldiers to 35 based on orbituaries.

And as I keep pointing out, Russian 35 yr old is NOT significantly better than Ukranian 43.


]

Western aid to Ukraine is falling, not increasing. If the narrative is that Ukraine is going to see a huge influx of western cash that will allow it to put an additional 500K men under arms then this is not a serious strategy, its just wishcasting. The days of huge western outlays to Ukraine have already come and gone. The $61B that it'll eventually get from the US (probably) is a fraction of what they need, and that's meant to last until Sep 2025.

Can't be helped if US won't do what in its best interests. Just pointing out the problem isn't with Ukraine manpower limits, it's with Western aid.

No one said their manpower pool is depleted. I've referred to the mobilisation law repeatedly after all.

But that IS what's important. You essentially using media reports of unpopularity to say Ukraine won't stomach lowering conscription ages n etcetcetc, while going Russia will tolerate the mobilisation pain necessary to sustain its losses.

That's not actually as clear cut as you think it is, as evidenced by Putin doing his very best to limit the popularity hit from mobilisation.

[Dominus Atheos]

It was a great place to kill Russians and make them waste materiel. Russia would send a squad of hapless mobniks forward, Ukrainians would shoot them in the face and immediately pull back 100 or so meters, then Russia would spend the rest of the day pounding the place where the Ukrainians used to be with hundreds or even thousands of artillery shells.

LOL so yeah, again, the argument is Ukraine stayed there because it thought it could win an attrition battle against an enemy with many times the resources. Bakhmut wasn't a defeat actually, it was a ... brand of Ukrainian victory! Amazing!

This led to the 5-1 kill ratio even russia admitted to:

That's laughably disingenuous, come on dude. President Zelensky isn't Russian, so how is this Russia admitting a kill ratio?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64935449

That was over by the end of October-

Not the point, and you should know that. The point was, and this has been raised umpteen different times in news reports and analyses - that Ukraine wasted huge amounts of resources first defending Bakhmut, then trying to retake Bakhmut, and those resources were better spent in the south. The other point of course is that the Russians weren't going to go over to the attack after Bakhmut because the Ukrainians were foolishly smashing themselves against their fortifications to no result.

And what's your theory for why Ukraine did that, if it was such an obvious mistake?

There wasn't a single western tank or vehicle Western analysts admitted to losing, so no.

Do you think the only resource the Ukrainians had to waste was western tanks. Jesus Christ - how about troops, and ammunition, and AFVs and on and on and on?

Do you guys read anything about this war that you think will make you sad? Or do you just avoid all of it?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/22/us/p ... a-war.html

Ukraine’s continued focus on Bakhmut, the scene of one of the bloodiest battles of the war, has perplexed U.S. intelligence and military officials. Ukraine has invested huge amounts of resources in defending the surrounding Donbas region, and Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, does not want to appear as though he is giving up on trying to retake lost territory. But U.S. officials say politics must, at least temporarily, take a back seat to sound military strategy.

American strategists say that keeping a small force near the destroyed city is justified to pin down Russian troops and prevent them from using it as a base for attack. But Ukraine has enough troops there to try to retake the area, a move that U.S. officials say would lead to large numbers of losses for little strategic gain.

American officials have told Ukrainian leaders that they can secure the land around Bakhmut with far fewer troops and should reallocate forces to targets in the south.

Spoiler alert: Ukraine never retook the city.

I mean for fuck's sake, its not even about reading things you may not like to know. Just common sense about what shit gets burnt up in war.

The fact of the matter is this - the idea that Bakhmut was some sort of masterful Ukrainian attrition action is complete nonsense. It exists entirely among the online commentariat. Western officials and military analysts were calling time on the defence on the city months before it fell, and watched in bafflement as the Ukrainians spread ridiculous fairy tales that they would soon encircle the Russians in the city and take it back.

The reason they stayed there beyond all reason is because of political imperatives that should never have been allowed to influence military affairs.

What political imperatives? As you said the west told them to withdraw from the city, so what possible motives could politicians have for ordering them to hold it. It makes perfect sense if the Ukrainian commanders had determined that they were getting favorable returns as they slowly withdrew out of the city and westerners not understanding that. It makes no sense to have western analysts begging them to withdraw as you said and the political leadership refusing.

Your worldview lacks internal consistency. None of the actions you describe make sense from a Ukrainian perspective. There's no reason for Ukrainians to throw their lives away they know or should know they can't win. There's no reason, assuming Ukraine has the slightest bit of agency, (to be fair if Victoria Nuland is literally holding a gun to Zelenskyy's head as we speak then it does make sense) to not tell for the Ukrainians not to tell Joe Biden to go fuck himself, and every other westerner, and take Putin's very reasonable peace deal you are sure he is currently extending.

On the other hand, everyone's actions make perfect sense if A. they believe that they can win a war of attrition and B. Putin is a tin pot dictator who can and will order his soldiers and generals to the gulag (and his political opposition) if they don't engage in the mostly-but-not-entirely-suicidal wave attacks I described earlier and C. Ukrainians believe that if they give up, said tin pot dictator will brutally terrorize their country as bad as Stalin did. And D. American monday morning quarterback military analysts are idiots. (I assume this is a point we can both agree on)

As I've said before, the war is stalemated and nothing is going to change unless something external changes. Ukraine and Russia are going to lay down minefields and shoot artillery shells at each other uselessly for at least another 10 years.

No, they're not. Because Ukraine doesn't have the state capacity to sit there and do that for 10 years. They're losing already.

2 mid sized cities in 9 months. A little more than 50 to go.

[Dominus Atheos]

The average Ukrainian soldier's age is 43.

They went from an average age of 35 to become 40. Meanwhile, Russian forces went from average of 20 yrs old professional soldiers to 35 based on orbituaries.

And as I keep pointing out, Russian 35 yr old is NOT significantly better than Ukranian 43.

Something people may have heard of but not really realize, Ukraine has a minimum conscription age, currently 27.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/uk ... 023-12-25/

No one under the age of 27 is conscripted, so it makes sense that the average age in the Ukrainian army is increasing.

[Vympel]

And what's your theory for why Ukraine did that, if it was such an obvious mistake?

What political imperatives? As you said the west told them to withdraw from the city, so what possible motives could politicians have for ordering them to hold it. It makes perfect sense if the Ukrainian commanders had determined that they were getting favorable returns as they slowly withdrew out of the city and westerners not understanding that. It makes no sense to have western analysts begging them to withdraw as you said and the political leadership refusing.

Because losing cities is politically unpopular. It makes people think you are going to lose. The political imperatives are both domestic and international - you can't lose a city because it'll look like a defeat, even if its stupid to try and delay an inevitable one. It is incredibly easy to delude yourself into persisting to defend undefendable positions because you cannot bear the thought of giving it up, and there are many such cases historically.

Your worldview lacks internal consistency. None of the actions you describe make sense from a Ukrainian perspective. There's no reason for Ukrainians to throw their lives away they know or should know they can't win. There's no reason, assuming Ukraine has the slightest bit of agency, (to be fair if Victoria Nuland is literally holding a gun to Zelenskyy's head as we speak then it does make sense) to not tell for the Ukrainians not to tell Joe Biden to go fuck himself, and every other westerner, and take Putin's very reasonable peace deal you are sure he is currently extending.

I never said Putin was extending a very reasonable peace deal right now. I think there's a deal to be had if both parties try and come to the table, except oh wait the Ukrainians have actually made even attempting to negotiate with the Russians illegal.

Any peace deal is going to take months to sort out if both parties are willing and fighting will continue the entire time it goes on. But that's no reason not to start trying.

As for there being no reason for Ukrainians to throw away their lives when they know they can't win, there are, again, many historical examples of when someone who should sue for peace elects to fight to the bitter end for both selfish and irrational reasons. It is not at all an incredible thing.

On the other hand, everyone's actions make perfect sense if A. they believe that they can win a war of attrition and B. Putin is a tin pot dictator who can and will order his soldiers and generals to the gulag (and his political opposition) if they don't engage in the mostly-but-not-entirely-suicidal wave attacks I described earlier and C. Ukrainians believe that if they give up, said tin pot dictator will brutally terrorize their country as bad as Stalin did. And D. American monday morning quarterback military analysts are idiots. (I assume this is a point we can both agree on)

I have no doubt some of them think they can win a war of attrition with Russia. They are idiots, but yeah, I'm sure some believe it. Others just don't want to suffer the humiliation of defeat. Others would just like to keep looting all the cash sloshing around in wartime. A range of delusions combine to keep this absurd slaughterhouse going.

2 mid sized cities in 9 months. A little more than 50 to go.

And the Ukrainian troops and western cash is just going to limitlessly flow into those cities over and over again until its over, is it? Is that the trajectory of the way things are going? All in for Ukraine until the bitter end when Russia is exhausted and goes home? Cos its the opposite. Western countries are not gonna pay for this shit indefinitely, no matter how much you might wish it.

This aspect started when I asked what the theory of victory was and if its 'stalemate' that's not victory, its just endless dying for nothing.

[PainRack]

It was a great place to kill Russians and make them waste materiel. Russia would send a squad of hapless mobniks forward, Ukrainians would shoot them in the face and immediately pull back 100 or so meters, then Russia would spend the rest of the day pounding the place where the Ukrainians used to be with hundreds or even thousands of artillery shells.

LOL so yeah, again, the argument is Ukraine stayed there because it thought it could win an attrition battle against an enemy with many times the resources. Bakhmut wasn't a defeat actually, it was a ... brand of Ukrainian victory! Amazing!

This led to the 5-1 kill ratio even russia admitted to:

That's laughably disingenuous, come on dude. President Zelensky isn't Russian, so how is this Russia admitting a kill ratio?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-64935449

That was over by the end of October-

Not the point, and you should know that. The point was, and this has been raised umpteen different times in news reports and analyses - that Ukraine wasted huge amounts of resources first defending Bakhmut, then trying to retake Bakhmut, and those resources were better spent in the south. The other point of course is that the Russians weren't going to go over to the attack after Bakhmut because the Ukrainians were foolishly smashing themselves against their fortifications to no result.

And what's your theory for why Ukraine did that, if it was such an obvious mistake?

There wasn't a single western tank or vehicle Western analysts admitted to losing, so no.

Do you think the only resource the Ukrainians had to waste was western tanks. Jesus Christ - how about troops, and ammunition, and AFVs and on and on and on?

Do you guys read anything about this war that you think will make you sad? Or do you just avoid all of it?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/22/us/p ... a-war.html

Ukraine’s continued focus on Bakhmut, the scene of one of the bloodiest battles of the war, has perplexed U.S. intelligence and military officials. Ukraine has invested huge amounts of resources in defending the surrounding Donbas region, and Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, does not want to appear as though he is giving up on trying to retake lost territory. But U.S. officials say politics must, at least temporarily, take a back seat to sound military strategy.

American strategists say that keeping a small force near the destroyed city is justified to pin down Russian troops and prevent them from using it as a base for attack. But Ukraine has enough troops there to try to retake the area, a move that U.S. officials say would lead to large numbers of losses for little strategic gain.

American officials have told Ukrainian leaders that they can secure the land around Bakhmut with far fewer troops and should reallocate forces to targets in the south.

Spoiler alert: Ukraine never retook the city.

I mean for fuck's sake, its not even about reading things you may not like to know. Just common sense about what shit gets burnt up in war.

The fact of the matter is this - the idea that Bakhmut was some sort of masterful Ukrainian attrition action is complete nonsense. It exists entirely among the online commentariat. Western officials and military analysts were calling time on the defence on the city months before it fell, and watched in bafflement as the Ukrainians spread ridiculous fairy tales that they would soon encircle the Russians in the city and take it back.

The reason they stayed there beyond all reason is because of political imperatives that should never have been allowed to influence military affairs.

What political imperatives? As you said the west told them to withdraw from the city, so what possible motives could politicians have for ordering them to hold it. It makes perfect sense if the Ukrainian commanders had determined that they were getting favorable returns as they slowly withdrew out of the city and westerners not understanding that. It makes no sense to have western analysts begging them to withdraw as you said and the political leadership refusing.

Your worldview lacks internal consistency. None of the actions you describe make sense from a Ukrainian perspective. There's no reason for Ukrainians to throw their lives away they know or should know they can't win. There's no reason, assuming Ukraine has the slightest bit of agency, (to be fair if Victoria Nuland is literally holding a gun to Zelenskyy's head as we speak then it does make sense) to not tell for the Ukrainians not to tell Joe Biden to go fuck himself, and every other westerner, and take Putin's very reasonable peace deal you are sure he is currently extending.

On the other hand, everyone's actions make perfect sense if A. they believe that they can win a war of attrition and B. Putin is a tin pot dictator who can and will order his soldiers and generals to the gulag (and his political opposition) if they don't engage in the mostly-but-not-entirely-suicidal wave attacks I described earlier and C. Ukrainians believe that if they give up, said tin pot dictator will brutally terrorize their country as bad as Stalin did. And D. American monday morning quarterback military analysts are idiots. (I assume this is a point we can both agree on)

As I've said before, the war is stalemated and nothing is going to change unless something external changes. Ukraine and Russia are going to lay down minefields and shoot artillery shells at each other uselessly for at least another 10 years.

No, they're not. Because Ukraine doesn't have the state capacity to sit there and do that for 10 years. They're losing already.

2 mid sized cities in 9 months. A little more than 50 to go.

To be fair. Bakhmut became a political symbol for both sides, with Zelensky investing political capital in holding on.

The military value of depleting Russian forces was there, but politically, the 'success' of holding on and the benefits of popular support, foreign aid is a reason for Ukraine to hold on.


The loss of Bakhmut then needs to be measured in terms of support and that wasn't significant, so it's not a major loss for Ukraine.


Avdiivka is different though, because it's loss might potentiate loss of foreign support and domestic.

[Vympel]

The 1PN96MT-02 is ancient technology in comparison. It's range is up to 2 miles-

Yeah I'm well aware of its disadvantages.

This isn't just a range issue. Third gen optics allow you to zoom in, aim and hit faster than the 2nd gen optics like the 1PN96MT-02is.

We see this difference CLEARLY in the Bradley Vs Tank engagement, as the Bushmaster was able to attack faster and more accurately, scoring a mission kill.

There are a million different subjective reasons an engagement can go one way or the other, the idea that it must be because of the Bradley's thermal sight and no other reason has no basis. Newer thermal sights are better yeah, we don't need to assume it what was what happened in here or there memeable online war moment.

(The T-90M mission-killed in that engagement isn't equipped with 1PN96MT-02 anyway.)

Repeatedly claiming the Ukranians have to pressgang people, ban military age men from leaving as signs of their manpower issue however IS misleading when you ignore the Russians did that earlier

Recruitment issues in Ukraine are a persistent, ongoing problem to the extent they are not in Russia. The Russians aren't visibly sacking their entire conscription teams due to widespread corruption, and then realising they made a mistake in doing so because noone else wants the job. That's Ukraine. I don't see Ukraine recruiting hordes of volunteer troops at this stage of the war with generous salaries - that's Russia.

I focus on Ukraine because to treat them as equivalent issues is simply not accurate. Not even General Zaluzhny thinks its accurate, as he complained in his recent essay to CNN.

This goes back to the irresponsibility of analysis of this war to the very beginning - the foolish belief that the Russians would take their licks and go home rather than escalate, that this vastly larger state with far more resources would just walk off and be humiliated rather than mobilise more men if it needs to. That's still the narrative hiding behind all of this discourse, and its an insanely stupid bet to take, given the stakes.

They went from an average age of 35 to become 40. Meanwhile, Russian forces went from average of 20 yrs old professional soldiers to 35 based on orbituaries.

And as I keep pointing out, Russian 35 yr old is NOT significantly better than Ukranian 43.

Do you think Ukrainian 43 year olds are just that much healthier than Russian 35 year olds? Also who has more men?

Can't be helped if US won't do what in its best interests. Just pointing out the problem isn't with Ukraine manpower limits, it's with Western aid.

It's both. This is again a matter of simply inhabiting reality and acting accordingly, as opposed to recommending a course of action that you could take if wishes were horses and we all lived on Candy Mountain, which is what online Ukraine war advocacy indulges in depressingly often, at this point.

Which is to say - we can quibble why the problem exists and it does exist so what should someone do about it? If you believe the collective West is gonna funnel everything that Ukraine desires and does so indefinitely, that's one thing, but if you don't believe that, then this is unsustainable.

As for what's in US best interests- supporting a protracted war between Ukraine and Russia is arguably not in US best interests. See the RAND Corporation analysis on this, which argues that a prolonged Russo-Ukrainian war is on balance, not in US interests.

But that IS what's important. You essentially using media reports of unpopularity to say Ukraine won't stomach lowering conscription ages n etcetcetc, while going Russia will tolerate the mobilisation pain necessary to sustain its losses.

That's not actually as clear cut as you think it is, as evidenced by Putin doing his very best to limit the popularity hit from mobilisation.

See above.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

As for what's in US best interests- supporting a protracted war between Ukraine and Russia is arguably not in US best interests. See the RAND Corporation analysis on this, which argues that a prolonged Russo-Ukrainian war is on balance, not in US interests.

Allowing Ukraine to fall is infinitely worse for everyone's interests except Russia.

[bilateralrope]

I have no doubt some of them think they can win a war of attrition with Russia. They are idiots, but yeah, I'm sure some believe it. Others just don't want to suffer the humiliation of defeat. Others would just like to keep looting all the cash sloshing around in wartime. A range of delusions combine to keep this absurd slaughterhouse going.

What exactly do you think Putin means when he talks about "denazification" ?

MOSCOW, Dec 14 (Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin vowed on Thursday to fight on in Ukraine until Moscow secures the country's "demilitarization", "denazification" and neutrality, unless Kyiv accepts a deal that achieves those goals.

Because that sounds very important if you want to predict what Russia will if they are in a strong position after the war ends.

[Elfdart]

Also, in Ukraine, military aged men are forbidden to leave the country. Was any such restriction ever imposed in the US during Vietnam?

There was no blanket ban on leaving the country. However, it was made clear to those whose deferments were about to expire that leaving the country to avoid the draft could get them fined or thrown in jail (or both). Losing an average of 10,000 men a year fleeing the country was somewhat significant to manpower, but the main issue for the government was public, open defiance of the draft: burning draft cards, refusing to show up, etc.

Ukraine's predicament is worse in every way: Losing more men than they could afford in combat and draft-dodging. Sooner or later the people in that country will get fed up with Zelensky's press gangs and the jig will be up.

[Vympel]

Allowing Ukraine to fall is infinitely worse for everyone's interests except Russia.

Not really, no. But even if someone really believed that, "allowing" it is not what RAND proposes. Merely ending the war.

[PainRack]

The 1PN96MT-02 is ancient technology in comparison. It's range is up to 2 miles-

Yeah I'm well aware of its disadvantages.

So in other words, you trying to disprove the fact that I said they don't have modern night optics..... By providing proof that they don't have modern night optics.....

Bold move Cotton.

Recruitment issues in Ukraine are a persistent, ongoing problem to the extent they are not in Russia. The Russians aren't visibly sacking their entire conscription teams due to widespread corruption, and then realising they made a mistake in doing so because noone else wants the job. That's Ukraine. I don't see Ukraine recruiting hordes of volunteer troops at this stage of the war with generous salaries - that's Russia.

Right. Because obviously, Russia isn't facing manpower issues.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienr ... 445fbd4bb3
Here's Russia redesigning it's assault platooms to have 12-15 soldiers.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ ... aw-kremlin

Here's Russia adding more fines, not to mention revamping it's conscription procedures because as they said

When the special military operation began, you and I saw that in some places we had a lot of mess in the military recruitment offices,” Peskov told journalists on Wednesday. “That is exactly the purpose of this legislative initiative: to clear up this mess and to make it [the system] modern, effective and convenient for citizens.”

Because obviously modern, effective and convenient meant banning men of military age from leaving and imposing more penalties for not showing up.

Also of the two,
https://news.yahoo.com/doubling-arson-a ... 00204.html
Ukraine isn't the one facing actual massed arson attacks on her conscription offices.


Face it. Both sides are facing the strain of war, you can simply ACKNOWLEDGE that Russia has a larger manpower pool with more dictatorial power to draw in men, but your constant choices to only portray Ukraine problems show that it's propaganda and not an actual analysis.

I focus on Ukraine because to treat them as equivalent issues is simply not accurate. Not even General Zaluzhny thinks its accurate, as he complained in his recent essay to CNN.

What? Zaluzhny says that Putin can be more authoritarian than a democratic Ukraine? Oh no, this means all democracies must automatically lose then in war.

This goes back to the irresponsibility of analysis of this war to the very beginning - the foolish belief that the Russians would take their licks and go home rather than escalate, that this vastly larger state with far more resources would just walk off and be humiliated rather than mobilise more men if it needs to. That's still the narrative hiding behind all of this discourse, and its an insanely stupid bet to take, given the stakes.

And the alternative?? Because we already learnt from 2014 that appeasing Russia doesn't solve shit.

Do you think Ukrainian 43 year olds are just that much healthier than Russian 35 year olds? Also who has more men?

The side that literally doesn't have a hollow gap in its demographics chewed apart by AIDs,TB, drugs and alcoholism is healthier than Russia yes.

Also lol. Note again how your SOLE excuse is to go Russia has more men. That's never been in contention. But Russia has been amazingly incompetent in her tactics and operations so far, squandering her manpower advantages. Ukraine has been punching above her weight.

It's both. This is again a matter of simply inhabiting reality and acting accordingly, as opposed to recommending a course of action that you could take if wishes were horses and we all lived on Candy Mountain, which is what online Ukraine war advocacy indulges in depressingly often, at this point.

Ah right. Because Ukraine losses are unsustainable while Russia is?

As for RAND. You right. A long drawn out war is unfavourable for the US. They should have supplied more weapons and funding earlier in larger quantities earlier.

[bilateralrope]

Allowing Ukraine to fall is infinitely worse for everyone's interests except Russia.

Not really, no. But even if someone really believed that, "allowing" it is not what RAND proposes. Merely ending the war.

What does ending the war look like ?

Because so far Russia keeps demanding that Ukraine:
- Demilitarizes. Meaning they won't have the military to resist Russia doing whatever they want, unless you know of Russia also agreeing to demilitarize.
- Remains "neutral". Meaning Ukraine won't have allies to help resist Russia doing whatever they want. Unless Russia has talked about agreeing to significant consequences should they choose to break the neutrality.

Oh and while you have talked about the human cost of the war, I don't recall you comparing it to the human cost of how Russia will treat civilians in whatever territory they take. Two links that seem relavant:
Izium mass graves

ICC prosecutor: Hundreds of Ukrainian children taken from orphanages to Russia

[Broomstick]

Will the US stop trying to meddle in other countries' spheres of influence and couping neighbors after this, or do you think we'll just do it even harder? This entire war is the USA's fault, then it not immediately ending and dragging on for years with bloody casualties and eventually a Ukrainian defeat anyway is going to be more or less the USA's fault, and there will have been nothing gotten for the venture.

Oh, look - it's a Russian toady! How much is Putin paying you to be here and is it in rubles or a real form of money?

This is Putin's war. He's the one who made the decision to invade another country, no one else.

...meddling in Russia's backyard in the first place?

Contrary to what Putin worshipers such as yourself believe, European, including Eastern Europe, does not belong to Russia. Fuck that noise and fuck you for emitting it. I'm goddamned tired of outright lies on the internet.

How the fuck did you arrive at the conclusion that the war is the USA's fault and not, say, the guy who actually ordered his troops to invade Ukraine?

I suspect monetary remuneration.

[vakundok]

The 1PN96MT-02 is ancient technology in comparison. It's range is up to 2 miles-

Yeah I'm well aware of its disadvantages.

So in other words, you trying to disprove the fact that I said they don't have modern night optics..... By providing proof that they don't have modern night optics.....

I think it is not about "have", but rather "use". In the current grinder, the pragmatical solution is to throw out everything not needed, in order to simplify production.
Something that the West seem to lost the mindset to do so.
Are the majority of the tank losses due to tank (or IFV) to tank combat or are they due to mines, drones or infantry within a few hundred meters?

[Elfdart]

Will the US stop trying to meddle in other countries' spheres of influence and couping neighbors after this, or do you think we'll just do it even harder? This entire war is the USA's fault, then it not immediately ending and dragging on for years with bloody casualties and eventually a Ukrainian defeat anyway is going to be more or less the USA's fault, and there will have been nothing gotten for the venture. Woo-eee, we forced Russia to waste equipment they can afford to make more of while we're leaving the entire Western world disarmed and disadvantaged in a future arms race! That sure showed them. Thank god no Americans were harmed!

Like, what is the US going to do when this goes the way it's going? What are the odds the people in Washington and NATO learn anything from this humiliation? Everyone seems so focused on what Russia will do after the war either way, but what happens when Ukraine is cut to pieces, rendered inert and broke, and we're forced to rebuild the ruined nation we created by meddling in Russia's backyard in the first place?

Dude, we're still blockading Cuba. The Empire has always been run by sore losers who, after throwing their suckers -I mean "allies"- to the sharks will use their humiliation as an excuse for more coups, sieges, dirty wars. In my lifetime, Uncle Sam has fucked over the Kurds at least a half-dozen times. It's like watching Lucy promising to hold the ball for Charlie Brown.

Even the dumbest Ukrainians have to know by now that no matter who wins the election in November, they're going to tossed overboard. All those men slaughtered over the last year were chewed up for a deal that's going to suck a whole lot harder than the one Boris Johnson convinced Zelensky to reject. Now that Russia has a decisive upper hand, Ukraine is running out of men and the Empire is running out of hand-me-downs from their arsenals, I doubt Putin is going to be all that merciful. As Harry Morant deadpanned as he was being marched in front of the firing squad:

"This is what comes from empire building"

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Will the US stop trying to meddle in other countries' spheres of influence and couping neighbors after this, or do you think we'll just do it even harder? This entire war is the USA's fault, then it not immediately ending and dragging on for years with bloody casualties and eventually a Ukrainian defeat anyway is going to be more or less the USA's fault, and there will have been nothing gotten for the venture. Woo-eee, we forced Russia to waste equipment they can afford to make more of while we're leaving the entire Western world disarmed and disadvantaged in a future arms race! That sure showed them. Thank god no Americans were harmed!

Like, what is the US going to do when this goes the way it's going? What are the odds the people in Washington and NATO learn anything from this humiliation? Everyone seems so focused on what Russia will do after the war either way, but what happens when Ukraine is cut to pieces, rendered inert and broke, and we're forced to rebuild the ruined nation we created by meddling in Russia's backyard in the first place?

This is actually my biggest problem with Tankies: no other countries beside Russia and the US have agency (maybe China sometimes). Russia has a "sphere of influence" that are naturally entitled to, and no country wants to leave that voluntarily, only because the US "meddled" in it.

Why is it so hard for your type to even conceive the idea that all of the countries that Russia considers part of it's "sphere of influence" are in fact scared of Russia, and scared specifically of Russia invading them and forcing them into it's sphere of influence?

That's part of how 'spheres' work. One nation has the cards the others don't, and uses that to exert its power in a region. The US tried to effect an economic and then by extension de facto military takeover of Ukraine. EU entrance talks were a stepping stone to NATO entry, something that has been the case since the 90's for every new member. Then the US got impatient and instead of waiting for the Ukrainian President to be legally removed, he was chased out of his own country by an angry mob and they sort of just appointed the guy the US wanted. Sounds legit to me! Euromaidan has been litigated to death in this thread and elsewhere, but suffice to say that with regards to military intervention to protect our power in a region we've done this shit before, too, and for reasons that are arguably much worse than our next-door neighbor beginning the process of joining a military alliance whose sole existence in the post-war world seems to be to fuck with us, specifically. Yes, Poland is scared, though one wonders why. Which is it: is Russia going to collapse economically in two more years, or can they afford a World War over fucking Kaliningrad? The narratives are impossible to follow.

I'm no fan of the Russians, but I'm equally less a fan of the US creating situations that make the world less safe and lead to mass destruction.

That's just bullshit on top of more bullshit How many pictures of Putin have you got stuffed in your wallet?