UKRAINE WAR - 1 YEAR AND GOING.

[3-Body Problem]

Fuck off, you don't get to tell me what to do, asshole.

So you'll sit and question why other people think Ukraine will lose while being unable to offer anything when asked the counterfactual of how they're going to win? Do I need to start citing debate rules to compel an answer or concession from you?

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Fuck off, you don't get to tell me what to do, asshole.

So you'll sit and question why other people think Ukraine will lose while being unable to offer anything when asked the counterfactual of how they're going to win? Do I need to start citing debate rules to compel an answer or concession from you?

You've been here for all of five minutes and you're already acting like a mod. Good luck with that.

[The Sisko]

Fuck off, you don't get to tell me what to do, asshole.

So you'll sit and question why other people think Ukraine will lose while being unable to offer anything when asked the counterfactual of how they're going to win? Do I need to start citing debate rules to compel an answer or concession from you?

You've been here for all of five minutes and you're already acting like a mod. Good luck with that.

Can I be in the parting shots thread? I used to love reading these when I wasn't a member...

[3-Body Problem]

Fuck off, you don't get to tell me what to do, asshole.

So you'll sit and question why other people think Ukraine will lose while being unable to offer anything when asked the counterfactual of how they're going to win? Do I need to start citing debate rules to compel an answer or concession from you?

You've been here for all of five minutes and you're already acting like a mod. Good luck with that.

What does that have to do with anything? Is this some crusty fucking country club with a pecking order to be respected or a place where the standard of debate remains high?

I'm calling you out on DR4 and DR5.

Code: Select all

No "Broken Record" Tactics. Do not employ the "broken record" debating style of continuously repeating yourself until other people give up.

Back Up Your Claims. If you make a contentious statement of fact and someone asks for evidence, you must either provide it or withdraw the claim. Do not call it "self evident", restate it in different words, force the other person to prove your claim is not true, or use other weasel techniques to avoid backing up your claims.

Under DR5 I once again ask you:

1) Given what we have seen of their war-making capability thus far, which includes support from the West, do you think Ukraine can defeat Russia?

2) If you see Ukraine defeating Russia what does that victory look like?

3) If you don't think Ukraine will defeat Russia what benefit does Ukraine gain by continuing the fight?

4) A year from now do you feel like Ukraine will be stronger relative to their current strength or weaker?

No put up or fuck off.

[Vympel]

Is accusing me of acting like a broken record, while acting like a broken record not the very definition of projecting?

Maybe I wouldn't have to keep asking you the same thing if you came up with a coherent answer to the question actually put to you as opposed to constantly evading by restating your clearly ideological conviction that negotiations are impossible?

Perhaps because like you, Putin has brought nothing new to the table-

Annnnd you're just repeating yourself again, coming up with yet another new, intensely boring way to say that negotiations are impossible.

Its particularly amusing that you say "Putin has brought nothing new to the table" - a term that by common parlance refers to the negotiating table. The thing you don't want Ukraine to sit down at, but insist that Putin has brought nothing new to regardless.

What does it cost to hold a new negotiation to verify whether your strident insistence is or is not bullshit? If you're right, you can claim vindication, and the war can continue knowing you did everything you could to achieve a peace.

It costs nothing, actually. So why are you so bloody minded about insisting it not be tried?

You say its a strawman for me to speculate its because you don't want to try and would prefer the war would continue, but you offer up no alternate explanation for your baffling refusal to try something that costs nothing.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Vympel said earlier that not every war is the 2nd World War, but even in that war, the USSR lost millions in months and kept going ANYWAY. People who expect a plucky Ukrainian victory when massively outnumbered the way Ukraine is are living in Wehraboo fantasy land, where even the Nazis couldn't do it despite harvesting and killing millions of fresh and ripe USSR troops due to Stalin's incompetence, among other things.

So let's ask ourselves, seriously, how many Russians will each Ukrainian soldier have to kill to win? Do you expect each Ukrainian soldier to achieve a 7:1 kill ratio, which would come close to the Wehrmacht in WW2? Do you think that, just maybe, when you're looking to Nazi wet dreams to find success, you've already lost?

And in case you're wondering why I didn't respond to your accusations that I'm 'paid' to post on a dead Star Wars discussion forum, it's because it's the kind of insane, made-up bullshit that anyone participating in this discussion should expect from the Ukrainian hysterics occupying this thread.

Here's how Russia wins the war against Ukraine: waits. But please, share with the west your plan, given the course of the war (in reality, that is), your genius is urgently needed, General.

This coming from the guy who said this whole thing was America's fault? It's immediately clear whose side you are on.

You've gone from attempting to fuse talking points into something cogent to just telling people to shut up. Wow, sure showed me!

Are you now denying that you said this?

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?

[The Sisko]

This coming from the guy who said this whole thing was America's fault? It's immediately clear whose side you are on.

You've gone from attempting to fuse talking points into something cogent to just telling people to shut up. Wow, sure showed me!

Are you now denying that you said this?

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,

I mean, you could, you know, argue with this claim you have such a problem with, but you won't because like the Ukrainians, you have chosen a dumb place to die for no reason.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Is accusing me of acting like a broken record, while acting like a broken record not the very definition of projecting?

Maybe I wouldn't have to keep asking you the same thing if you came up with a coherent answer to the question actually put to you as opposed to constantly evading by restating your clearly ideological conviction that negotiations are impossible?

Perhaps because like you, Putin has brought nothing new to the table-

Annnnd you're just repeating yourself again, coming up with yet another new, intensely boring way to say that negotiations are impossible.

Its particularly amusing that you say "Putin has brought nothing new to the table" - a term that by common parlance refers to the negotiating table. The thing you don't want Ukraine to sit down at, but insist that Putin has brought nothing new to regardless.

What does it cost to hold a new negotiation to verify whether your strident insistence is or is not bullshit? If you're right, you can claim vindication, and the war can continue knowing you did everything you could to achieve a peace.

It costs nothing, actually. So why are you so bloody minded about insisting it not be tried?

You say its a strawman for me to speculate its because you don't want to try and would prefer the war would continue, but you offer up no alternate explanation for your baffling refusal to try something that costs nothing.

I see you missed the point about why the negotiations broke down in the first place so it bears repeating:

Russia’s idea of Ukraine as an integral part of itself was incompatible with Ukrainian nationalism. At the same time, Ukraine’s claim, backed by the West, to total sovereignty in foreign policy, is incompatible with Russia’s historical conception of its security needs. The disparity between these two mental fabrics is the biggest structural obstacle to peace.

And you say, falsely, I'd prefer that the war continue. The best ending to the war is that Russia takes their soldiers from Ukraine, end their assault on Ukraine, and never came back. But you'd never go for that, would you?

[EnterpriseSovereign]

You've gone from attempting to fuse talking points into something cogent to just telling people to shut up. Wow, sure showed me!

Are you now denying that you said this?

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,

I mean, you could, you know, argue with this claim you have such a problem with, but you won't because like the Ukrainians, you have chosen a dumb place to die for no reason.

How about you go to Ukraine and tell the locals that their homeland is a dumb place to die in defence of for no reason? Because that's what you're saying.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

So you'll sit and question why other people think Ukraine will lose while being unable to offer anything when asked the counterfactual of how they're going to win? Do I need to start citing debate rules to compel an answer or concession from you?

You've been here for all of five minutes and you're already acting like a mod. Good luck with that.

What does that have to do with anything? Is this some crusty fucking country club with a pecking order to be respected or a place where the standard of debate remains high?

I'm calling you out on DR4 and DR5.

Code: Select all

No "Broken Record" Tactics. Do not employ the "broken record" debating style of continuously repeating yourself until other people give up.

Back Up Your Claims. If you make a contentious statement of fact and someone asks for evidence, you must either provide it or withdraw the claim. Do not call it "self evident", restate it in different words, force the other person to prove your claim is not true, or use other weasel techniques to avoid backing up your claims.

Under DR5 I once again ask you:

1) Given what we have seen of their war-making capability thus far, which includes support from the West, do you think Ukraine can defeat Russia?

2) If you see Ukraine defeating Russia what does that victory look like?

3) If you don't think Ukraine will defeat Russia what benefit does Ukraine gain by continuing the fight?

4) A year from now do you feel like Ukraine will be stronger relative to their current strength or weaker?

No put up or fuck off.

See, there you go again. You're in no position to be calling the shots.

[Gandalf]

You don't need to be a mod to declare "DR5, back up your shit."

[3-Body Problem]

See, there you go again. You're in no position to be calling the shots.

DR5: Do you honestly believe that without a major and thus far unforeseen change Ukraine can win this war? If so what does that victory look like?

[The Sisko]

Is accusing me of acting like a broken record, while acting like a broken record not the very definition of projecting?

Maybe I wouldn't have to keep asking you the same thing if you came up with a coherent answer to the question actually put to you as opposed to constantly evading by restating your clearly ideological conviction that negotiations are impossible?

Perhaps because like you, Putin has brought nothing new to the table-

Annnnd you're just repeating yourself again, coming up with yet another new, intensely boring way to say that negotiations are impossible.

Its particularly amusing that you say "Putin has brought nothing new to the table" - a term that by common parlance refers to the negotiating table. The thing you don't want Ukraine to sit down at, but insist that Putin has brought nothing new to regardless.

What does it cost to hold a new negotiation to verify whether your strident insistence is or is not bullshit? If you're right, you can claim vindication, and the war can continue knowing you did everything you could to achieve a peace.

It costs nothing, actually. So why are you so bloody minded about insisting it not be tried?

You say its a strawman for me to speculate its because you don't want to try and would prefer the war would continue, but you offer up no alternate explanation for your baffling refusal to try something that costs nothing.

I see you missed the point about why the negotiations broke down in the first place so it bears repeating:

Russia’s idea of Ukraine as an integral part of itself was incompatible with Ukrainian nationalism. At the same time, Ukraine’s claim, backed by the West, to total sovereignty in foreign policy, is incompatible with Russia’s historical conception of its security needs. The disparity between these two mental fabrics is the biggest structural obstacle to peace.

And you say, falsely, I'd prefer that the war continue. The best ending to the war is that Russia takes their soldiers from Ukraine, end their assault on Ukraine, and never came back. But you'd never go for that, would you?

I find your decision to quote something you didn't write without sourcing it to be... generously, baffling. If I was interested in making serious hay I'd outright accuse you of deliberately plagiarizing, or being so quick to post that you forgot to credit someone else for the words you posted. This is the article you quoted
However, the Kremlin only pays me to refute your bullshit about Ukraine, not teach you proper academic practices.

And on that point, the article you quote has some compelling reasons for thinking it was actually Ukraine's fault that the negotiations broke down:

The official website of the Russian Ministry of Justice told a different story: the Ukrainian side was trying to “replace or devalue the existing negotiations track, which is taking place in Belarus” Nevertheless, the Turkish Foreign Minister thought that it was an important start as the foreign ministers of both sides were present.

Whether or not you believe this because you tend to dismiss anything from a "Biased source" (ask your favorite Russian killers, the Nazis, how banning knowledge that they thought was 'biased for the Jews' went for them) is up to you, but salient further down:

Important in determining the immediate outcome were the fortunes of war. It was their initial failure to capture Kyiv which got the Russians talking; their continuing offensive in March which brought Ukraine to the table. With the success of the Ukrainian counter-offensive of March 22, the Russians had a renewed incentive to negotiate, while Ukraine was starting to scent victory.

Ah, so there it is. Ukraine blew an early chance to end the war because obnoxious and stupid voices in the west quietly pushed them to the abyss of an unwinnable 'counter-offensive'.

Given the theatrics, monkeying and clearly stalling for time, would you reach out to start negotiations? It sounds like diplomatically, Ukraine is a fucking clown car and until they approach seriously I wouldn't even think about offering it. The fact that Putin keeps asking for it makes him more patient than I'd expect given that he's supposed to be slavic bear-riding Hitler.

How about you go to Ukraine and tell the locals that their homeland is a dumb place to die in defence of for no reason? Because that's what you're saying.

Avdiivka was a dumb place to die. So was Bakhmut. So was Mariupol. So was...

In war there are good places to fight and die and bad ones, and Ukraine has been choosing bad ones. That you can't even accept this is a chyron call declaring how far gone you are.

[Vympel]

I see you missed the point about why the negotiations broke down in the first place-

No, I directly addressed it as being yet another case of you restating your endless insistence that negotiations are impossible in yet another fashion.

I've asked you over and over why you don't think its a good idea to do the literally nothing required and get in a room to see if you're right, and you simply won't answer. The only conclusion is that you have no answer. This is just really tiresome and dull at this point. Your refusal to answer is just pathological.

And you say, falsely, I'd prefer that the war continue. The best ending to the war is that Russia takes their soldiers from Ukraine, end their assault on Ukraine, and never came back. But you'd never go for that, would you?

Quick summary of this discussion:

"Negotiations are impossible!"
"Why don't we try negotiations and see if you're right? It'd cost nothing."
"Negotiations are impossible!"
"Yeah you keep saying that but it would cost nothing to try and negotiate and see if you're right. The way you keep insisting that they're impossible indicates you'd prefer the war to continue rather than try for a negotiated peace."
"That's a strawman! I'd prefer unconditional Russian withdrawal!"

I trust everyone can see what an absurd response that is.

[Vympel]

People, I am loathe to intervene in a thread in which I am participating but the fact is we don't have a lot of active mods left, and right now I am the only one participating in this thread. I can't in good conscience take any official action one way or another because allegations of bias would be impossible to avoid. In the interests of preventing an escalation, lets just leave things about this particular issue and DR4/DR5 alone. If someone won't back something up or you think that charge is bullshit, just say so and move on.

[3-Body Problem]

Gents, I am loathe to intervene in a thread in which I am participating but the fact is we don't have a lot of active mods left, and right now I am the only one participating in this thread. I can't in good conscience take any official action one way or another because allegations of bias would be impossible to avoid. In the interests of preventing an escalation, lets just leave things about this particular issue and DR4/DR5 alone. If someone won't back something up or you think that charge is bullshit, just say so and move on.

Respectfully I'd rather have somebody like Tev or Dalton step in and call things one way or the other. There's little point in allowing anything but posting articles in this thread without comment if posters cannot be compelled to debate their positions properly.

If I'm wrong, and ES is debating things in a manor approved of by the mods, I will happily retract my complaint.

[Vympel]

Respectfully I'd rather have somebody like Tev or Dalton step in and call things one way or the other. There's little point in allowing anything but posting articles in this thread without comment if posters cannot be compelled to debate their positions properly.

If I'm wrong, and ES is debating things in a manor approved of by the mods, I will happily retract my complaint.

That's fine, what I mean is that pending the attention of other mods, the issue can be left alone in the meantime.

[3-Body Problem]

Respectfully I'd rather have somebody like Tev or Dalton step in and call things one way or the other. There's little point in allowing anything but posting articles in this thread without comment if posters cannot be compelled to debate their positions properly.

If I'm wrong, and ES is debating things in a manor approved of by the mods, I will happily retract my complaint.

That's fine, what I mean is that pending the attention of other mods, the issue can be left alone in the meantime.

Understood.

[PainRack]

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.

It's a globally stupid to claim the Russians don't have modern night optics, because they do. Their best sights are reserved for more modern tanks than mere T-62 upgrades. The 1PN96MT-02 isn't their best sight, and in this war has represented a "no frills" stop gap as they've expanded tank production, but its still a significant capability upgrade for something like an un-upgraded T-62.

But that's not what I posted right ??? I posted the refitted T62 don't have modern night optics.

I didn't at first understand where you were going with this, but then I realised I missed that you think the M2A2-ODS-SA Bradley given to Ukraine has third generation thermal imagers. It doesn't - it has a second-generation thermal sight - specifically the same IBAS first introduced on the M2A3 back in the early 2000s.

Oh no, you focused on the 2nd generation and ignore the bit where the M2A3 TI range is longer.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2 ... 57bc4c60e7

And American TI is of superior quality in general with higher resolution, so, it's not about the digital aspect n etc.

Not anywhere close to the extent that Ukraine is, no, it isn't, and none of your links establish otherwise. Like I don't know what's going on with your reasoning here but it's either abject denial or something just isn't connecting. You seem to think just pointing to the Russians administering their conscription system or tinkering with their assault platoons or dealing with resistance to conscription somehow establishes they are in as dire a situation as Ukraine. It doesn't, and they aren't. The Russians aren't the ones complaining about being outnumbered and starving for men, the Ukrainians are. It's really not that complicated.

I'm pointing out that you unfairly comparing the two by claiming oh, Ukraine is doing this equals to massive manpower shortage while ignoring Russia went there first.


A FAIRER comparison would have been to simply point out the manpower pools and the draws. Which is what I been repeating over and over again. Russia can draw on more manpower. That's not disputed.

You already noted that Ukraine manpower pool isn't exhausted yet.

Ah yes, "The New Voice of Ukraine" citing *checks notes* amongst other things the evidence free claims of UK military intelligence. Which is of course a credible, objective reporter of fact, with no stake in the conflict. Really reliable stuff here, just gold.

Do you credulously swallow and repeat pro-Russian media war propaganda, or just the Ukrainian stuff? Maybe I should start posting claims from Sputnik?

Even if those claims were true, guess what? Still doesn't matter, Ukraine still has less manpower in the field than Russia. Again, this isn't complicated.

I'm sorry. Who was the one claiming that conscription pressgangs indicate popular support in Ukraine is over and thus Ukraine cannot replenish losses?

Oh right. You.

Note the claims of bias I'm raising here. You gleefully note claims of unpopularity for the Ukranians, while simply ignoring all Russians one.

Nah mate. You're just in denial and clearly desperately casting about to look for equivalencies that don't exist. The "constant choices" to "only portray Ukraine problems" is because their problems are worse and are being reported as such by the western media and western analysts. Russia has the advantage over Ukraine in manpower. Whining that Russia is having problems with recruiting too is just handwaving away the disparity.

But I didn't. I'm simply pointing out that you being BIASED. Again, a simple and fair analysis would have been to note Russia has a manpower advantages, Ukraine is facing problems with replenishment. But that's not what YOU DID. What you did was to claim conscription issues equates to Ukraine has no popular will to support the war anymore.
That's a VERY biased claim, given that Russia has faced much more conscription issues than Ukraine did, yet you don't claim Russian popular support is declining.


As for the other where this is a "production simplification", better optics means being able to spot enemy ambushes.

[Vympel]

But that's not what I posted right ??? I posted the refitted T62 don't have modern night optics.

I took it to mean you were escalating your claim, sorry. But the T-62s sights are of the same generation as the M2A2-ODS-SA. Is there a quality difference? Sure. But a second generation thermal imaging sight - even a simple one - is by a reasonable standard a "modern night scope".

Oh no, you focused on the 2nd generation and ignore the bit-

You made a mistake about what type of TI the M2A2-ODS-SA has, the least you could do is simply acknowledge your error, as opposed to immediately pivot to chiding that I have somehow "ignored" something.

This entire tangent is disappearing up its own ass- your original point was to argue that electronics make equipment viable on the modern battlefield and to appeal to modernised T-62s lacking "modern night scopes". I responded that even these have been given TI sights. It'd be an understandable point I guess if the West was lavishing Ukraine with all manner of tanks and AFVs in quantity equipped with the latest thermal imagers and fire control systems in quantity, but they aren't.

The Russians have and maintain the capability to produce TI sights of varying capacity to equip all their tanks, even upgrades of old equipment like the T-62. It is enough for them to continue to fight with their AFVs effectively, day or night.

This myopic focus on the quality of the sights of the sights on the tiny number of remaining Bradleys in the theater compared to like this or that Russian tank is missing the forest for the trees. Its of no significance whatsoever. It's like wehraboos arguing about how good the gunsight of the King Tiger was compared to a T-34/85.

I'm pointing out that you unfairly comparing the two by claiming oh, Ukraine is doing this equals to massive manpower shortage while ignoring Russia went there first.

It's not an unfair comparison at all. I say that Ukraine has a massive manpower shortage because even multiple western articles and analysts say straight out that they do. So what if the Russians did this or that first god knows when? That's not material. It's the Ukrainians who are outnumbered by the Russians, not vice versa.

I'm sorry. Who was the one claiming that conscription pressgangs indicate popular support in Ukraine is over and thus Ukraine cannot replenish losses?

Oh right. You.

I never said Ukraine can't replenish losses AFAIK. I said they are clearly having difficulty doing so.

Note the claims of bias I'm raising here. You gleefully note claims of unpopularity for the Ukranians, while simply ignoring all Russians one.

Because the Russians aren't the ones currently hurting for men.

But I didn't. I'm simply pointing out that you being BIASED. Again, a simple and fair analysis would have been to note Russia has a manpower advantages, Ukraine is facing problems with replenishment. But that's not what YOU DID. What you did was to claim conscription issues equates to Ukraine has no popular will to support the war anymore.
That's a VERY biased claim, given that Russia has faced much more conscription issues than Ukraine did, yet you don't claim Russian popular support is declining.

I never said that "Ukraine has no popular will to support the war anymore" at all, no. I said it is clearly declining, and that's simply true. You may think its 'biased' that I don't immediately qualify everything I say with "but Russian support is also not good because XYZ" but I don't think its germane to the argument I'm making at all. The argument was always about who has more resources, and if Ukraine has a manpower problem then its relevant to point out replenishment difficulties in he same breath. If Russia encounters a similar problem it would also be absolutely relevant to talk about what popular support can sustain. But they don't have a similar problem.

[PainRack]

You made a mistake about what type of TI the M2A2-ODS-SA has, the least you could do is simply acknowledge your error, as opposed to immediately pivot to chiding that I have somehow "ignored" something.

Not really. I said 3rd TI has better sight, range and etc. that difference, aka the importance of having better sight n etc could be seen between the Bradley being able to engage the tank faster and more accurately .

But feel free to impunge me.

This entire tangent is disappearing up its own ass- your original point was to argue that electronics make equipment viable on the modern battlefield and to appeal to modernised T-62s lacking "modern night scopes". I responded that even these have been given TI sights. It'd be an understandable point I guess if the West was lavishing Ukraine with all manner of tanks and AFVs in quantity equipped with the latest thermal imagers and fire control systems in quantity, but they aren't.

Errrr. Right. And as I pointed out, the Bradley, aka an IFV taking out a Tank because of better electronics prove that. Your point being ?
.

It's not an unfair comparison at all. I say that Ukraine has a massive manpower shortage because even multiple western articles and analysts say straight out that they do. So what if the Russians did this or that first god knows when? That's not material. It's the Ukrainians who are outnumbered by the Russians, not vice versa.

Oh no, me pointing out you made a biased argument by claiming Ukranian difficulties in conscription means no popular support while ignoring Russian difficulties is being mean to you .

Booh hoo and stop trying to obsfucate this.

As my more accurate post points out, both states are being strained to meet the war. Ukraine has a disadvantage, but because they being better on the battlefield, they punching up and Russia is expending disproportionately more resources to achieve meagre results.


The idea that Russia will win this war of attrition is inevitable is false. The REAL hinge rests on Western aid and it's limited nature.

[Vympel]

Not really. I said 3rd TI has better sight, range and etc. that difference, aka the importance of having better sight n etc could be seen between the Bradley being able to engage the tank faster and more accurately .

Ah yes of course, you brought up a generation of sight the Bradley doesn't even have to make a point about the Bradley. I was being totally unreaonable to think you meant that the Bradley's in Ukraine has 3rd gen sights!

Are you physically incapable of conceding a fuckup, no matter how immaterial?

Errrr. Right. And as I pointed out, the Bradley, aka an IFV taking out a Tank because of better electronics prove that. Your point being ?

I believe I already explained my point in the previous post, in the following paragraphs that you snipped.

As for this repeated claim that the Bradley must've taken out a tank because of 'better electronics', you have absolutely no way of knowing that, and even if it was true, is mere tactical picking gnatshit out of pepper that has no effect on the outcome of the war.

Oh no, me pointing out you made a biased argument by claiming Ukranian difficulties in conscription means no popular support while ignoring Russian difficulties is being mean to you .

I must've missed where I made any complaint about you being "mean" to me, lol. This isn't a response to what I actually said in any way whatsoever.

As my more accurate post points out, both states are being strained to meet the war. Ukraine has a disadvantage, but because they being better on the battlefield, they punching up and Russia is expending disproportionately more resources to achieve meagre results.

This is just credulously buying a propaganda campaign which constantly insists that the Russians are enduring grievous losses while Ukraine is suffering very little in comparison.

Except Ukraine doesn't report its losses, and is assisted in hiding them with the open connivance of its allies and their media, who are loathe to impugn the war effort by trying to investigate the issue with any rigor. As far as the western media is concerned, Ukraine's army is a mere heroic abstraction. So there's actually very little open, reliable evidence of the extent to which Russia's losses are 'disproportionate'.

The idea that Russia will win this war of attrition is inevitable is false. The REAL hinge rests on Western aid and it's limited nature.

And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon. Its always been implicit in the argument that Ukraine cannot win that Western aid is limited, because it is. The people insisting that much more should have been given etc are usually simply ignorant, giving no thought at all to issues of sustainment (trained operators, ammunition, fuel, spare parts), maintenance (trained men to support what is supplied), effect on military readiness and the lack of available replacements. Nevermind the political hurdles.

Your insisting that this is the real hinge and Ukraine's state capacity is not relevant is just your preferred hill to die on for .. whatever reason. Both are clearly relevant.

[Dalton]

I’m on the verge of just locking this thread. Good lord. Everyone needs to cut the shit. And if you make an argument you need to back it up, period.

[madd0c0t0r2]

Ending the war is not Ukraine's choice to make, it's Russia's. They can end it any time they want by leaving Ukraine.

Is this a concession that Ukraine has no path to ending this war via victory at arms?

I do think EnterpriseSov should/could make their wider position clear.

I'll go first:

My views have changed over time. At the very start of this thread I thought Russia would not invade as it was crazy and costly. I did not expect Ukraine to fight as well as it did in the first year, and I did not expect the re-emergence of trench warfare in the plains of Ukraine in the second year.
I really expected Europe manufacturing to get their shit together, and I expected Russia to struggle financially harder than it has so far.


I think the following things:
In the current situation, I agree with James Meek's summary of the situation:

Neither side can be said to have won at the front, but there’s no doubt what’s happening in terms of shells and soldiers: Russia is pulling ahead. Ukraine’s allies in Europe and North America are dawdling, bickering among themselves, or, in some cases, like Slovakia, actively turning against it. As things stand, the advantage in men and materiel that Russia is accruing will eventually give Putin an advantage, allowing him to dismember, punish or perhaps even swallow Ukraine whole, as he chooses...

They estimate that it requires as many as a quarter of a million shells a month for an offensive, and at least 75,000 a month just to hold its ground... Instead of seven thousand shells a day, its guns are rationed to two thousand or fewer, which means that Russia is able to mass artillery and troops for offensives more safely. No matter how many FPV drones Ukraine has – and each one requires its own human controller – they have a range of only a few miles, which makes them a last-ditch weapon...

no matter how many new soldiers Ukraine manages to call up, it can’t compete with Russia, body for body. It can’t beat an increasingly old-school Soviet army of massed tanks, artillery and human waves with a numerically inferior Soviet-style force of its own.

In summary, I do not think under the current situation Ukraine can win, or hold the line indefinitely through force of arms alone.

I also think that the following things are true:
Russia:
There are an extremely large number of cases where a large invader has essentially given up and gone home despite dominating in force of arms. The treasure expended has to be worth the return.
My understanding is that Russia (or at least Sisko ) fears NATO encirclement, fears loss of buffer states in a sphere of influence around it, and deeply desired Crimea as a Black Sea fleet home.
So far, the invasion has increased the number of NATO countries, the incorporation of the Donetsk territories but no extension of sphere of influence, and the Crimean port is now too unsafe to keep ships in (and the navy is somewhat smaller than it was). In all these factors, the invested money has not yet produced a good return.


Ukraine
Ukraine has agency here. They can choose to negotiate whenever. They can choose to defend their country if they wish.
Negotiations are unlikely to start in earnest until after the US election, and the fall out from that. Whichever party thinks they have best odds of winning support there would want to delay negotiation until their hand is stronger.

I think that Ukraine, after the Crimean invasion, the Donbas splitting, and the Russian atrocities against Ukrainian civilians feel they have their backs against the wall. They may be unable to currently win, but to be honest, when Russia was bearing down on Kyiv, they also thought they were unable to win and (mostly)* held fast anyway. There's a certain irrational bloody-mindedness that happens when you are defending your home against a totalitarian invader with a pretty shit reputation. Every time a line was drawn, Russia crossed it. When areas were taken, the Ukrainians suffered pretty badly. Dying fighting or dying under occupation while your wife is gang raped kinda means going down fighting seems like the least bad option.

*Corruption and Russian influence and abettors are still being weeded out of the country's logistics chains. The pressure of war makes it hard to hide such allegiances. As the number of 'waiters' in positions of power reduces, the influence of Russia is declining. It doesn't mean their replacements are suicidal patriots, but it does mean they are looking for other ways forward then merely waiting to be assimilated.
A vision of a return to 1991 borders might not be realistic, but it is a clear vision. When it comes to rebuilding a shattered country after the war, the EU and allies looks like a better option than an oligarchic petrostate.

A final factor that I think is important for Ukrainian morale is that Russia has had some periods of being a complete joke in this invasion. The October 2022 Ukrainian breakthrough that rolled up a lot of area. The weird (politically driven?) determination to capture Bakhumut, and the subsequent rebellion and counter-invasion of Wagner's mercenary forces. Like, remember that? That was weird. So, from the Ukrainian point of view, the Russian army competence is not predictable. If they continue to hold out or loose slowly enough, the chance of something weird and brittle occurring goes up. Putin's death being one. It's not a strategy, but it might explain some of the stubborness.

NATO
I think Nato has 4 goals.
1) punish Russia for trying to change the map boundaries. This is a big concordance to try and send a message to any other leaders with ideas about land grabbing. The azerbajin-armenia-artsakh mess previously mentioned is long running, tiny and with almost no risk of spilling or escalating further. Artsakh is nearly 20 times smaller than just the Donbas. The punishment needs to be expensive, and or humiliating. The block is willing to pay quite a lot for the offendor to be suitably punished. In game theory terms, the future threat must be credible.
2) Let Russia and Ukraine do some testing and experimenting on how gear actually performs in a peer-type war. This is partly from wanting strategic understanding of Russia, which did invade. It's mostly wanting to understand how a future war involving China, India or Pakistan might play out, and what sort of technologies and counters need to be developed
3) Keep Russia busy. Between assassinations that accidently kill our civilians, cyber-attacks on infrastructure, fucking around in elections and sponsoring far right parties, Russian agents have been a nuisance pushing as close to the line of 'not worth reprisal' as they could. The war is an excuse to strip some of that out, and, I think, was anticipated to create enough internal politics and economic difficulties to keep russia mostly naval gazing for a decade.
4) Opportunists within the bloc also have their own agenda. The NATO fans feel relevant again, and the EU fans are seeing unprecedented continental unity against an outside threat. The MIC have secured extra funding for another decade or two. The Greens; Resilience; and Fortress Europe factions have been able to force gas divestment far faster than previously though possible.

Other players
Both India and China benefit from the current situation. They are effectively getting cheaper fuel since the sanctions split the market, they are both selling to stuff to both sides, and they too are very interested in how a land-war peer conflict at this tech level plays out.


I also think the current situation is brittle and is likely to change in 6 months, just as it has every 6 months since the Russian invasion. One possibility of emergent tactics is below.

The Russian military journalist Alexander Kharchenko, who argues that Russian use of FPV drones was one of the causes of the failure of the Ukrainian counter offensive, suggested in January that the battle lines were more fluid than generally thought. ‘The number of drones at the front is growing exponentially,’ he wrote on Telegram. ‘Dozens of “birdies” [drones] will fly at a single armoured vehicle, and a soldier can be chased by two or three.’ Front-line trenches, he pointed out, were held at the expense of troops and vehicles ready to supply them with food and ammunition and evacuate the wounded. If that supply chain couldn’t make it the last mile to the trenches, the trenches would fall. ‘The recipe for a breakthrough is extremely simple,’ he wrote. ‘Quadruple the number of FPV drones and concentrate them on a small section of the front. After supplies fail, you’ll be able to weed out the exhausted [survivors] without much difficulty. Crucially, this scenario can be carried through with only a small investment of time and money. It’s realistic. The main thing is to stay ahead of the enemy.’

---

In other news, Japan pledges aid to Ukraine now in excess of $10 billion worth of financial aid. It cannot provide direct military support under its own regulations. Although that gets a little fuzzy when the money goes to hospitals and the money that was going to hospitals can go to tanks.
https://www.reuters.com/world/japan-hos ... 024-02-19/
In the BBC news program I saw this on, the talking head suggested this was 1) Japan keeping leadership with the G7, 2) part of the wider effort to ensure that the post WW2 consensus that borders do not change, and strongly punish countries that attempt to do that. Japan in particular wants that message sent to China 3) Part of japan's very long running efforts of soft-power through infrastructure loans and expertise


A good, even handed article by James Meek: https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v46/n04 ... ies-in-one
it has a lot of good insight, and it's the source of most of the unattributed quotes in this post.

[The Sisko]

My understanding is that Russia (or at least Sisko ) fears NATO encirclement

Screw you. I'm not Russia and I don't 'fear' a Nato encirclement of the country. I simply said that the USA's policy towards Ukraine caused this conflict. The pro-Ukranian stooges in this thread have been wrong about Euromaidan on this board for literally years. You can act like I'm unreasonable for acknowledging why we're here.