All Things Russia & Ukraine

[old salt]

I'm still not sure the US &/or NATO are ready to provide weapons which will allow Ukraine to take back Crimea.
They may consider that a bridge too far & don't want to find out how Putin would respond.

[DocBarrister]

I'm still not sure the US &/or NATO are ready to provide weapons which will allow Ukraine to take back Crimea.
They may consider that a bridge too far & don't want to find out how Putin would respond.

I agree on those points, but the United States is definitely warming up to the idea of helping Ukraine take back Crimea.

WASHINGTON — For years, the United States has insisted that Crimea is still part of Ukraine. Yet the Biden administration has held to a hard line since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, refusing to provide Kyiv with the weapons it needs to target the Crimean Peninsula, which Russia has been using as a base for launching devastating strikes.

Now that line is starting to soften.

After months of discussions with Ukrainian officials, the Biden administration is finally starting to concede that Kyiv may need the power to strike the Russian sanctuary, even if such a move increases the risk of escalation, according to several U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive debate. Crimea, between the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, is home to tens of thousands of dug-in Russian troops and numerous Russian military bases.

White House officials insist there is no change in position. Crimea, they say, belongs to Ukraine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/18/us/p ... itary.html

If I had to guess, I would say President Biden ultimately decides to give Ukraine the long-range capability to strike Crimea.

DocBarrister

[old salt]

I posted the articles about the Battle of 73 Eastling to illustrate the abilities of modern main battle tanks when well lead & crewed by well trained soldiers. 3 of the US Army officers in that fight have gone on to post career prominence as authors, commentators & military experts.
Capt HR McMasters, who lead the tank charge, rose the highest & gained the most fame. Also prominent in the battle were McMaster's fire support officer, 1LT Daniel Davis & their Squadron's Operations Officer, who trained & lead their Squadron into the battle, LCOL Doug Macgregor.
Of the 3, McMaster has been the only proponent of the current level of support to Ukraine. He has focused primarily on diplomacy & not military operations in much detail. His support has been understated & recently, he has focused more on the looming threat from China.
Davis has warned consistently about the risks of escalation & has repeatedly opined that the US has no strategic interest at stake in Ukraine.
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2023/01/ukr ... er-bullet/
If even a small % of what Macgregor reports & predicts proves to be accurate, we're in a bad spot.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com ... different/

[MDlaxfan76]

Love who you choose to admire:

Douglas Abbott Macgregor (born January 4, 1953) is a retired U.S. Army colonel and government official, and an author, consultant, and television commentator.[1] He played a significant role on the battlefield in the 1990-91 Gulf War and the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. His 1997 book Breaking the Phalanx established him as an influential if unconventional theorist of military strategy. His thinking contributed to the US strategy in its 2003 invasion of Iraq.

After leaving the military in 2004, he became more politically active. In 2020, President Donald Trump proposed Macgregor as ambassador to Germany, but the Senate blocked the nomination. On November 11, 2020, a Pentagon spokesperson announced that Macgregor had been hired to serve as Senior Advisor to the Acting Secretary of Defense, a post he held for less than three months. Trump also appointed him to the board of West Point Academy, his alma mater. These appointments proved controversial due to his history of racist comments.[2] He regularly contributes to Fox News, where his opinions on Russia have caused controversy.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Love who you choose to admire:

Douglas Abbott Macgregor (born January 4, 1953) is a retired U.S. Army colonel and government official, and an author, consultant, and television commentator.[1] He played a significant role on the battlefield in the 1990-91 Gulf War and the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. His 1997 book Breaking the Phalanx established him as an influential if unconventional theorist of military strategy. His thinking contributed to the US strategy in its 2003 invasion of Iraq.

After leaving the military in 2004, he became more politically active. In 2020, President Donald Trump proposed Macgregor as ambassador to Germany, but the Senate blocked the nomination. On November 11, 2020, a Pentagon spokesperson announced that Macgregor had been hired to serve as Senior Advisor to the Acting Secretary of Defense, a post he held for less than three months. Trump also appointed him to the board of West Point Academy, his alma mater. These appointments proved controversial due to his history of racist comments.[2] He regularly contributes to Fox News, where his opinions on Russia have caused controversy.

It ain’t an accident.

[MDlaxfan76]

I'm still not sure the US &/or NATO are ready to provide weapons which will allow Ukraine to take back Crimea.
They may consider that a bridge too far & don't want to find out how Putin would respond.

I agree that the US and NATO are not "ready"; and it's this lack of commitment that continues to give hope to Russia that they can prevail.

For instance, it took too long to provide javelins, drones, artillery, air defenses etc...tanks should have been committed 6 months ago; if so, they'd be in the field now.

If we'd already trained and deployed our most sophisticated UAVs, trained and deployed attack aircraft, etc, Ukraine would likely have destroyed Russian capabilities prior to the reinforcements arrival and winter. The key has aways been the ability to destroy command and control from afar, destroy supply caches, and to demoralize the opposing military, no safe haven other than through retreat to Russia.

But late is better than never.

Russia is losing soldiers at an enormous rate, but is throwing more and more at the problem. Stopping them is superior technology, tactics, and morale, but of a much smaller force, itself depleted. And without enough capability to reach enough targets from afar.

It won't be until spring/summer that Ukraine is likely to be able to make a major push forward, because the weaponry is insufficient and the weather conditions won't be good enough until then.

So, what are the defeatists saying? That Ukraine can't win, it's not our problem, so we shouldn't arm them to win...because Russia might get mad at us...they express impatience that Ukraine isn't making faster progress in pushing Russia out...while they know that's not going to happen until the weather and technology arrives...defeatists.

I quite understand, however, that we face a very different set of politics in Europe, with a priority of NATO cohesion and multilateralism requiring patience and persuasion, as well as leadership. Push too hard too fast and there's jeopardy of losing that cohesion...but that's the diplomatic challenge...which is moving inexorably forward, with Ukraine's courage providing the time.

Better late than never.

[old salt]

Love who you choose to admire:

Douglas Abbott Macgregor (born January 4, 1953) is a retired U.S. Army colonel and government official, and an author, consultant, and television commentator.[1] He played a significant role on the battlefield in the 1990-91 Gulf War and the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. His 1997 book Breaking the Phalanx established him as an influential if unconventional theorist of military strategy. His thinking contributed to the US strategy in its 2003 invasion of Iraq.

After leaving the military in 2004, he became more politically active. In 2020, President Donald Trump proposed Macgregor as ambassador to Germany, but the Senate blocked the nomination. On November 11, 2020, a Pentagon spokesperson announced that Macgregor had been hired to serve as Senior Advisor to the Acting Secretary of Defense, a post he held for less than three months. Trump also appointed him to the board of West Point Academy, his alma mater. These appointments proved controversial due to his history of racist comments.[2] He regularly contributes to Fox News, where his opinions on Russia have caused controversy.

...I knew you were going to do that, but I posted anyway.
First -- I don't admire him. I do respect his combat service & his expertise in land warfare.
Second -- there are no talking heads better qualified to opine on the prospects of armored warfare in Ukraine than Macgregor, Davis & McMaster (if he would opine on this).

We better hope Macgrgor is wrong on the overall progress of the war to date, but the lack of accurate casualty data on both sides is not encouraging, nor was ZelensKY"s need to fire several high level officials for corruption just before his plea for the latest tranche of military aid.

[old salt]

I'm still not sure the US &/or NATO are ready to provide weapons which will allow Ukraine to take back Crimea.
They may consider that a bridge too far & don't want to find out how Putin would respond.

I agree that the US and NATO are not "ready"; and it's this lack of commitment that continues to give hope to Russia that they can prevail.

For instance, it took too long to provide javelins, drones, artillery, air defenses etc...tanks should have been committed 6 months ago; if so, they'd be in the field now.

If we'd already trained and deployed our most sophisticated UAVs, trained and deployed attack aircraft, etc, Ukraine would likely have destroyed Russian capabilities prior to the reinforcements arrival and winter. The key has aways been the ability to destroy command and control from afar, destroy supply caches, and to demoralize the opposing military, no safe haven other than through retreat to Russia.

But late is better than never.

Russia is losing soldiers at an enormous rate, but is throwing more and more at the problem. Stopping them is superior technology, tactics, and morale, but of a much smaller force, itself depleted. And without enough capability to reach enough targets from afar.

It won't be until spring/summer that Ukraine is likely to be able to make a major push forward, because the weaponry is insufficient and the weather conditions won't be good enough until then.

So, what are the defeatists saying? That Ukraine can't win, it's not our problem, so we shouldn't arm them to win...because Russia might get mad at us...they express impatience that Ukraine isn't making faster progress in pushing Russia out...while they know that's not going to happen until the weather and technology arrives...defeatists.

I quite understand, however, that we face a very different set of politics in Europe, with a priority of NATO cohesion and multilateralism requiring patience and persuasion, as well as leadership. Push too hard too fast and there's jeopardy of losing that cohesion...but that's the diplomatic challenge...which is moving inexorably forward, with Ukraine's courage providing the time.

Better late than never.

Sometimes better late than never is still too late to change the outcome.
It's not defeatist to honestly confront reality.

[DocBarrister]

I'm still not sure the US &/or NATO are ready to provide weapons which will allow Ukraine to take back Crimea.
They may consider that a bridge too far & don't want to find out how Putin would respond.

I agree that the US and NATO are not "ready"; and it's this lack of commitment that continues to give hope to Russia that they can prevail.

For instance, it took too long to provide javelins, drones, artillery, air defenses etc...tanks should have been committed 6 months ago; if so, they'd be in the field now.

If we'd already trained and deployed our most sophisticated UAVs, trained and deployed attack aircraft, etc, Ukraine would likely have destroyed Russian capabilities prior to the reinforcements arrival and winter. The key has aways been the ability to destroy command and control from afar, destroy supply caches, and to demoralize the opposing military, no safe haven other than through retreat to Russia.

But late is better than never.

Russia is losing soldiers at an enormous rate, but is throwing more and more at the problem. Stopping them is superior technology, tactics, and morale, but of a much smaller force, itself depleted. And without enough capability to reach enough targets from afar.

It won't be until spring/summer that Ukraine is likely to be able to make a major push forward, because the weaponry is insufficient and the weather conditions won't be good enough until then.

So, what are the defeatists saying? That Ukraine can't win, it's not our problem, so we shouldn't arm them to win...because Russia might get mad at us...they express impatience that Ukraine isn't making faster progress in pushing Russia out...while they know that's not going to happen until the weather and technology arrives...defeatists.

I quite understand, however, that we face a very different set of politics in Europe, with a priority of NATO cohesion and multilateralism requiring patience and persuasion, as well as leadership. Push too hard too fast and there's jeopardy of losing that cohesion...but that's the diplomatic challenge...which is moving inexorably forward, with Ukraine's courage providing the time.

Better late than never.

Sometimes better late than never is still too late to change the outcome.
It's not defeatist to honestly confront reality.

Ukraine is claiming to have commitments for the delivery of 321 tanks.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/27/world/uk ... index.html

That is more than the number of tanks Ukraine claims to need to push Russia out of all Ukrainian territory.

I think long-range ATACMS are next.

DocBarrister

[MDlaxfan76]

I'm still not sure the US &/or NATO are ready to provide weapons which will allow Ukraine to take back Crimea.
They may consider that a bridge too far & don't want to find out how Putin would respond.

I agree that the US and NATO are not "ready"; and it's this lack of commitment that continues to give hope to Russia that they can prevail.

For instance, it took too long to provide javelins, drones, artillery, air defenses etc...tanks should have been committed 6 months ago; if so, they'd be in the field now.

If we'd already trained and deployed our most sophisticated UAVs, trained and deployed attack aircraft, etc, Ukraine would likely have destroyed Russian capabilities prior to the reinforcements arrival and winter. The key has aways been the ability to destroy command and control from afar, destroy supply caches, and to demoralize the opposing military, no safe haven other than through retreat to Russia.

But late is better than never.

Russia is losing soldiers at an enormous rate, but is throwing more and more at the problem. Stopping them is superior technology, tactics, and morale, but of a much smaller force, itself depleted. And without enough capability to reach enough targets from afar.

It won't be until spring/summer that Ukraine is likely to be able to make a major push forward, because the weaponry is insufficient and the weather conditions won't be good enough until then.

So, what are the defeatists saying? That Ukraine can't win, it's not our problem, so we shouldn't arm them to win...because Russia might get mad at us...they express impatience that Ukraine isn't making faster progress in pushing Russia out...while they know that's not going to happen until the weather and technology arrives...defeatists.

I quite understand, however, that we face a very different set of politics in Europe, with a priority of NATO cohesion and multilateralism requiring patience and persuasion, as well as leadership. Push too hard too fast and there's jeopardy of losing that cohesion...but that's the diplomatic challenge...which is moving inexorably forward, with Ukraine's courage providing the time.

Better late than never.

Sometimes better late than never is still too late to change the outcome.
It's not defeatist to honestly confront reality.

Ukraine is claiming to have commitments for the delivery of 321 tanks.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/27/world/uk ... index.html

That is more than the number of tanks Ukraine claims to need to push Russia out of all Ukrainian territory.

I think long-range ATACMS are next.

DocBarrister

https://www.kyivpost.com/post/11575

Could be. And indeed, if I recall correctly, these could be successfully deployed, with training, sooner than the tanks...and likely faster than training on fighter jets.

The further reach definitely matters to cutting off supply chains and destroying command and control, no safe harbor within Ukraine's territory including Crimea.

The jets. if I understand correctly, are about challenging Russia's ability to control the sky in the event of a Ukrainian advance, or conversely a Russian push. But that appears to be a super expensive proposition given the capabilities each side has of taking down jets from the ground...is that correct?

BTW, I doubt there are 300+ tanks committed...sounds like close to 100 and some...half by spring...hope it's more.

Salty,
We discussed the US' most advanced drone capabilities last spring and you made a good case that less expensive drones were preferable at that point...how about now?

I'd made the point last spring/summer that the key to Ukraine getting these longer reaching weapons was their building of confidence with their allies that the weaponry would be used to retake territory, not to threaten civilian populations in Russia in retaliation for the atrocities Russia is committing against Ukrainian civilian populations.

On the corruption challenges, it's good to see that Zelensky is cracking down on issues and inviting auditors and oversight to help identify such...and taking action when found. That too is key to confidence.

[DocBarrister]

Poland alone has committed to delivering 74 tanks, including 60 tanks manufactured by Poland.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/po ... 023-01-27/

DocBarrister

[MDlaxfan76]

Poland alone has committed to delivering 74 tanks, including 60 tanks manufactured by Poland.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/po ... 023-01-27/

DocBarrister

Interesting.
Not the heavy tanks, Leopards, but "modernized" light tanks.
Ukrainians have said they need 100's of the heavy Leopards, (or Abrams, Challengers etc)...

Poland apparently has sent a couple hundred of the light vehicles earlier, which have helped...but these are not the same.

[old salt]

Poland alone has committed to delivering 74 tanks, including 60 tanks manufactured by Poland.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/po ... 023-01-27/

DocBarrister

Interesting.
Not the heavy tanks, Leopards, but "modernized" light tanks.
Ukrainians have said they need 100's of the heavy Leopards, (or Abrams, Challengers etc)...

Poland apparently has sent a couple hundred of the light vehicles earlier, which have helped...but these are not the same.

The Polish donated T-91 & T-72 are also main battle tanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PT-91_Twardy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72#Models

last info on US made drones. Too vulnerable.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/14/politics ... index.html

[old salt]

It's a sad commentary on our msm when you have to turn to RT to get an accurate analysis of our political moves masquerading as military aid.
There's a good chance the 31 Abrams tanks we'll be sending won't arrive in time to matter in Ukraine but could jeopardize their arrival in Taiwan or to backfill Poland. Why are serviceable M1A1's sitting in storage, waiting in line as seed tanks for re-manufacture into the latest version M1A2, when they are urgently needed in Poland, Taiwan & Ukraine ? This is a way to say "yes", when "no" is the answer in reality.

https://www.rt.com/news/570546-ukraine-us-abrams-tanks/
I posted & linked this 2 days ago.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/2 ... s-00079648
https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine ... hallenges/

[a fan]

It's a sad commentary on our msm when you have to turn to RT to get an accurate analysis of our political moves masquerading as military aid.
There's a good chance the 31 Abrams tanks we'll be sending won't arrive in time to matter in Ukraine but could jeopardize their arrival in Taiwan or to backfill Poland. Why are serviceable M1A1's sitting in storage, waiting in line as seed tanks for re-manufacture into the latest version M1A2, when they are urgently needed in Poland, Taiwan & Ukraine ? This is a way to say "yes", when "no" is the answer in reality.

https://www.rt.com/news/570546-ukraine-us-abrams-tanks/
I posted & linked this 2 days ago.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/2 ... s-00079648
https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine ... hallenges/

Obvious question: why do we have only one company making these tanks? That's a fine deal if you're General Dynamics.

[old salt]

It's a sad commentary on our msm when you have to turn to RT to get an accurate analysis of our political moves masquerading as military aid.
There's a good chance the 31 Abrams tanks we'll be sending won't arrive in time to matter in Ukraine but could jeopardize their arrival in Taiwan or to backfill Poland. Why are serviceable M1A1's sitting in storage, waiting in line as seed tanks for re-manufacture into the latest version M1A2, when they are urgently needed in Poland, Taiwan & Ukraine ? This is a way to say "yes", when "no" is the answer in reality.

https://www.rt.com/news/570546-ukraine-us-abrams-tanks/
I posted & linked this 2 days ago.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/2 ... s-00079648
https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine ... hallenges/

Obvious question: why do we have only one company making these tanks? That's a fine deal if you're General Dynamics.

We don't need that many anymore. We have a lot left over from the cold war & our post 9-11 desert wars. We don't make new ones from scratch. We just keep updating the existing shells, which last forever, unless battle damaged. They're similar to B-52's in that regard. We have a huge stockpile of M1A1 seed tanks in storage which can be updated to latest M1A2 version, as needed, but they are not needed (yet). Reman production is paced at the rate of foreign customers ability to pay. We're "selling" these 31 to Ukraine, not donating them from inventory, ...of course, Ukraine will pay from the pot of military aid we provide. Political funding shell game. Our Army brass really don't want to send Abrams to Ukraine. Leopards are better suited & they want the Abrams to go to Taiwan & Poland. They're going along just to get the feckless Germans to allow other NATO allies to send Leopards, which are the best & quickest option.

[Kismet]

It's a sad commentary on our msm when you have to turn to RT to get an accurate analysis of our political moves masquerading as military aid.
There's a good chance the 31 Abrams tanks we'll be sending won't arrive in time to matter in Ukraine but could jeopardize their arrival in Taiwan or to backfill Poland. Why are serviceable M1A1's sitting in storage, waiting in line as seed tanks for re-manufacture into the latest version M1A2, when they are urgently needed in Poland, Taiwan & Ukraine ? This is a way to say "yes", when "no" is the answer in reality.

https://www.rt.com/news/570546-ukraine-us-abrams-tanks/
I posted & linked this 2 days ago.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/2 ... s-00079648
https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine ... hallenges/

If Rooskie propaganda works for you, what more can be said? Except that you expect American media to carry water for the Rooskies.
Maybe next, suggest you start swapping out the Russian national anthem for ours. It's easier to sing,too.

Personally. I think you do garbage like this to get a rise of of everybody. Pretty weak sauce.

[MDlaxfan76]

Poland alone has committed to delivering 74 tanks, including 60 tanks manufactured by Poland.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/po ... 023-01-27/

DocBarrister

Interesting.
Not the heavy tanks, Leopards, but "modernized" light tanks.
Ukrainians have said they need 100's of the heavy Leopards, (or Abrams, Challengers etc)...

Poland apparently has sent a couple hundred of the light vehicles earlier, which have helped...but these are not the same.

The Polish donated T-91 & T-72 are also main battle tanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PT-91_Twardy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72#Models

last info on US made drones. Too vulnerable.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/14/politics ... index.html

Sounds like they will be getting used before long; the big shift is to helping Ukraine 'win' versus just 'defend'.

[a fan]

It's a sad commentary on our msm when you have to turn to RT to get an accurate analysis of our political moves masquerading as military aid.

Blame Petraeus. CNN had him on after the US announcement, and he didn't say a word about how it would be years before they'd arrive.....he implied they'd arrive first, before the German and Polish tanks.

Guess CNN needs better "experts".

[old salt]

It's a sad commentary on our msm when you have to turn to RT to get an accurate analysis of our political moves masquerading as military aid.
There's a good chance the 31 Abrams tanks we'll be sending won't arrive in time to matter in Ukraine but could jeopardize their arrival in Taiwan or to backfill Poland. Why are serviceable M1A1's sitting in storage, waiting in line as seed tanks for re-manufacture into the latest version M1A2, when they are urgently needed in Poland, Taiwan & Ukraine ? This is a way to say "yes", when "no" is the answer in reality.

https://www.rt.com/news/570546-ukraine-us-abrams-tanks/
I posted & linked this 2 days ago.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/2 ... s-00079648
https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine ... hallenges/

If Rooskie propaganda works for you, what more can be said? Except that you expect American media to carry water for the Rooskies.
Maybe next, suggest you start swapping out the Russian national anthem for ours. It's easier to sing,too.

Personally. I think you do garbage like this to get a rise of of everybody. Pretty weak sauce.

The Rooskie article cites Politico. Idiots respond in your manner, rather than considering the substance.
What offends you about the RT article ? What's in it that you take issue with.