Here we go again-Ukraine once again pt2

[Dargo]

Originally Posted by Skybird

So what...? None of that affects the outcome of this running war.
They will see this war through, you'll see. Totgesagte leben länger. And Russia has been claimed economically and financially dead a record number of times durign the past 18 months. But the robustness of the Russian economy in this war has been fundamentally underestimated. They tried to summon Russian collapse by wreiting about it.

Russia will pay a heavy price for this war, dont get me wrong. Economcially, financially, and especially demographically and socially and psychologically. But all that comes later and will not decide the running war. I red soem tiem aago that now even a clear majority of mothers and wifes of fallen Russian soldiers support the war and believe the kremlin narrative: all the West is up against them. NATO already wages war on Russia. Its all a NATO plot. This already is WWIII. Russia was attacked and defended itself. The vast majority believes this bull.

The United States has been involved in numerous military endeavours within Asia, the Middle East and Latin America since the 1960s. Having been in a continuous state of war since the September 11 attacks, they have an annual military budget larger than India, China, Russia, United Kingdom, Germany, Saudi Arabia, and France’s military budgets combined. As Edward Van Dyke Robinson (1900) remarked at the turn of the 20th century, the principal cause of all wars has been economic the key to winning a war is largely economic as well. A more robust economy will rely less on funding and will have a better chance to chase the enemy out completely.

[mapuc]

Markus

[Dargo]

Originally Posted by Jeff-Groves

Russia is bleeding the West of Money and supplies.
You think people in the USA are not tired of costs going up and Billions going to Wars?

Every dollar spent in Ukraine is a dollar spent in the US this year Ukraine places several contracts for their military with the West it is the same with support to Israel they will spend most of it in the country that supported them that is the deal it all flows back the donator can send their old redundant material and test their new developed material win-win and get contracts for their industry.

[Skybird]

Tnhats all nice and well, but the US doe snot apply all its defence budget onto Ukraine. Russia pretty mich does, currently, and boosted it. And it buys its stuff mostly form tiself, cheaply, getting far more for its budget, in quantity, than the US or Europe. Russian labour is cheap, so are Russian ressources and energy.

Again, all this theoretical arguments of If and When-Then does not affect the fact that the West lacks the will to go all in and produce and donate what is needed. Which would be - by factors - more than what has been given in the past 21 months together.

And the US' ongoing support is questionable. If the courts do not stop Trump, I assume he will become president again, seen from current perspective. And top of his agenda is to take revenge and settle open bills, what he sees as open bills. Even a Biden or other democrat president will have problems with Senate and/or Congress to endlessly pass costly bills on Ukraine. There is not only the ME war, but also Taiwan. So, it is likely US support for Ukraine will not grow, but will wane. And the Europeans alone cannot compete with Russia'S wild determination to either destroy Ukraine or to win the war.

Not to mention that there also is no political unity in views and opinions. Poland has scaled down its support. Germany is naked. France holds back. Spain and other distant Western-Southern EU states have little enthusiasm for supporting the war. Some EU countries still heavily buy energy from Russia. Even the US still buys uran from Russia. France sends nuclear material to Russia for reprocessing. Austria, Hungary, Italy, Spain buy huge, decisive quantities of gas. Bulgaria is an uncertain candidate for NATO loyalty, since it loves Russia quite much.

I would predict that even if Russia directly attacks a NATO country, there still would not necessarily be unity over article 5.

Potentials and realised materialization of potentials are two totally different things. We could perform better. But its just that we do not really want that, for various egoistic motives. And in parts that is even understandable. Its not as if we do not have no problems, economically and financially, at home. We have- Huge problems.

Salushnji understands this and sees it as a big risk, thats why he publicly somewhat confronted Zelensky'S formal optimism in that essay for the Economist. He is very much aware that if the West does not do much more, Ukraine hardly can keep its things together endlessly. Ukraine hangs on a Western drip, that simple.

If things run on like this year and support raises not by factors, then Ukraine will lose. And now be honest to yourself - how likely is it that support will dramatically increase, by factors...? I see no signs for that.

[mapuc]

May USA and single countries in Europe come to the conclusion that a massive military aid is needed if Ukraine don't lose the war.

I do not count EU or the European Nato part into this due to the bureaucracy which is the main reason many weapon system hasn't been delivered from Europe.

Many European countries like Denmark and Sweden are going solo for some part and are sending both military and medical aid.

Markus

[Dargo]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Tnhats all nice and well, but the US doe snot apply all its defence budget onto Ukraine. Russia pretty mich does, currently, and boosted it. And it buys its stuff mostly form tiself, cheaply, getting far more for its budget, in quantity, than the US or Europe. Russian labour is cheap, so are Russian ressources and energy.

Again, all this theoretical arguments of If and When-Then does not affect the fact that the West lacks the will to go all in and produce and donate what is needed. Which would be - by factors - more than what has been given in the past 21 months together.

And the US' ongoing support is questionable. If the courts do not stop Trump, I assume he will become president again, seen from current perspective. And top of his agenda is to take revenge and settle open bills, what he sees as open bills. Even a Biden or other democrat president will have problems with Senate and/or Congress to endlessly pass costly bills on Ukraine. There is not only the ME war, but also Taiwan. So, it is likely US support for Ukraine will not grow, but will wane. And the Europeans alone cannot compete with Russia'S wild determination to either destroy Ukraine or to win the war.

Not to mention that there also is no political unity in views and opinions. Poland has scaled down its support. Germany is naked. France holds back. Spain and other distant Western-Southern EU states have little enthusiasm for supporting the war. Some EU countries still heavily buy energy from Russia. Even the US still buys uran from Russia. France sends nuclear material to Russia for reprocessing. Austria, Hungary, Italy, Spain buy huge, decisive quantities of gas. Bulgaria is an uncertain candidate for NATO loyalty, since it loves Russia quite much.

I would predict that even if Russia directly attacks a NATO country, there still would not necessarily be unity over article 5.

Potentials and realised materialization of potentials are two totally different things. We could perform better. But its just that we do not really want that, for various egoistic motives. And in parts that is even understandable. Its not as if we do not have no problems, economically and financially, at home. We have- Huge problems.

Salushnji understands this and sees it as a big risk, thats why he publicly somewhat confronted Zelensky'S formal optimism in that essay for the Economist. He is very much aware that if the West does not do much more, Ukraine hardly can keep its things together endlessly. Ukraine hangs on a Western drip, that simple.

If things run on like this year and support raises not by factors, then Ukraine will lose. And now be honest to yourself - how likely is it that support will dramatically increase, by factors...? I see no signs for that.

All nice and well when Russia doing so well economical which it does not it lost mayor income from the West that volume they can not sell to others for various reasons if it goes so swell their why did Russia not win by now they are doing so great accord you they should stand in Kyiv +600 days ago.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Dargo

All nice and well when Russia doing so well economical which it does not it lost mayor income from the West that volume they can not sell to others for various reasons if it goes so swell their why did Russia not win by now they are doing so great accord you they should stand in Kyiv +600 days ago.

The same goes for Ukraine with all the positive things happening at the front especially at the southern frontline-Ukraine should have entered Sevastopol many month ago.

Yes Russia is losing a lot of men and material each day. But it ain't producing major breakthroughs.

As said before. We are in a modern WWI situation along the whole front.

Markus

[Dargo]

Originally Posted by mapuc

May USA and single countries in Europe come to the conclusion that a massive military aid is needed if Ukraine don't lose the war.

I do not count EU or the European Nato part into this due to the bureaucracy which is the main reason many weapon system hasn't been delivered from Europe.

Many European countries like Denmark and Sweden are going solo for some part and are sending both military and medical aid.

Markus

Ukraine has not lost yet if there is a stalemate this is of both sides there is hardly no ground change for both sides. More than a month after Russia launched an offensive to surround and take Avdiivka, it is approaching the sprawling industrial plant on the outskirts of the city. But the operation so far stands out mainly because of the staggering losses suffered by the units. We can now conclude that this is by far the most expensive Russian attack, for three weeks, on a single city since the war began. It is misleading to measure Ukraine's success only by the territory its troops have captured.

General Valery Zaluzhny said recently that the war had reached a "stalemate" with intense and exhausting fighting that yielded few territorial gains. That created the impression in some quarters that the fighting had ground to a halt. But for the Ukrainian soldiers and medics on the front lines, the violent struggle to stop the relentless Russian attacks as they fight to regain advantageous positions does not feel static at all. We cannot predict or wizards our future, including this war, time will tell.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Dargo

All nice and well when Russia doing so well economical which it does not it lost mayor income from the West that volume they can not sell to others for various reasons if it goes so swell their why did Russia not win by now they are doing so great accord you they should stand in Kyiv +600 days ago.

You now flip categories. Russia will - in the future - pay a demographic and economic price that will influence it for the coming two or three generations, but if its econoym were so weak and its rubel so weak as so many times was preicted this and last year - why is it still able to maintain the war, and boost war production up?


Russia still stands in this war. And it wins by holding the longer breath.
Ukraine is making a dent here and there in the Russian defences - and that's all. No major wins since last year in Cherson and Charkiv. No operational breakthroughs, nothing of strategic relevance. Russian casualties are high - but they shake them off. All they must do is hold their lines. Ukriane miust take territory. Russia must not, just cling to what it has gotten already. The war of attrition Russia will win. Ukraine must get back into mobile warfare to play its trump card - but with what? A trench warfare must wear out Ukraine much earlier than Russia.

Enough of this, I made my points clear enough, I think. Wishful thinking and speculations on hownice it would be if the West only would do this or that, will not win the war. The way we supoort ukriane right now and have suppr0ted it, we oculd as well have not done it, the reuslt in the end will bve the same - at higher cost for Russia, but also for Ukraine (destruction and killings).

So far we helped to extend the war only, but not to win it - always too little, always too late: just boiling the frog.

[Jimbuna]

[Jimbuna]

[ET2SN]

This is a little long-winded (and ignore the part about the tactical wallet ) but it is a very good discussion about the over-all situation.

[August]

It’s Time to Ukrainify US Military Assistance

Jahara Matisek and William Reno | 11.10.23

Ukraine is in a bloody slugfest with Russia. It wasn’t supposed to become an ugly war of attrition—when Russian forces invaded last year, almost nobody expected Ukraine to hold out so long, much less hold its own. In less than two years, Western governments have provided over $80 billion of military aid to Ukraine. Along with training, that material support aimed to build a modern Ukrainian force that could conduct dynamic combined arms maneuver, which requires the close coordination of armor, infantry, artillery, and airpower.

But some of the Western military training is not working. The US military, in particular, as the leading provider of support to Ukrainian forces, is repeating the mistakes of Afghanistan and Iraq. Instead of adapting training methods and objectives to the battlefield realities in Ukraine, the US bureaucracy acts as though the Ukrainians are fighting an American-style conventional war.

There is growing acknowledgement that this training is inadequate. Our observations, including at training facilities in Europe and on the ground in Ukraine’s combat zones as part of a US Department of Defense-funded Minerva research project, point to a more basic flaw: NATO and particularly US trainers tend to train Ukrainian soldiers to fight like American soldiers. The Ukrainian soldiers we interviewed find value in US training and combat drills but are frustrated by US military doctrine and training assumptions biased toward maneuver. Ukraine’s armed forces fight in a context of Russian (and now Ukrainian) continuous defense in depth that is beyond the experience of most US trainers.

Retooling the Training of Ukrainians: Listening and Flexibility

An experienced British Army officer contrasted the American approach with his own: “Our training courses are more effective because we started listening and collaborating with the Ukrainians. . . . They’ve forced us to update our own doctrine, training, and manuals on how to fight a modern war.” The British officer accepted the fact that most Ukrainian soldiers he trains have extensive experience in trench warfare and have faced artillery and armor without the protection of air superiority—battlefield experience that not a single US soldier has today. Such listening and flexibility by British military personnel is not new. Our past fieldwork and interviews across Africa have shown that most infantry prefer to be trained by the British because they listen to their concerns and are flexible in teaching drills and military exercises that simulate the army they have, instead of forcing them to emulate a British template.

Observing Ukrainian soldiers, both at US and NATO training sites and near the front lines in Ukraine, it’s becoming apparent that US training programs are often ineffective. Many American training programs teach the Ukrainians how to fight in the most advanced styles of combined arms warfare. This way of fighting is about concentrating firepower at decisive points on the battlefield to execute a series of dynamic thrusts against enemy positions and create a turbulent and deteriorating situation with which the enemy cannot cope.

Current training approaches teach useful skills and outline sound tactics and maneuvers for battlefield success. But the Ukrainian troops often tell us time is wasted with absurdly long PowerPoint presentations containing useless information. They don’t want training for an ideal military situation. Ukrainians need advice and skills specific to their own military limits (e.g., lack of airpower) and the realities of their battlefield context (e.g., proliferation of drones, jamming, etc.). Russian forces have constructed 800 kilometers of defensive lines with an “insane” amount of mining of up to “5 mines per square meter,” which per a RUSI report “included the laying of two anti-tank mines together—one atop the other—compensating for reduced density by ensuring that vehicles are immobilised by single mine-strikes.” This has impeded the ability of the Ukrainians to rapidly advance because of demining operations under fire, leading to an average daily advance of ninety meters.

Frustration abounds—as one Ukrainian general asked us in an interview, “How do you expect us to conduct a successful counteroffensive when your [US] military does not have the doctrine or experience for what our army is facing?”

https://mwi.westpoint.edu/its-time-t...ry-assistance/

[Jimbuna]

[Jimbuna]