I'm not talking very long range, though yes, the S-300 and Harpoon are classified as such. I think the Ukrainians need to keep doing strikes like they did to the fuel depot inside Russia. That was just helicopter delivered. I keep saying drones, and certainly the Ukrainians are using Switchblades to good effect, so folks like Petraeus are calling for getting thousands more to them, but I also think that our US technologies should get deployed in a counteroffensive. Yes, the air is contested. But they're needed in the fight, IMO. If there's a better answer, fine by me. But the battle should be fought to win.old salt wrote: ↑Sat Apr 02, 2022 3:54 amNone of the "experts" who are paid to opine or analyze predicted the way this war proceeded in the opening phase.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 3:42 pmDid your "analytical opinion" expect Ukraine to do this well?old salt wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 3:31 pmIt is my analytical opinion that Ukraine cannot defeat Russia militarily or force them to withdraw from all occupied territory.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 01, 2022 3:16 pm But a Ukraine that defeats Russia is a heck of a lot better outcome than one in which Ukraine surrenders because we pressured them to do so. Also shouldn't be hard to say that.
and yet it is for you.
They may eventually get Russian forces to withdraw somewhat, but imo it is not worth the continued death & destruction.
A divided, partially free Ukraine is preferable to a destroyed Ukraine entirely under the control of Russia, imo.
If the Ukrainians can get the Russians to withdraw, while still occupying Crimea, Donbas & the land bridge between them, I see that as the best outcome which can be reasonably hoped for, absent direct kinetic US military intervention, with or without NATO support.
Or were you predicting a swift collapse of the Zelensky government? A swift success by Russia?
Seriously, I take a lot of your expertise on weapons systems etc as far superior to mine, but I'm not so confident in your assessment of people. Both the Ukrainians and the Russians...and for that matter, the neighbors and the US.
So, I think we need to stop assuming defeat and instead look at what it will take to win, which by definition means repelling Russia from Ukraine.
My far less informed assessment of the weapons is that Ukraine needs more weapons, more firepower, especially that which can destroy the Russian forward capabilities, whether on land or air, and then to be able to strike at their supply lines and their stand off missile capabilities. And my assessment is that'll take time, much more time.
But that's what the Ukrainians want, and as long as they believe that fighting is the right path, I think we should support them to win, not show, place or lose.
Even our publicly released intell predicted Kyiv would fall within 72 hours.
In modern warfare, esprit & morale only count for so much. Weapons systems capabilities, firepower & logistics eventually carry the day.
Imo, If we ever get the S-300's & Harpoon coastal defense batteries to the Ukrainians, they might have a chance, but time is running out.
What long range weapons do you propose we provide & how do we get them in the hands of Ukrainians capable of using them ?
I'm not remotely an expert in what tactics, systems, would be most effective, but yeah, I think the Ukrainians have proven to have the morale advantage to such an extent that they can drive the Russians into retreat. Heck, the Russians are having to bring in Syrian forces in because their own forces are in retreat.