The Russian Invasion of Ukraine Part 4 - Page 7

a_unique_person · 27th May 2022, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

They are barely moving.

They are moving. The Russians destroy an area with artillery. Then they occupy it. Then they move the artillery forward and repeat. It's barbaric and brutal but it's working. The Ukranians have less people to lose than the Russians.

SpitfireIX · 27th May 2022, 08:19 AM

As has been discussed, the Ukrainians' far greater willingness to accept casualties will more than make up for Russia's larger population. Putin may not care how many soldiers he loses, but the Russian people do. And they will find out the truth eventually, despite Putin's best efforts at censorship.

Jimbo07 · 27th May 2022, 08:20 AM

It's not totally one-sided, yet. Ukraine is claiming an air-to-air kill. The fact that we're even talking about a viable airforce three months in is something! I have my fingers crossed that Ukraine's Herculean effort doesn't end up being in vain.

That said, for eveyone touting Western resupply, not everything is reaching the front as quickly as it needs to. Ukraine has said it can't use only a few artillery pieces at a time, and were suggesting a pullback to consolidate. Even so, the attrition rate is going to have to go even higher to compensate for Russian superiority in numbers of personnel and shells.

ETA:

Quote:

the Russian people do. And they will find out the truth eventually, despite Putin's best efforts at censorship.

See my post above. Hoping that someday, maybe, some Russians might rise up is not currently an effective military strategy.

SpitfireIX · 27th May 2022, 08:53 AM

If Putin is so unconcerned about Russian public opinion, then why hasn't he formally declared war on Ukraine? It would make things a lot simpler.

Additionally, Putin's popularity doesn't just insulate him against a domestic uprising. It also reduces his vulnerability to a coup, as any would-be conspirators are much more likely to move against an unpopular leader than a popular one.

Oystein · 27th May 2022, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by The Don

...
A couple of weeks ago we had all kinds of stories about how effective the NATO-supplied 155mm howitzers were, how long-range anti-ship missiles were on the way, what a great job the anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles were doing. That's all gone very quiet now so maybe those weapons systems aren't as effective as we'd hoped against the current Russian tactics of simply laying waste to towns and cities before advancing.

Two or three days ago, I read a short article where someone in the UA army was quoted as saying something to the effect that some of the Western artillery has arrived and been put into action, and is already improving their performance greatly. He compared the change from old Soviet gear to Western gear as switching from a steam train to an electric car - so much more efficient and precise.

I did nothing to verify this, nor where such gear might be deployed, and how much, and how much of a difference it makes.
Just pointing out that at least someone there says it is making a nice difference.

a_unique_person · 27th May 2022, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

As has been discussed, the Ukrainians' far greater willingness to accept casualties will more than make up for Russia's larger population. Putin may not care how many soldiers he loses, but the Russian people do. And they will find out the truth eventually, despite Putin's best efforts at censorship.

They aren't supermen, a lot of them are volunteers going through hell. Morale is suffering and desertions are happening.

The Great Zaganza · 27th May 2022, 09:15 AM

I hope that the strategy of training up motivated locals and give them the weapons they need will become the norm for US military intervention going forward - it's clearly way more effective than what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's cheaper and it's less likely to create an entire generation that hates us.

Captain_Swoop · 27th May 2022, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

They are moving. The Russians destroy an area with artillery. Then they occupy it. Then they move the artillery forward and repeat. It's barbaric and brutal but it's working. The Ukranians have less people to lose than the Russians.

you don't think that there is artillery going the other way too?

It's war, how else do you think they are going to do it?

theprestige · 27th May 2022, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

I hope that the strategy of training up motivated locals and give them the weapons they need will become the norm for US military intervention going forward - it's clearly way more effective than what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's cheaper and it's less likely to create an entire generation that hates us.

Same here. I've long felt that the thing to do with war refugees is put them in training camps, arm and train them, and send them back to fight for their homeland.

Not offer them indefinite asylum while we stand idly by and watch their homeland burn.

theprestige · 27th May 2022, 09:33 AM

And I still think NATO* could end this conflict in less than a week, just with stealth airstrikes on Russian artillery and supply lines.

Ziggurat · 27th May 2022, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

I hope that the strategy of training up motivated locals and give them the weapons they need will become the norm for US military intervention going forward - it's clearly way more effective than what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's cheaper and it's less likely to create an entire generation that hates us.

We did that in Afghanistan, in the '80's. And it was cheap. But it still didn't work out so well in the end. We also did that in Nicaragua, also in the 80's. Remember the whole Contras thing? Also cheap, but not especially effective.

Ukraine is a lot different than Afghanistan, I'm not expecting a similar outcome there. But arming and training locals isn't a new concept, we've done it before plenty of times.

Captain_Swoop · 27th May 2022, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

And I still think NATO* could end this conflict in less than a week, just with stealth airstrikes on Russian artillery and supply lines.

That's nice but it isn't a NATO war.

The Great Zaganza · 27th May 2022, 09:36 AM

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

If Putin is so unconcerned about Russian public opinion, then why hasn't he formally declared war on Ukraine? It would make things a lot simpler.
.

one reason has been suggested: by not declaring it a war, he might have a much easier time not getting prosecuted for war crimes - in times of war, he would be the Commander in Chief, the one ultimately responsible for the actions of his troops.
But if there is no war, he can use some general as a scapegoat.

Ziggurat · 27th May 2022, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

And I still think NATO* could end this conflict in less than a week, just with stealth airstrikes on Russian artillery and supply lines.

Well, NATO as an organization cannot do this. NATO is a purely defensive organization. NATO members could do this on their own, but that's a major escalation which carries significant risk. And I think a country which does this doesn't get article 5 protection against a counter-attack.

Ziggurat · 27th May 2022, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by SpitfireIX

If Putin is so unconcerned about Russian public opinion,

Every dictator is always concerned with public opinion.

The real question is how vulnerable he is to it. And that's a function of how likely that opinion is to change, how much it might change, and how much of a threat that would be to his power. On that front, I'm not sure he is very vulnerable. But even if I'm right about that, it's in large part because of Putin's efforts to control public opinion and crack down on opposition, which he does precisely because he cares about it.

Quote:

Additionally, Putin's popularity doesn't just insulate him against a domestic uprising. It also reduces his vulnerability to a coup, as any would-be conspirators are much more likely to move against an unpopular leader than a popular one.

Yes, I agree with that.

theprestige · 27th May 2022, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Well, NATO as an organization cannot do this. NATO is a purely defensive organization. NATO members could do this on their own, but that's a major escalation which carries significant risk. And I think a country which does this doesn't get article 5 protection against a counter-attack.

I'm using NATO* as a shorthand for "nations that are all NATO members, but are acting independently outside of the letter of the NATO agreement, to support Ukraine with the exact same equipment, doctrine, and supporting resources they'd be using in an official NATO campaign".

I honestly don't understand why we're still quibbling over this.

Ziggurat · 27th May 2022, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm using NATO* as a shorthand for "nations that are all NATO members, but are acting independently outside of the letter of the NATO agreement, to support Ukraine with the exact same equipment, doctrine, and supporting resources they'd be using in an official NATO campaign".

I honestly don't understand why we're still quibbling over this.

The distinction needs to be made explicit because the fact that article 5 doesn't protect individual NATO members who attack Russia is pretty damn important and needs to be made explicit as well. That's why I think it doesn't suffice to say NATO as shorthand for NATO members acting outside the NATO umbrella.

jimbob · 27th May 2022, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

I hope that the strategy of training up motivated locals and give them the weapons they need will become the norm for US military intervention going forward - it's clearly way more effective than what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's cheaper and it's less likely to create an entire generation that hates us.

I thought that in 2001 as well.

We provided sufficient support for the Northern Alliance to topple the Taleban and then after they had fallen, we sent troops in to fight an insurgency.

theprestige · 27th May 2022, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

The distinction needs to be made explicit because the fact that article 5 doesn't protect individual NATO members who attack Russia is pretty damn important and needs to be made explicit as well. That's why I think it doesn't suffice to say NATO as shorthand for NATO members acting outside the NATO umbrella.

I had no idea any of that was still in doubt, among the regulars in this thread.

Ziggurat · 27th May 2022, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by theprestige

I had no idea any of that was still in doubt, among the regulars in this thread.

Lots of threads have occasional lurkers, and I expect ones about current events of wide interest to have plenty of them.

Hellbound · 27th May 2022, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Ukraine is a lot different than Afghanistan, I'm not expecting a similar outcome there. But arming and training locals isn't a new concept, we've done it before plenty of times.

Just to add a bit, this is the primary stated mission of the Army’s Green Berets: find, liaise with, supply, and train indigenous forces.

Sent from my volcanic island lair using carrier pigeon.

Cosmic Yak · 27th May 2022, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

We did that in Afghanistan, in the '80's. And it was cheap. But it still didn't work out so well in the end. We also did that in Nicaragua, also in the 80's. Remember the whole Contras thing? Also cheap, but not especially effective.

Ukraine is a lot different than Afghanistan, I'm not expecting a similar outcome there. But arming and training locals isn't a new concept, we've done it before plenty of times.

I think an even more obvious example is Iraq. The US spent billions training and equipping the Iraqi army, and when ISIS appeared, the Iraqis literally dropped all their weapons and ran away. This windfall of modern, high-tech munitions was a godsend for Islamic State, and a disaster for Iraq, Syria and, arguably, for the US too.

Mike! · 27th May 2022, 11:39 AM

At what point does Putin attempting to extort concessions by disrupting the world's food supply, like some kind of Bond villain*, become enough of an issue that more sensible minds decide it's gone on long enough, and that it is time to demand he take what's of his army and go home, or sit back and watch your war machine be utterly destroyed before breakfast tomorrow. And if he wants to rattle the atomic sabre, remind him that while he may have more on paper, ours are more powerful, more accurate, and most of all, well maintained. Then state in plain terms, use nukes and we'll hit Russia so hard it may tilt the Earth itself on its axis, making what's left of them the new North Pole.
Sure, it's a long winded fantasy that'll never happen, but it felt good it get it out.

*Been a while since anyone evoked such a claim, but dang, what else would you call him at this point?

dudalb · 27th May 2022, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

They aren't supermen, a lot of them are volunteers going through hell. Morale is suffering and desertions are happening.

RUssian morale is not so great either.
But it;s clear you want to basically give Putin what he wants. Appeasement alway works so well...

lobosrul5 · 27th May 2022, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by Mike!

At what point does Putin attempting to extort concessions by disrupting the world's food supply, like some kind of Bond villain*, become enough of an issue that more sensible minds decide it's gone on long enough, and that it is time to demand he take what's of his army and go home, or sit back and watch your war machine be utterly destroyed before breakfast tomorrow. And if he wants to rattle the atomic sabre, remind him that while he may have more on paper, ours are more powerful, more accurate, and most of all, well maintained. Then state in plain terms, use nukes and we'll hit Russia so hard it may tilt the Earth itself on its axis, making what's left of them the new North Pole.
Sure, it's a long winded fantasy that'll never happen, but it felt good it get it out.

*Been a while since anyone evoked such a claim, but dang, what else would you call him at this point?

My plan would be to take about 200 A-10's, and 100 B-52's out of storage and train some Ukrainian pilots on them, that is after they have air supremacy, which should be forthcoming with all the missiles we've sent. Utterly and completely annihilate Russian forces in Ukraine. Also, something with good anti-shipping capability, not sure either of those planes do.

And yeah he is basically a bond villain in charge of a large country with nukes.

theprestige · 27th May 2022, 12:05 PM

There are way better planes than the A-10, for this kind of work.

lobosrul5 · 27th May 2022, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

There are way better planes than the A-10, for this kind of work.

Oh yeah stealth's would totally be better. There's too much risk of them getting into enemy hands and reverse engineered though. Doubt Russia could do it, but they might send one to China.

Besides which the Air Force really really seems to want to get rid of them. Better in Ukrainian hands than rotting away in a boneyard.

Captain_Swoop · 27th May 2022, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Oh yeah stealth's would totally be better. There's too much risk of them getting into enemy hands and reverse engineered though. Doubt Russia could do it, but they might send one to China.

Besides which the Air Force really really seems to want to get rid of them. Better in Ukrainian hands than rotting away in a boneyard.

What is the obsession with A-10s?

crescent · 27th May 2022, 12:14 PM

There was a report today mentioning that since fighting started, there has been a dramatic upsurge in cargo flights moving between Russia and Iran.

My half-assed semi-conspiracy theory is that Russia is buying back precision weaponry/ammunition from some of its clients. They may not be as low on precision or semi-precision weaponry as they are thought to be. They may have access to all of Belarus's stocks, all of Syria's, a good hunk of Hezbolla's, a bunch of other nations as well.

lobosrul5 · 27th May 2022, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

What is the obsession with A-10s?

They have a really big cool gun that goes brrrrrrrrrrrrrppppp? They're tough to shoot down? They look cool? They can carry Maverick AT missiles (I mean other planes can too)?

Besides which if they are surplus to USAF needs then whats the harm in giving them away?

The Great Zaganza · 27th May 2022, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

What is the obsession with A-10s?

The entire concept of "we have these leftover massive guns, let's build a plane around them" is kinda hilariously cool.

Also, they work well against Decepticons.

Oystein · 27th May 2022, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

I hope that the strategy of training up motivated locals and give them the weapons they need will become the norm for US military intervention going forward - it's clearly way more effective than what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's cheaper and it's less likely to create an entire generation that hates us.

Uhm.
The West tried for about 85 years (or so it feels) to arm and train local military units in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The problem was they didn't find any motivated locals.

The West then did not expect that Ukrainians would be quite so spectacularly motivated to defend the home country.

The difference is not the strategy of "training up motivated locals and give them the weapons" - the difference is that Ukraine had a head-start of more than 7 years in training and (some) weapons acquisition. They started the defense motivated and already trained and armed.

jimbob · 27th May 2022, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

What is the obsession with A-10s?

They have a big gun*, which to be fair is probably a good thing from a morale point of view.

My understanding is that the gun wasn't that good at actually hitting stationary target tanks, which would have been pretty much under ideal conditions

*See also the periodic calls to reactivate Iowa class battleships, or some of the ideas for the Zumwalt class.

Oystein · 27th May 2022, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

Same here. I've long felt that the thing to do with war refugees is put them in training camps, arm and train them, and send them back to fight for their homeland.

Not offer them indefinite asylum while we stand idly by and watch their homeland burn.

In places like Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, with their tribal societies, the problem is that you just cannot organize and train them in national defense units - that's been tried, and it failed.

In Ukraine's case, the men of fighting age are largely staying, it is mainly the women and children who flee.

Oystein · 27th May 2022, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

And I still think NATO* could end this conflict in less than a week, just with stealth airstrikes on Russian artillery and supply lines.

Even quicker if outright magic were employed without letting the Russians know we have wizards.

Oystein · 27th May 2022, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

one reason has been suggested: by not declaring it a war, he might have a much easier time not getting prosecuted for war crimes - in times of war, he would be the Commander in Chief, the one ultimately responsible for the actions of his troops.
But if there is no war, he can use some general as a scapegoat.

This makes little sense.

In what jurisdiction do you figure the court is located that Putin is so afraid of that he plans around it?

And why should that court be barred from considering the actual facts? Like who did actually decide and order this illegal war of aggression? Some generals?

gnome · 27th May 2022, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by theprestige

And I still think NATO* could end this conflict in less than a week, just with stealth airstrikes on Russian artillery and supply lines.

We may not like that ending.

It is a tricky line we're walking. Moscow clearly desires to avoid escalation, or else our existing assistance would be all the excuse they needed. I think that a direct US strike on Russian forces would risk a nuclear standoff.

jimbob · 27th May 2022, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by Oystein

This makes little sense.

In what jurisdiction do you figure the court is located that Putin is so afraid of that he plans around it?

And why should that court be barred from considering the actual facts? Like who did actually decide and order this illegal war of aggression? Some generals?

Indeed. The only reason has to be the risk of a backlash. Putin has ambitious underlings who will be calculating whether it's more in their interest to support Putin or manoeuvre to overthrow him

Ziggurat · 27th May 2022, 12:38 PM

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Oh yeah stealth's would totally be better. There's too much risk of them getting into enemy hands and reverse engineered though. Doubt Russia could do it, but they might send one to China.

Just as importantly, the logistics tail needed to support an F-35 is going to be a lot more complicated and expensive than for an A-10. And it's useless to give either plane to Ukraine without giving them the logistics tail as well. This also means it would probably take a lot longer to set up that logistics tail for an F-35 than for an A-10.

Captain_Swoop · 27th May 2022, 01:56 PM

Two UK citizens and a Moroccan, who fought on the Ukrainian side in the country's eastern Donbas region, may face the death penalty.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/worl...ost_type=share

27th May 2022, 08:02 AM	#241
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open. Posts: 44,460	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop They are barely moving. They are moving. The Russians destroy an area with artillery. Then they occupy it. Then they move the artillery forward and repeat. It's barbaric and brutal but it's working. The Ukranians have less people to lose than the Russians.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. “Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos

27th May 2022, 08:19 AM	#242
SpitfireIX Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Location: Niceville, Florida, USA Posts: 5,417	As has been discussed, the Ukrainians' far greater willingness to accept casualties will more than make up for Russia's larger population. Putin may not care how many soldiers he loses, but the Russian people do. And they will find out the truth eventually, despite Putin's best efforts at censorship.
	__________________ "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Carl Schurz

27th May 2022, 08:20 AM	#243
Jimbo07 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 4,149	It's not totally one-sided, yet. Ukraine is claiming an air-to-air kill. The fact that we're even talking about a viable airforce three months in is something! I have my fingers crossed that Ukraine's Herculean effort doesn't end up being in vain. That said, for eveyone touting Western resupply, not everything is reaching the front as quickly as it needs to. Ukraine has said it can't use only a few artillery pieces at a time, and were suggesting a pullback to consolidate. Even so, the attrition rate is going to have to go even higher to compensate for Russian superiority in numbers of personnel and shells. ETA: Quote: the Russian people do. And they will find out the truth eventually, despite Putin's best efforts at censorship. See my post above. Hoping that someday, maybe, some Russians might rise up is not currently an effective military strategy.
Jimbo07 Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 4,149	__________________ This post approved by your local jPac (Jimbo07 Political Action Committee), also registered with Jimbo07 as the Jimbo07 Equality Rights Knowledge Betterment Action Group. Atoms in supernova explosion get huge business -- Pixie of key Last edited by Jimbo07; 27th May 2022 at 08:22 AM.

27th May 2022, 08:53 AM	#244
SpitfireIX Philosopher Join Date: May 2007 Location: Niceville, Florida, USA Posts: 5,417	If Putin is so unconcerned about Russian public opinion, then why hasn't he formally declared war on Ukraine? It would make things a lot simpler. Additionally, Putin's popularity doesn't just insulate him against a domestic uprising. It also reduces his vulnerability to a coup, as any would-be conspirators are much more likely to move against an unpopular leader than a popular one.
	__________________ "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." --Carl Schurz

27th May 2022, 08:54 AM	#245
Oystein Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 17,900	Originally Posted by The Don ... A couple of weeks ago we had all kinds of stories about how effective the NATO-supplied 155mm howitzers were, how long-range anti-ship missiles were on the way, what a great job the anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles were doing. That's all gone very quiet now so maybe those weapons systems aren't as effective as we'd hoped against the current Russian tactics of simply laying waste to towns and cities before advancing. Two or three days ago, I read a short article where someone in the UA army was quoted as saying something to the effect that some of the Western artillery has arrived and been put into action, and is already improving their performance greatly. He compared the change from old Soviet gear to Western gear as switching from a steam train to an electric car - so much more efficient and precise. I did nothing to verify this, nor where such gear might be deployed, and how much, and how much of a difference it makes. Just pointing out that at least someone there says it is making a nice difference.
	__________________ Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

27th May 2022, 09:08 AM	#246
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open. Posts: 44,460	Originally Posted by SpitfireIX As has been discussed, the Ukrainians' far greater willingness to accept casualties will more than make up for Russia's larger population. Putin may not care how many soldiers he loses, but the Russian people do. And they will find out the truth eventually, despite Putin's best efforts at censorship. They aren't supermen, a lot of them are volunteers going through hell. Morale is suffering and desertions are happening.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. “Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos

27th May 2022, 09:15 AM	#247
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 18,372	I hope that the strategy of training up motivated locals and give them the weapons they need will become the norm for US military intervention going forward - it's clearly way more effective than what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's cheaper and it's less likely to create an entire generation that hates us.
	__________________ "When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me." - Emo Philips

27th May 2022, 09:28 AM	#248
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 43,373	Originally Posted by a_unique_person They are moving. The Russians destroy an area with artillery. Then they occupy it. Then they move the artillery forward and repeat. It's barbaric and brutal but it's working. The Ukranians have less people to lose than the Russians. you don't think that there is artillery going the other way too? It's war, how else do you think they are going to do it?

27th May 2022, 09:32 AM	#249
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 60,326	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza I hope that the strategy of training up motivated locals and give them the weapons they need will become the norm for US military intervention going forward - it's clearly way more effective than what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's cheaper and it's less likely to create an entire generation that hates us. Same here. I've long felt that the thing to do with war refugees is put them in training camps, arm and train them, and send them back to fight for their homeland. Not offer them indefinite asylum while we stand idly by and watch their homeland burn.
	__________________ There is no Antimemetics Division.

27th May 2022, 09:33 AM	#250
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 60,326	And I still think NATO* could end this conflict in less than a week, just with stealth airstrikes on Russian artillery and supply lines.
	__________________ There is no Antimemetics Division.

27th May 2022, 09:34 AM	#251
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 51,990	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza I hope that the strategy of training up motivated locals and give them the weapons they need will become the norm for US military intervention going forward - it's clearly way more effective than what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's cheaper and it's less likely to create an entire generation that hates us. We did that in Afghanistan, in the '80's. And it was cheap. But it still didn't work out so well in the end. We also did that in Nicaragua, also in the 80's. Remember the whole Contras thing? Also cheap, but not especially effective. Ukraine is a lot different than Afghanistan, I'm not expecting a similar outcome there. But arming and training locals isn't a new concept, we've done it before plenty of times.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

27th May 2022, 09:34 AM	#252
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 43,373	Originally Posted by theprestige And I still think NATO* could end this conflict in less than a week, just with stealth airstrikes on Russian artillery and supply lines. That's nice but it isn't a NATO war.

27th May 2022, 09:36 AM	#253
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 18,372	Originally Posted by SpitfireIX If Putin is so unconcerned about Russian public opinion, then why hasn't he formally declared war on Ukraine? It would make things a lot simpler. . one reason has been suggested: by not declaring it a war, he might have a much easier time not getting prosecuted for war crimes - in times of war, he would be the Commander in Chief, the one ultimately responsible for the actions of his troops. But if there is no war, he can use some general as a scapegoat.
	__________________ "When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me." - Emo Philips

27th May 2022, 09:37 AM	#254
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 51,990	Originally Posted by theprestige And I still think NATO* could end this conflict in less than a week, just with stealth airstrikes on Russian artillery and supply lines. Well, NATO as an organization cannot do this. NATO is a purely defensive organization. NATO members could do this on their own, but that's a major escalation which carries significant risk. And I think a country which does this doesn't get article 5 protection against a counter-attack.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

27th May 2022, 09:51 AM	#255
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 51,990	Originally Posted by SpitfireIX If Putin is so unconcerned about Russian public opinion, Every dictator is always concerned with public opinion. The real question is how vulnerable he is to it. And that's a function of how likely that opinion is to change, how much it might change, and how much of a threat that would be to his power. On that front, I'm not sure he is very vulnerable. But even if I'm right about that, it's in large part because of Putin's efforts to control public opinion and crack down on opposition, which he does precisely because he cares about it. Quote: Additionally, Putin's popularity doesn't just insulate him against a domestic uprising. It also reduces his vulnerability to a coup, as any would-be conspirators are much more likely to move against an unpopular leader than a popular one. Yes, I agree with that.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

27th May 2022, 09:57 AM	#256
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 60,326	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Well, NATO as an organization cannot do this. NATO is a purely defensive organization. NATO members could do this on their own, but that's a major escalation which carries significant risk. And I think a country which does this doesn't get article 5 protection against a counter-attack. I'm using NATO* as a shorthand for "nations that are all NATO members, but are acting independently outside of the letter of the NATO agreement, to support Ukraine with the exact same equipment, doctrine, and supporting resources they'd be using in an official NATO campaign". I honestly don't understand why we're still quibbling over this.
	__________________ There is no Antimemetics Division.

27th May 2022, 10:07 AM	#257
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 51,990	Originally Posted by theprestige I'm using NATO* as a shorthand for "nations that are all NATO members, but are acting independently outside of the letter of the NATO agreement, to support Ukraine with the exact same equipment, doctrine, and supporting resources they'd be using in an official NATO campaign". I honestly don't understand why we're still quibbling over this. The distinction needs to be made explicit because the fact that article 5 doesn't protect individual NATO members who attack Russia is pretty damn important and needs to be made explicit as well. That's why I think it doesn't suffice to say NATO as shorthand for NATO members acting outside the NATO umbrella.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

27th May 2022, 10:12 AM	#258
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Moderator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 26,772	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza I hope that the strategy of training up motivated locals and give them the weapons they need will become the norm for US military intervention going forward - it's clearly way more effective than what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's cheaper and it's less likely to create an entire generation that hates us. I thought that in 2001 as well. We provided sufficient support for the Northern Alliance to topple the Taleban and then after they had fallen, we sent troops in to fight an insurgency.
	__________________ OECD healthcare spending Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK

27th May 2022, 10:20 AM	#259
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 60,326	Originally Posted by Ziggurat The distinction needs to be made explicit because the fact that article 5 doesn't protect individual NATO members who attack Russia is pretty damn important and needs to be made explicit as well. That's why I think it doesn't suffice to say NATO as shorthand for NATO members acting outside the NATO umbrella. I had no idea any of that was still in doubt, among the regulars in this thread.
	__________________ There is no Antimemetics Division.

27th May 2022, 10:41 AM	#260
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 51,990	Originally Posted by theprestige I had no idea any of that was still in doubt, among the regulars in this thread. Lots of threads have occasional lurkers, and I expect ones about current events of wide interest to have plenty of them.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

27th May 2022, 10:43 AM	#261
Hellbound Merchant of Doom Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day... Posts: 14,895	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Ukraine is a lot different than Afghanistan, I'm not expecting a similar outcome there. But arming and training locals isn't a new concept, we've done it before plenty of times. Just to add a bit, this is the primary stated mission of the Army’s Green Berets: find, liaise with, supply, and train indigenous forces. Sent from my volcanic island lair using carrier pigeon.
	__________________ History does not always repeat itself. Sometimes it just yells "Can't you remember anything I told you?" and lets fly with a club. - John w. Campbell

27th May 2022, 11:22 AM	#262
Cosmic Yak Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand. Posts: 5,960	Originally Posted by Ziggurat We did that in Afghanistan, in the '80's. And it was cheap. But it still didn't work out so well in the end. We also did that in Nicaragua, also in the 80's. Remember the whole Contras thing? Also cheap, but not especially effective. Ukraine is a lot different than Afghanistan, I'm not expecting a similar outcome there. But arming and training locals isn't a new concept, we've done it before plenty of times. I think an even more obvious example is Iraq. The US spent billions training and equipping the Iraqi army, and when ISIS appeared, the Iraqis literally dropped all their weapons and ran away. This windfall of modern, high-tech munitions was a godsend for Islamic State, and a disaster for Iraq, Syria and, arguably, for the US too.
	__________________ Fortuna Faveat Fatuis 'Of course it can be OK to mistreat people.'- shuttlt

27th May 2022, 11:39 AM	#263
Mike! Official Ponylandistanian National Treasure. Respect it! Join Date: May 2010 Location: Ponylandistan! Where the bacon grows on trees! Can it get any better than that? I submit it can not! Posts: 46,617	At what point does Putin attempting to extort concessions by disrupting the world's food supply, like some kind of Bond villain, become enough of an issue that more sensible minds decide it's gone on long enough, and that it is time to demand he take what's of his army and go home, or sit back and watch your war machine be utterly destroyed before breakfast tomorrow. And if he wants to rattle the atomic sabre, remind him that while he may have more on paper, ours are more powerful, more accurate, and most of all, well maintained. Then state in plain terms, use nukes and we'll hit Russia so hard it may tilt the Earth itself on its axis, making what's left of them the new North Pole. Sure, it's a long winded fantasy that'll never happen, but it felt good it get it out. Been a while since anyone evoked such a claim, but dang, what else would you call him at this point?
	__________________ "Never judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes... Because then it won't really matter, you’ll be a mile away and have his shoes." Last edited by Mike!; 27th May 2022 at 11:41 AM.

27th May 2022, 11:48 AM	#264
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 56,005	Originally Posted by a_unique_person They aren't supermen, a lot of them are volunteers going through hell. Morale is suffering and desertions are happening. RUssian morale is not so great either. But it;s clear you want to basically give Putin what he wants. Appeasement alway works so well...
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

27th May 2022, 11:57 AM	#265
lobosrul5 Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2017 Posts: 3,104	Originally Posted by Mike! At what point does Putin attempting to extort concessions by disrupting the world's food supply, like some kind of Bond villain, become enough of an issue that more sensible minds decide it's gone on long enough, and that it is time to demand he take what's of his army and go home, or sit back and watch your war machine be utterly destroyed before breakfast tomorrow. And if he wants to rattle the atomic sabre, remind him that while he may have more on paper, ours are more powerful, more accurate, and most of all, well maintained. Then state in plain terms, use nukes and we'll hit Russia so hard it may tilt the Earth itself on its axis, making what's left of them the new North Pole. Sure, it's a long winded fantasy that'll never happen, but it felt good it get it out. Been a while since anyone evoked such a claim, but dang, what else would you call him at this point? My plan would be to take about 200 A-10's, and 100 B-52's out of storage and train some Ukrainian pilots on them, that is after they have air supremacy, which should be forthcoming with all the missiles we've sent. Utterly and completely annihilate Russian forces in Ukraine. Also, something with good anti-shipping capability, not sure either of those planes do. And yeah he is basically a bond villain in charge of a large country with nukes.
lobosrul5 Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2017 Posts: 3,104

27th May 2022, 12:05 PM	#266
theprestige Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Antimemetics Division Posts: 60,326	There are way better planes than the A-10, for this kind of work.
	__________________ There is no Antimemetics Division.

27th May 2022, 12:11 PM	#267
lobosrul5 Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2017 Posts: 3,104	Originally Posted by theprestige There are way better planes than the A-10, for this kind of work. Oh yeah stealth's would totally be better. There's too much risk of them getting into enemy hands and reverse engineered though. Doubt Russia could do it, but they might send one to China. Besides which the Air Force really really seems to want to get rid of them. Better in Ukrainian hands than rotting away in a boneyard.
lobosrul5 Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2017 Posts: 3,104

27th May 2022, 12:12 PM	#268
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 43,373	Originally Posted by lobosrul5 Oh yeah stealth's would totally be better. There's too much risk of them getting into enemy hands and reverse engineered though. Doubt Russia could do it, but they might send one to China. Besides which the Air Force really really seems to want to get rid of them. Better in Ukrainian hands than rotting away in a boneyard. What is the obsession with A-10s?

27th May 2022, 12:14 PM	#269
crescent Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Colorado Posts: 4,953	There was a report today mentioning that since fighting started, there has been a dramatic upsurge in cargo flights moving between Russia and Iran. My half-assed semi-conspiracy theory is that Russia is buying back precision weaponry/ammunition from some of its clients. They may not be as low on precision or semi-precision weaponry as they are thought to be. They may have access to all of Belarus's stocks, all of Syria's, a good hunk of Hezbolla's, a bunch of other nations as well.

27th May 2022, 12:15 PM	#270
lobosrul5 Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2017 Posts: 3,104	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop What is the obsession with A-10s? They have a really big cool gun that goes brrrrrrrrrrrrrppppp? They're tough to shoot down? They look cool? They can carry Maverick AT missiles (I mean other planes can too)? Besides which if they are surplus to USAF needs then whats the harm in giving them away?
lobosrul5 Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2017 Posts: 3,104

27th May 2022, 12:17 PM	#271
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 18,372	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop What is the obsession with A-10s? The entire concept of "we have these leftover massive guns, let's build a plane around them" is kinda hilariously cool. Also, they work well against Decepticons.
	__________________ "When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me." - Emo Philips

27th May 2022, 12:23 PM	#272
Oystein Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 17,900	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza I hope that the strategy of training up motivated locals and give them the weapons they need will become the norm for US military intervention going forward - it's clearly way more effective than what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's cheaper and it's less likely to create an entire generation that hates us. Uhm. The West tried for about 85 years (or so it feels) to arm and train local military units in Iraq and Afghanistan. The problem was they didn't find any motivated locals. The West then did not expect that Ukrainians would be quite so spectacularly motivated to defend the home country. The difference is not the strategy of "training up motivated locals and give them the weapons" - the difference is that Ukraine had a head-start of more than 7 years in training and (some) weapons acquisition. They started the defense motivated and already trained and armed.
	__________________ Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

27th May 2022, 12:24 PM	#273
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Moderator Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 26,772	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop What is the obsession with A-10s? They have a big gun, which to be fair is probably a good thing from a morale point of view. My understanding is that the gun wasn't that good at actually hitting stationary target tanks, which would have been pretty much under ideal conditions See also the periodic calls to reactivate Iowa class battleships, or some of the ideas for the Zumwalt class.
	__________________ OECD healthcare spending Public/Compulsory Expenditure on healthcare https://data.oecd.org/chart/60Tt Every year since 1990 the US Public healthcare spending has been greater than the UK as a proportion of GDP. More US Tax goes to healthcare than the UK

27th May 2022, 12:26 PM	#274
Oystein Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 17,900	Originally Posted by theprestige Same here. I've long felt that the thing to do with war refugees is put them in training camps, arm and train them, and send them back to fight for their homeland. Not offer them indefinite asylum while we stand idly by and watch their homeland burn. In places like Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, with their tribal societies, the problem is that you just cannot organize and train them in national defense units - that's been tried, and it failed. In Ukraine's case, the men of fighting age are largely staying, it is mainly the women and children who flee.
	__________________ Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

27th May 2022, 12:27 PM	#275
Oystein Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 17,900	Originally Posted by theprestige And I still think NATO* could end this conflict in less than a week, just with stealth airstrikes on Russian artillery and supply lines. Even quicker if outright magic were employed without letting the Russians know we have wizards.
	__________________ Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)