All Things Russia & Ukraine

The odds are excellent that you will leave this forum hating someone.
DocBarrister
Posts: 6658
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 12:00 pm

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by DocBarrister »

old salt wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:03 pm
a fan wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 5:13 pm These people fought to dissolve the US of A. As an American that believes in that Constitution....I'm not cool with that.
The secessionists were convinced they were doing the same thing their parents had done in revolting against England just a few decades earlier. They still viewed the USA as a voluntary compact of independent states.
You interpret history from today's perspective. The Confederates did not expect to defeat the Union, they wanted to make it too costly to defeat them & hoped to force a compromise on the westward expansion of slavery. They did not count on Lincoln's ability to sustain support for the war & tolerate the casualties & carnage which Grant, Sherman & others wrought in achieving a military victory.
Wow … first you defend Putin and Russia … now the Confederacy?

:?

DocBarrister :roll:
@DocBarrister
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 17960
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by old salt »

DocBarrister wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 12:51 am
old salt wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:03 pm
a fan wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 5:13 pm These people fought to dissolve the US of A. As an American that believes in that Constitution....I'm not cool with that.
The secessionists were convinced they were doing the same thing their parents had done in revolting against England just a few decades earlier. They still viewed the USA as a voluntary compact of independent states.
You interpret history from today's perspective. The Confederates did not expect to defeat the Union, they wanted to make it too costly to defeat them & hoped to force a compromise on the westward expansion of slavery. They did not count on Lincoln's ability to sustain support for the war & tolerate the casualties & carnage which Grant, Sherman & others wrought in achieving a military victory.
Wow … first you defend Putin and Russia … now the Confederacy?

:?

DocBarrister :roll:
With your background, I thought you'd be able to distinguish objective analysis from advocacy.
DocBarrister
Posts: 6658
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 12:00 pm

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by DocBarrister »

old salt wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 12:53 am
DocBarrister wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 12:51 am
old salt wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:03 pm
a fan wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 5:13 pm These people fought to dissolve the US of A. As an American that believes in that Constitution....I'm not cool with that.
The secessionists were convinced they were doing the same thing their parents had done in revolting against England just a few decades earlier. They still viewed the USA as a voluntary compact of independent states.
You interpret history from today's perspective. The Confederates did not expect to defeat the Union, they wanted to make it too costly to defeat them & hoped to force a compromise on the westward expansion of slavery. They did not count on Lincoln's ability to sustain support for the war & tolerate the casualties & carnage which Grant, Sherman & others wrought in achieving a military victory.
Wow … first you defend Putin and Russia … now the Confederacy?

:?

DocBarrister :roll:
With your background, I thought you'd be able to distinguish objective analysis from advocacy.
My objective analysis is that you have defended Putin, Russia, and the Confederacy on this forum.

That is not subject to debate.

The question is why you are defending Putin, Russia, and the Confederacy.

DocBarrister
@DocBarrister
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 17960
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by old salt »

DocBarrister wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 1:18 am
old salt wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 12:53 am
DocBarrister wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 12:51 am
old salt wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:03 pm
a fan wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 5:13 pm These people fought to dissolve the US of A. As an American that believes in that Constitution....I'm not cool with that.
The secessionists were convinced they were doing the same thing their parents had done in revolting against England just a few decades earlier. They still viewed the USA as a voluntary compact of independent states.
You interpret history from today's perspective. The Confederates did not expect to defeat the Union, they wanted to make it too costly to defeat them & hoped to force a compromise on the westward expansion of slavery. They did not count on Lincoln's ability to sustain support for the war & tolerate the casualties & carnage which Grant, Sherman & others wrought in achieving a military victory.
Wow … first you defend Putin and Russia … now the Confederacy?

:?

DocBarrister :roll:
With your background, I thought you'd be able to distinguish objective analysis from advocacy.
My objective analysis is that you have defended Putin, Russia, and the Confederacy on this forum.

That is not subject to debate.

The question is why you are defending Putin, Russia, and the Confederacy.

DocBarrister
Understanding what motivated the Confederates, Russians & Putin & their perspective is not defending them.
You can't undo Russian or US history.
DocBarrister
Posts: 6658
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 12:00 pm

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by DocBarrister »

old salt wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 1:46 am
DocBarrister wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 1:18 am
old salt wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 12:53 am
DocBarrister wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 12:51 am
old salt wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:03 pm
a fan wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 5:13 pm These people fought to dissolve the US of A. As an American that believes in that Constitution....I'm not cool with that.
The secessionists were convinced they were doing the same thing their parents had done in revolting against England just a few decades earlier. They still viewed the USA as a voluntary compact of independent states.
You interpret history from today's perspective. The Confederates did not expect to defeat the Union, they wanted to make it too costly to defeat them & hoped to force a compromise on the westward expansion of slavery. They did not count on Lincoln's ability to sustain support for the war & tolerate the casualties & carnage which Grant, Sherman & others wrought in achieving a military victory.
Wow … first you defend Putin and Russia … now the Confederacy?

:?

DocBarrister :roll:
With your background, I thought you'd be able to distinguish objective analysis from advocacy.
My objective analysis is that you have defended Putin, Russia, and the Confederacy on this forum.

That is not subject to debate.

The question is why you are defending Putin, Russia, and the Confederacy.

DocBarrister
Understanding what motivated the Confederates, Russians & Putin & their perspective is not defending them.
You can't undo Russian or US history.
Racism, bigotry, misogyny, white ethnocentrism, violation of human rights, and crimes against humanity are values and beliefs shared by Putin, Russia, and the Confederacy.

Putin and Russia want to subjugate Ukrainians.

The Confederacy wanted to subjugate African American slaves.

The Confederacy had to be defeated.

Putin and Russia must be defeated.

Putin, Russia, and the Confederacy were, and are, evil.

What more is there to understand?

Why not focus more on the people they brutalized (Ukrainians and African Americans)? They are the ones you should be working more to understand.

DocBarrister
@DocBarrister
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 17960
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by old salt »

DocBarrister wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 1:53 amWhat more is there to understand?
How to defeat Russia without the US entering into combat.
DocBarrister
Posts: 6658
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 12:00 pm

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by DocBarrister »

old salt wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 1:58 am
DocBarrister wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 1:53 amWhat more is there to understand?
How to defeat Russia without the US entering into combat.
President Biden and NATO/EU have done a good job on that so far.

The entire world owes Ukraine a great debt in fighting Putin and Russia on our behalf. Calling the current conflict a proxy war is accurate, and we should offer no apologies about that.

We should give Ukraine everything they ask for, including advanced combat aircraft and ATACMS missiles. That is the least we should do since they are fighting and dying so that we don’t have to.

How can we defeat Russia without the U.S. entering into combat?

Give Ukraine everything they need to defeat Russia for us … that’s how.

DocBarrister
@DocBarrister
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 17960
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by old salt »

DocBarrister wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 2:06 am
old salt wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 1:58 am
DocBarrister wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 1:53 amWhat more is there to understand?
How to defeat Russia without the US entering into combat.
President Biden and NATO/EU have done a good job on that so far.

The entire world owes Ukraine a great debt in fighting Putin and Russia on our behalf. Calling the current conflict a proxy war is accurate, and we should offer no apologies about that.

We should give Ukraine everything they ask for, including advanced combat aircraft and ATACMS missiles. That is the least we should do since they are fighting and dying so that we don’t have to.

How can we defeat Russia without the U.S. entering into combat?

Give Ukraine everything they need to defeat Russia for us … that’s how.

DocBarrister
We don't have a reason to fight Russia. Both Biden & the (R)'s have made that clear.

So far, Biden has made clear, in what he is willing to provide, that he won't give what's needed to defeat Russia, which requires weapons able to reach targets inside Russia & Crimea. ATACMS missiles are no longer in production & DoD does not want to reduce our limited inventory. HIMARS are good enough for targets within Ukraine. The only practical fighter aircraft are the Mig-29's which Poland & Bulgaria can't replace in time with F-16's or F-35's for their own defense. Slovakia has a few Mig-29's they can no longer maintain, but they're too afraid of Russia to donate them. The F-16 reman production line is maxed out making fighters for Poland, Taiwan, & other E NATO allies who need them for their own defense. Without the ability to suppress Russia's air defenses, aircraft losses would be unacceptable.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sl ... 023-02-10/
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/pola ... pare-parts

There are questions about both sides ability to produce munitions sufficient to defeat the enemy.
It's far from certain that the US & NATO can out-produce Russia fast enough.
We're starting to see daylight between what Ukraine wants & what Biden is willing to provide.
DocBarrister
Posts: 6658
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 12:00 pm

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by DocBarrister »

old salt wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 2:39 am
DocBarrister wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 2:06 am
old salt wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 1:58 am
DocBarrister wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 1:53 amWhat more is there to understand?
How to defeat Russia without the US entering into combat.
President Biden and NATO/EU have done a good job on that so far.

The entire world owes Ukraine a great debt in fighting Putin and Russia on our behalf. Calling the current conflict a proxy war is accurate, and we should offer no apologies about that.

We should give Ukraine everything they ask for, including advanced combat aircraft and ATACMS missiles. That is the least we should do since they are fighting and dying so that we don’t have to.

How can we defeat Russia without the U.S. entering into combat?

Give Ukraine everything they need to defeat Russia for us … that’s how.

DocBarrister
We don't have a reason to fight Russia. Both Biden & the (R)'s have made that clear.

So far, Biden has made clear, in what he is willing to provide, that he won't give what's needed to defeat Russia, which requires weapons able to reach targets inside Russia & Crimea. ATACMS missiles are no longer in production & DoD does not want to reduce our limited inventory. HIMARS are good enough for targets within Ukraine. The only practical fighter aircraft are the Mig-29's which Poland & Bulgaria can't replace in time with F-16's or F-35's for their own defense. Slovakia has a few Mig-29's they can no longer maintain, but they're too afraid of Russia to donate them. The F-16 reman production line is maxed out making fighters for Poland, Taiwan, & other E NATO allies who need them for their own defense. Without the ability to suppress Russia's air defenses, aircraft losses would be unacceptable.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sl ... 023-02-10/
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/pola ... pare-parts

There are questions about both sides ability to produce munitions sufficient to defeat the enemy.
It's far from certain that the US & NATO can out-produce Russia fast enough.
We're starting to see daylight between what Ukraine wants & what Biden is willing to provide.
We don’t have a reason to fight Russia?!?

Are you kidding me?

Putin invaded an independent, sovereign democracy in Europe without provocation.

That’s not reason enough?

You have clearly failed to learn the lessons of history.

As for Biden, he moves cautiously (maybe too cautiously), but he has already approved HIMARS, tanks, armored vehicles, and Patriot air defense systems … all once unthinkable.

He will get around to combat jets and ATACMSs. Lockheed Martin can start up production again if the President orders them to do so.

DocBarrister
@DocBarrister
User avatar
old salt
Posts: 17960
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 11:44 am

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by old salt »

https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morn ... erm=second

Biden’s Two-Faced Promises to Ukraine

by JIM GERAGHTY, February 14, 2023

Last week, President Biden pledged to the Ukrainian ambassador to the U.S. that, “America is united in our support for your country. We will stand with you as long as it takes.” This morning, a new report reveals that the administration’s message to the Ukrainians behind closed doors is the opposite: Future aid packages may well be considerably smaller than originally promised, and the U.S. can’t send assistance “forever.” This continues Biden’s pattern of saying whatever sounds best in public and basking in the subsequent applause, and then ignoring the hard realities until later. With a president who cannot or will not accurately describe his own administration’s policies, it is not the least bit surprising that his team is keeping him far away from any questions about the unidentified flying objects shot down over North America. The country and the world have gotten used to the idea that the president doesn’t really speak for his administration, and what he says at any given moment may or may not align with what the U.S. government’s position actually is.

Biden to Ukraine: ‘As Long as It Takes’ Has an Expiration Date
President Biden said in his State of the Union Address one week ago, speaking to Oksana Markarova, the Ukrainian ambassador to the U.S.: “Ambassador, America is united in our support for your country. We will stand with you as long as it takes.”

This morning, the Washington Post reports that the Biden administration is telling the Ukrainian government exactly the opposite behind closed doors:

Despite promises to back Ukraine “as long as it takes,” Biden officials say recent aid packages from Congress and America’s allies represent Kyiv’s best chance to decisively change the course of the war. Many conservatives in the Republican-led House have vowed to pull back support, and Europe’s long-term appetite for funding the war effort remains unclear. . . .

“We will continue to try to impress upon them that we can’t do anything and everything forever,” said one senior administration official, referring to Ukraine’s leaders. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic matters, added that it was the administration’s “very strong view” that it will be hard to keep getting the same level of security and economic assistance from Congress.

“’As long as it takes’ pertains to the amount of conflict,” the official added. “It doesn’t pertain to the amount of assistance.”

A week ago, with the whole world watching, the Biden pledge was “as long as it takes.” Today, much more quietly, the message is, “We can’t do anything and everything forever.”

The State of the Union Address was not the first time Biden used the phrase “as long as it takes” to describe the U.S. policy toward Ukraine. Biden said he told President Zelensky, when Zelensky visited Washington, that, “We’re with you for as long as it takes, Mr. President.” Biden, national-security adviser Jake Sullivan, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, and other administration officials have all repeatedly used the phrase “as long as it takes” or variations of it to characterize the U.S. policy toward Ukraine.

And now, “as long as it takes” joins “limited incursion” and “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power” as presidential statements that are not meant to be taken seriously or literally. Except this one wasn’t an off-the-cuff rhetorical flourish; this was President Biden making a promise he couldn’t keep on the biggest geopolitical stage imaginable.

As noted last week, Vladimir Putin is trying to turn the invasion of Ukraine into a long, bloody war of attrition, calculating that Ukraine will run out of soldiers, arms, and resources before Russia runs out of conscripts and convicts. How do you think Moscow will greet the news that “as long as it takes” doesn’t actually mean as long as it takes?
DocBarrister
Posts: 6658
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 12:00 pm

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by DocBarrister »

old salt wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 3:15 am
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morn ... erm=second

Biden’s Two-Faced Promises to Ukraine

by JIM GERAGHTY, February 14, 2023

Last week, President Biden pledged to the Ukrainian ambassador to the U.S. that, “America is united in our support for your country. We will stand with you as long as it takes.” This morning, a new report reveals that the administration’s message to the Ukrainians behind closed doors is the opposite: Future aid packages may well be considerably smaller than originally promised, and the U.S. can’t send assistance “forever.” This continues Biden’s pattern of saying whatever sounds best in public and basking in the subsequent applause, and then ignoring the hard realities until later. With a president who cannot or will not accurately describe his own administration’s policies, it is not the least bit surprising that his team is keeping him far away from any questions about the unidentified flying objects shot down over North America. The country and the world have gotten used to the idea that the president doesn’t really speak for his administration, and what he says at any given moment may or may not align with what the U.S. government’s position actually is.

Biden to Ukraine: ‘As Long as It Takes’ Has an Expiration Date
President Biden said in his State of the Union Address one week ago, speaking to Oksana Markarova, the Ukrainian ambassador to the U.S.: “Ambassador, America is united in our support for your country. We will stand with you as long as it takes.”

This morning, the Washington Post reports that the Biden administration is telling the Ukrainian government exactly the opposite behind closed doors:

Despite promises to back Ukraine “as long as it takes,” Biden officials say recent aid packages from Congress and America’s allies represent Kyiv’s best chance to decisively change the course of the war. Many conservatives in the Republican-led House have vowed to pull back support, and Europe’s long-term appetite for funding the war effort remains unclear. . . .

“We will continue to try to impress upon them that we can’t do anything and everything forever,” said one senior administration official, referring to Ukraine’s leaders. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic matters, added that it was the administration’s “very strong view” that it will be hard to keep getting the same level of security and economic assistance from Congress.

“’As long as it takes’ pertains to the amount of conflict,” the official added. “It doesn’t pertain to the amount of assistance.”

A week ago, with the whole world watching, the Biden pledge was “as long as it takes.” Today, much more quietly, the message is, “We can’t do anything and everything forever.”

The State of the Union Address was not the first time Biden used the phrase “as long as it takes” to describe the U.S. policy toward Ukraine. Biden said he told President Zelensky, when Zelensky visited Washington, that, “We’re with you for as long as it takes, Mr. President.” Biden, national-security adviser Jake Sullivan, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, and other administration officials have all repeatedly used the phrase “as long as it takes” or variations of it to characterize the U.S. policy toward Ukraine.

And now, “as long as it takes” joins “limited incursion” and “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power” as presidential statements that are not meant to be taken seriously or literally. Except this one wasn’t an off-the-cuff rhetorical flourish; this was President Biden making a promise he couldn’t keep on the biggest geopolitical stage imaginable.

As noted last week, Vladimir Putin is trying to turn the invasion of Ukraine into a long, bloody war of attrition, calculating that Ukraine will run out of soldiers, arms, and resources before Russia runs out of conscripts and convicts. How do you think Moscow will greet the news that “as long as it takes” doesn’t actually mean as long as it takes?
You keep posting these because it is wishful thinking on your part.

President Biden’s foreign policy legacy is entirely tied to Ukraine’s fate in this war. He is not going to give up on Ukraine.

Neither will Mitch McConnell, who has demonstrated his support for Ukraine.

That leaves the Republican House which has its share of pro-fascist supporters of Russia. McCarthy doesn’t have control and enough House Republicans support Ukraine to pass at least a modest support package. That should be enough until Democrats retake the House in 2024.

DocBarrister
@DocBarrister
User avatar
cradleandshoot
Posts: 14542
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by cradleandshoot »

jhu72 wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 6:27 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 5:58 am
old salt wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 9:55 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 8:40 pm
old salt wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 7:17 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Tue Feb 14, 2023 6:39 pm And I do NOT recall you being in favor of changing the base names, I recall you making fun of doing so.
Typical of your partisan blind spot memory. I supported it from the start & suggested how they should be renamed.
I made fun of making a big deal about it, as if it would influence a soldier to enlist or re-enlist.
old salt wrote: Wed Jun 30, 2021 7:33 pm FTR -- I was all for renaming those bases & suggested they be named after Soldiers who were awarded the Medal of Honor who had some connection to that base,
"from the start"...this was 2018:

User avatarold salt
Posts: 14568
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2018 10:44 am
Contact: Contact old salt
Re: Is America a racist nation?
Report Quote
Post by old salt » Fri Dec 03, 2021 11:01 pm

Nobody cares about the statues (except the pigeons), until they can be used as a totem to victimhood.

Just like the names of Army bases. Colin Powell said that as a young junior officer, he never gave a thought to the name of the base (or building, or street). He was more concerned about how the locals outside the gate treated him.

The moral judgments, across centuries, & the virtue signalling in this forum are suffocating.

Wait until future generations judge you. I got mine.
Control of Women or Population Control ? ...how many black babies have been aborted ?
Planned Parenthood ? Condoms have always been cheap or free, to prevent std's. Just go see doc in sick bay.

And then in 2020:

Re: The Politics of National Security
• Report
• Quote
Post by old salt » Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:06 am

CU77 wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 09, 2020 11:11 pm
The military’s top officer on Thursday described Confederate leaders as traitors and said he is taking a “hard look” at renaming 10 Army installations that honor them, despite President Trump’s opposition to any changes.

“The Confederacy, the American Civil War was fought, and it was an act of rebellion,” the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, told members of the House Armed Services Committee. “It was an act of treason at the time against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution, and those officers turned their back on their oath.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... ses-trump/

What does this have to do with national security ? Are you expecting the south to rise again ?
You should be trolling the Race Riots thread with this.
Colin Powell said when he was stationed at Ft Benning he didn't worry about who it was named for.
He was more concerned about how he was treated outside the base in GA.

I don't see "support" for renaming.

You were contemptuous, including of General Milley.
c&s & I had a discussion on this in which I recommended they rename the Army bases for soldiers who had distinguished themselves who had some connection with that base or that region. It was before 2020. That's not when the issue was first raised.

I was questioning why it was posted in the national security thread. By 2020, the issue was old news.

It was about the time Brian Williams, on msnbc, had Gen Honore as a guest & recommended Ft Polk in LA be renamed Ft Honore.

https://wtop.com/virginia/2021/10/strip ... -passions/
For years, the military defended the naming of bases after Confederate officers; as recently as 2015 the Army argued that the names did not honor the rebel cause but were a gesture of reconciliation with the South.
Ft Bragg should be renamed Ft Ridgeway. The logic is plain and simple and General Ridgeway led the 82nd to its legendary status it still holds today. The next prominent feature at Bragg is Longstreet Rd. Gotta get rid of that stain as well. I got skin in the game here. I left a lot of rubber from my combat boots on my travels up and down that road. We use to call it Longhill Rd. It was 7 klicks to the end of Normandy DZ. Uphill in both directions. This is one of those can of worms that is opened up here. James Longstreet is not worthy of having anything named after him, even a road on an army base.
The US Army has already changed the name. Longstreet Rd is now simply Long Rd. One thing has not changed, walking it in full gear is not much fun.
... you mean never having marched by a whorehouse without stopping in??
Generals don't march anywhere partner, they ride. I don't know of any drive in houses of ill repute. Maybe your life experience says otherwise. :D
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
Seacoaster(1)
Posts: 4787
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by Seacoaster(1) »

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgr ... ry-15-2023

"Russia’s costly military campaign in Ukraine has likely significantly depleted Russian equipment and manpower reserves necessary to sustain a successful large-scale offensive in eastern Ukraine. UK Defense Secretary Ben Wallace told the BBC that the UK had not seen the Russian “massing of a single force to punch through in a big offensive” and noted that Russians are now trying to advance in Donbas at a “huge cost.”[1] Wallace estimated that Russia could have committed up to 97 percent of its army to the fight in Ukraine and that its combat effectiveness has decreased by 40 percent due to an “almost First World War level of attrition” that measures Russian advances in meters in human wave attacks. ISW cannot independently confirm Wallace’s estimates, but his observation that Russia lacks sufficient mechanized combat power for a breakthrough aligns with previous ISW assessments that the conventional Russian military must undergo significant reconstitution before regaining the ability to conduct effective maneuver warfare.[2] Wallace’s observations also suggest that Russia does not have untapped combat-ready reserves capable of executing a large-scale offensive, which is also ISW’s assessment.

Russia’s inability to regenerate expended mechanized vehicles in the short term further restricts Russian maneuver warfare capabilities. The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) reported that Russia lost about 50 percent of its T-72B and T-72B3M tanks and many T-80 tanks, forcing Russian forces to rely on older equipment.[3] Wallace noted that two-thirds of Russia’s tanks are destroyed or unusable. The UK Ministry of Defense assessed that the Kremlin likely recognizes that Russia’s low industrial output is a “critical weakness,” and that Russian production is not meeting the Kremlin’s long-term requirements.[4] Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev, for example, called for increased production of weapons and modern tanks on February 9.[5] The Norwegian Intelligence Service (NIS) noted that Russia is still capable of producing large quantities of small arms, missiles, and tanks but that its defense industry base (DIB) will continue to struggle to offset the effects of Western sanctions.[6] The NIS added that Russia will also need to undergo an extensive effort to set up new production lines and will need time to recruit and train workers. Some Russian defense firms continue to complain that they do not have sufficient personnel to support the intensified industrial effort, while Russian pro-war milbloggers noted that Russia needs to immediately embark on modernization and personnel recruitment efforts to solve issues with tank production.[7] Such measures are unlikely to increase the Russian defense industry’s capacity to produce tanks rapidly and at scale, and would certainly not do so in time to affect the outcome of the current Russian offensive or of a Ukrainian counter-offensive launched in the coming months. The timely Western provisions of tanks and armored vehicles to Ukraine would further offset Russia’s ability to conduct mechanized warfare as Russia struggles to restart its defense production in the immediate term. Ukraine likely continues to have a window of opportunity to initiate large-scale counteroffensives over the next few months, but its ability to do so likely rests heavily on the speed and scale at which the West provides it the necessary materiel, particularly tanks and armored vehicles.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is unlikely to announce measures for further escalation of the war in Ukraine, major new Russian mobilization initiatives, or any other significant policy in his planned address to the Russian Federal Assembly on February 21. The Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly to the Russian State Duma and Federation Council is an annual speech introduced to the Russian constitution in February 1994 that is roughly equivalent to the US President’s annual State of the Union Address. Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov stated on February 15 that Russian federal television channels will set aside an hour to broadcast Putin’s address to the Federal Assembly on February 21.[8] Putin postponed his annual address to the Federal Assembly several times in 2022 likely in hopes of eventually using this speech to celebrate sweeping Russian victories in Ukraine but was unable to do so due to the lack of such victories and amidst heightened criticism of the Kremlin’s management of the war.[9] Putin has delivered unimpressive addresses in recent months to mark symbolic anniversaries and dates and likely scheduled his postponed address to coincide with the first anniversary of Russia’s recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics (DNR/LNR).[10] Putin will likely repackage Russian measures to integrate occupied territories into the Russian Federation as a novel achievement.

Russian military failures in Ukraine continue to deny Putin the ability to present military success to the Russian public. The Russian military has not achieved significant operational success in Ukraine since the capture of Severodonetsk in July 2022. Ukrainian forces have liberated almost 18,000 square kilometers of territory since then. Putin may have scheduled the address to the federal assembly in the expectation that Russian forces would secure at least a tactical success in the Bakhmut area, although Russian forces have only gained about 500 square kilometers in the Bakhmut area in intensive campaigning since July 4, 2022, while suffering extravagant casualties. Putin could announce the start of a subsequent mobilization wave, although most indicators and assessments suggest that he will not do so at this time.[11] ISW, along with UK Defense Minister Ben Wallace, assesses that the Russian military has already committed a significant number of its available formations to intensified offensive operations in Ukraine and that the lack of large uncommitted reserves will likely prevent Putin from announcing the start of an entirely new large-scale offensive effort.[12] Putin will likely continue to deliver insignificant public addresses as the absence of Russian military success in Ukraine deprives him of the opportunity to claim or convincingly promise a victory of any significance. The stubborn Ukrainian defense of Bakhmut itself, despite the cost in Ukrainian lives and materiel, would prevent Putin from even claiming that Russia has secured that city on the war’s anniversary, a claim that could give Putin, the Russian military, and the Russian public renewed hope of winning and possibly increase the Kremlin’s willingness to demand more of its people to press on.

The Kremlin continues to pursue efforts to censor dissent through societal intimidation tactics. Russian Federation Council Speaker Valentina Matviyenko proposed on February 15 that federal communication supervisor Roskomnadzor publish a list of Telegram channels that are hostile to Russia and label such channels with icons indicating this status.[13] The Kremlin is unable to force Telegram to introduce these icons and is seemingly unwilling to block Telegram, which pro-Russian milbloggers use heavily to speak to the Russian people. The list is likely meant instead to intimidate the Russian public into refraining from engaging with content that the Kremlin deems to be dangerous to Russian security. The Kremlin is likely to include independent media, Western sources, and opposition outlets on the list. The Kremlin is highly unlikely to use the measure to target milbloggers, even those critical of the Russian military or the Kremlin itself, as they continue to appeal to the ultra-nationalist pro-war community that is their audience.

A Kremlin-affiliated milblogger claimed on February 15 that Iran and Russia were creating and sharing technology on high-precision bombs, missiles for UAVs, and attack aircraft. The milblogger alleged that Russia has agreed to purchase over 100,000 Iranian artillery and mortar rounds and especially 152mm rounds. Rybar stated that Iran possesses large stocks of 122mm shells for D-30 howitzers and BM-21 Grad Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS). The milblogger suggested that Russia could employ Iranian proxies and partners in Iran, Iraq, Syria, and other unnamed countries to fight in Ukraine.[14]

Key Takeaways

Russia’s costly military campaign in Ukraine has likely significantly depleted Russian equipment and manpower reserves necessary to sustain a successful large-scale offensive in eastern Ukraine.
Russia’s inability to reconstruct spent mechanized material in the short term further restricts the Russian military’s mechanized maneuver warfare capabilities.
Russian President Vladimir Putin is unlikely to announce measures for further escalation of the war in Ukraine, major new Russian mobilization initiatives, or any other significant policy in his planned address to the Russian Federal Assembly on February 21.
Russian forces continued offensive operations northwest of Svatove and along the Svatove-Kreminna line.
Russian forces continued offensive operations around Bakhmut, along the western outskirts of Donetsk City, and in western Donetsk Oblast.
Russian sources implied that Ukrainian forces may hold positions on the east (left) bank of the Dnipro River in Kherson Oblast, although ISW has not observed any confirmation of the claim.
The Kremlin continues to fund its war efforts in Ukraine from regional budgets.
The Russian government continues to further integrate occupied territories into Russian governance structures."
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 26379
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

old salt wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 12:37 am
a fan wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 12:31 am
old salt wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 12:15 am Man. You really miss having Petey to argue with.
Not at all. I told you....if you don't want to answer these questions...move on to tanks. No problem.

And BTW, you've yelled at me----repeatedly-----for daring to assume you agree with a citation. This the the game that Tech and you have perfected...where no matter what I do, it's wrong, and I'm a jerk.

If I assume you agree with a citation, and that's why you're posting it, you bite my head off.

And here you are, handing me two citations, in lieu of telling me what woke is. I can't win no matter what I do.


BTW. Using those definitions, my 82 year old father is "woke". Pretty sure that's not what is getting you so riled up.

You want to discuss things civilly? I'm trying. Cut me some slack.
I posted definitions of "woke" from Webster's & the Oxford dictionaries. Both work for me.
I'll respond further in the DeSantis thread.
That definition from Merriam Webster is fine...so, why do you deride being "woke", using the word pejoratively?
Why do you deride the effort to rename bases, streets, etc as "woke"?
Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 32849
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by Typical Lax Dad »

old salt wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 1:46 am
DocBarrister wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 1:18 am
old salt wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 12:53 am
DocBarrister wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 12:51 am
old salt wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:03 pm
a fan wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 5:13 pm These people fought to dissolve the US of A. As an American that believes in that Constitution....I'm not cool with that.
The secessionists were convinced they were doing the same thing their parents had done in revolting against England just a few decades earlier. They still viewed the USA as a voluntary compact of independent states.
You interpret history from today's perspective. The Confederates did not expect to defeat the Union, they wanted to make it too costly to defeat them & hoped to force a compromise on the westward expansion of slavery. They did not count on Lincoln's ability to sustain support for the war & tolerate the casualties & carnage which Grant, Sherman & others wrought in achieving a military victory.
Wow … first you defend Putin and Russia … now the Confederacy?

:?

DocBarrister :roll:
With your background, I thought you'd be able to distinguish objective analysis from advocacy.
My objective analysis is that you have defended Putin, Russia, and the Confederacy on this forum.

That is not subject to debate.

The question is why you are defending Putin, Russia, and the Confederacy.

DocBarrister
Understanding what motivated the Confederates, Russians & Putin & their perspective is not defending them.
You can't undo Russian or US history.
You believe people on this board don’t know this?
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
Farfromgeneva
Posts: 23266
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2019 10:53 am

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by Farfromgeneva »

Typical Lax Dad wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:42 pm
old salt wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:40 pm
a fan wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:28 pm
PizzaSnake wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:25 pm
old salt wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:16 pm obtw -- the Constitution allowed slavery. It was a compromise from the inception which enabled ratification of the Constitution, or there was no chance of 13 United States. Had there not been compromises on slavery, from the founding thru the Civil War, there is little chance that the USA would have been founded & evolved as it has. This is not to say slavery was a positive thing. We can't deny the impact it had on how the nation was founded & developed.
Sound like yer ready to do some of that there CRT study... Better stay out of Floriduh or DeSatan'll git ya.
Pizzasnake makes one heckuva point. Do you have a reply?
I've always appreciated the impact of slavery on our nation's development -- economically, socially & culturally.
I realized that long before CRT. We had affirmative action & outreach to African-American recruits & service members from the time I began serving in the Navy. It continued & evolved as the program names changed.
thanks for your service :lol: :lol:
It’s clear he appreciates the impact of slavery on our nations development…until we allowed people to start being equal…
Now I love those cowboys, I love their gold
Love my uncle, God rest his soul
Taught me good, Lord, taught me all I know
Taught me so well, that I grabbed that gold
I left his dead ass there by the side of the road, yeah
Farfromgeneva
Posts: 23266
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2019 10:53 am

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by Farfromgeneva »

a fan wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 11:07 pm
old salt wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 10:23 pm
a fan wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 9:12 pm
old salt wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:40 pm
a fan wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:28 pm
PizzaSnake wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:25 pm
old salt wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:16 pm obtw -- the Constitution allowed slavery. It was a compromise from the inception which enabled ratification of the Constitution, or there was no chance of 13 United States. Had there not been compromises on slavery, from the founding thru the Civil War, there is little chance that the USA would have been founded & evolved as it has. This is not to say slavery was a positive thing. We can't deny the impact it had on how the nation was founded & developed.
Sound like yer ready to do some of that there CRT study... Better stay out of Floriduh or DeSatan'll git ya.
Pizzasnake makes one heckuva point. Do you have a reply?
I've always appreciated the impact of slavery on our nation's development -- economically, socially & culturally.
I realized that long before CRT. We had affirmative action & outreach to African-American recruits & service members from the time I began serving in the Navy. It continued & evolved as the program names changed.
What I meant was: you've appeared in the past to be aligned with DeSantis with what you've called "woke" teaching.

To me, this "woke" you've chided in the past means things like doing just what you suggested: teaching kids about the impact of slavery (and its offshoots, racism, segregation, etc.) on our nation's development-----economically, socially, and culturally. Things that weren't taught when you and I were kids.

But here you appear to be all for teaching these things that you yourself have learned. Care to clarify?
I don't recall aligning with DeSantis or mentioning "woke" teaching. You didn't in the same post. Or at least I don't think you did. You have indeed lashed out at "woke", and never really define what it is....because any time I ask you, I get the next line.

No thanks. I'm not interested in following you down that bottomless rabbit hole.
So i'm left guessing at what your definition is when you say "woke".

The point I'm making here is that you appear to align with what others would call woke when it comes to American teaching. To "appreciate the impact of slavery on our nation's development". That's what many people would call "woke"(and that's where DeSantis comes in, because he's pushing back on teaching what you just said in the quotation marks....and I was simply pointing out that from DeSantis and other's perspectives, you're being woke here.

Not looking for a fight, and turning down the vitriol as best I can. You don't have any comment? That's fine. Go back to tanks.
You did specifically ask for his definition of woke not one from a dictionary. And presumably further you want him to state why he is using it the way he is. But you won’t get that. Afraid of “putting it on wax”.
Now I love those cowboys, I love their gold
Love my uncle, God rest his soul
Taught me good, Lord, taught me all I know
Taught me so well, that I grabbed that gold
I left his dead ass there by the side of the road, yeah
Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 32849
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by Typical Lax Dad »

Farfromgeneva wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 9:09 am
a fan wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 11:07 pm
old salt wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 10:23 pm
a fan wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 9:12 pm
old salt wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:40 pm
a fan wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:28 pm
PizzaSnake wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:25 pm
old salt wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:16 pm obtw -- the Constitution allowed slavery. It was a compromise from the inception which enabled ratification of the Constitution, or there was no chance of 13 United States. Had there not been compromises on slavery, from the founding thru the Civil War, there is little chance that the USA would have been founded & evolved as it has. This is not to say slavery was a positive thing. We can't deny the impact it had on how the nation was founded & developed.
Sound like yer ready to do some of that there CRT study... Better stay out of Floriduh or DeSatan'll git ya.
Pizzasnake makes one heckuva point. Do you have a reply?
I've always appreciated the impact of slavery on our nation's development -- economically, socially & culturally.
I realized that long before CRT. We had affirmative action & outreach to African-American recruits & service members from the time I began serving in the Navy. It continued & evolved as the program names changed.
What I meant was: you've appeared in the past to be aligned with DeSantis with what you've called "woke" teaching.

To me, this "woke" you've chided in the past means things like doing just what you suggested: teaching kids about the impact of slavery (and its offshoots, racism, segregation, etc.) on our nation's development-----economically, socially, and culturally. Things that weren't taught when you and I were kids.

But here you appear to be all for teaching these things that you yourself have learned. Care to clarify?
I don't recall aligning with DeSantis or mentioning "woke" teaching. You didn't in the same post. Or at least I don't think you did. You have indeed lashed out at "woke", and never really define what it is....because any time I ask you, I get the next line.

No thanks. I'm not interested in following you down that bottomless rabbit hole.
So i'm left guessing at what your definition is when you say "woke".

The point I'm making here is that you appear to align with what others would call woke when it comes to American teaching. To "appreciate the impact of slavery on our nation's development". That's what many people would call "woke"(and that's where DeSantis comes in, because he's pushing back on teaching what you just said in the quotation marks....and I was simply pointing out that from DeSantis and other's perspectives, you're being woke here.

Not looking for a fight, and turning down the vitriol as best I can. You don't have any comment? That's fine. Go back to tanks.
You did specifically ask for his definition of woke not one from a dictionary. And presumably further you want him to state why he is using it the way he is. But you won’t get that. Afraid of “putting it on wax”.
Old Segregationist uses the term “woke” more than anyone on this site and more than anyone I have ever met. Most people bring it up here in response to Old Segregationist’s posts. Most….not all but most.
Last edited by Typical Lax Dad on Thu Feb 16, 2023 10:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
Farfromgeneva
Posts: 23266
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2019 10:53 am

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by Farfromgeneva »

DocBarrister wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 2:52 am
old salt wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 2:39 am
DocBarrister wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 2:06 am
old salt wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 1:58 am
DocBarrister wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 1:53 amWhat more is there to understand?
How to defeat Russia without the US entering into combat.
President Biden and NATO/EU have done a good job on that so far.

The entire world owes Ukraine a great debt in fighting Putin and Russia on our behalf. Calling the current conflict a proxy war is accurate, and we should offer no apologies about that.

We should give Ukraine everything they ask for, including advanced combat aircraft and ATACMS missiles. That is the least we should do since they are fighting and dying so that we don’t have to.

How can we defeat Russia without the U.S. entering into combat?

Give Ukraine everything they need to defeat Russia for us … that’s how.

DocBarrister
We don't have a reason to fight Russia. Both Biden & the (R)'s have made that clear.

So far, Biden has made clear, in what he is willing to provide, that he won't give what's needed to defeat Russia, which requires weapons able to reach targets inside Russia & Crimea. ATACMS missiles are no longer in production & DoD does not want to reduce our limited inventory. HIMARS are good enough for targets within Ukraine. The only practical fighter aircraft are the Mig-29's which Poland & Bulgaria can't replace in time with F-16's or F-35's for their own defense. Slovakia has a few Mig-29's they can no longer maintain, but they're too afraid of Russia to donate them. The F-16 reman production line is maxed out making fighters for Poland, Taiwan, & other E NATO allies who need them for their own defense. Without the ability to suppress Russia's air defenses, aircraft losses would be unacceptable.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/sl ... 023-02-10/
https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/pola ... pare-parts

There are questions about both sides ability to produce munitions sufficient to defeat the enemy.
It's far from certain that the US & NATO can out-produce Russia fast enough.
We're starting to see daylight between what Ukraine wants & what Biden is willing to provide.
We don’t have a reason to fight Russia?!?

Are you kidding me?

Putin invaded an independent, sovereign democracy in Europe without provocation.

That’s not reason enough?

You have clearly failed to learn the lessons of history.

As for Biden, he moves cautiously (maybe too cautiously), but he has already approved HIMARS, tanks, armored vehicles, and Patriot air defense systems … all once unthinkable.

He will get around to combat jets and ATACMSs. Lockheed Martin can start up production again if the President orders them to do so.

DocBarrister
I would argue his invasion alone isn’t enough but in conjunction with all sorts of other actions, aspects and variables we have justification at this stage.

We can’t run into every country that’s invaded by another. That’s far too simplistic and a mistake. But here…different story for too many reasons to list.
Now I love those cowboys, I love their gold
Love my uncle, God rest his soul
Taught me good, Lord, taught me all I know
Taught me so well, that I grabbed that gold
I left his dead ass there by the side of the road, yeah
Farfromgeneva
Posts: 23266
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2019 10:53 am

Re: All Things Russia & Ukraine

Post by Farfromgeneva »

Typical Lax Dad wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 9:29 am
Farfromgeneva wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 9:09 am
a fan wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 11:07 pm
old salt wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 10:23 pm
a fan wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 9:12 pm
old salt wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:40 pm
a fan wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:28 pm
PizzaSnake wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:25 pm
old salt wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:16 pm obtw -- the Constitution allowed slavery. It was a compromise from the inception which enabled ratification of the Constitution, or there was no chance of 13 United States. Had there not been compromises on slavery, from the founding thru the Civil War, there is little chance that the USA would have been founded & evolved as it has. This is not to say slavery was a positive thing. We can't deny the impact it had on how the nation was founded & developed.
Sound like yer ready to do some of that there CRT study... Better stay out of Floriduh or DeSatan'll git ya.
Pizzasnake makes one heckuva point. Do you have a reply?
I've always appreciated the impact of slavery on our nation's development -- economically, socially & culturally.
I realized that long before CRT. We had affirmative action & outreach to African-American recruits & service members from the time I began serving in the Navy. It continued & evolved as the program names changed.
What I meant was: you've appeared in the past to be aligned with DeSantis with what you've called "woke" teaching.

To me, this "woke" you've chided in the past means things like doing just what you suggested: teaching kids about the impact of slavery (and its offshoots, racism, segregation, etc.) on our nation's development-----economically, socially, and culturally. Things that weren't taught when you and I were kids.

But here you appear to be all for teaching these things that you yourself have learned. Care to clarify?
I don't recall aligning with DeSantis or mentioning "woke" teaching. You didn't in the same post. Or at least I don't think you did. You have indeed lashed out at "woke", and never really define what it is....because any time I ask you, I get the next line.

No thanks. I'm not interested in following you down that bottomless rabbit hole.
So i'm left guessing at what your definition is when you say "woke".

The point I'm making here is that you appear to align with what others would call woke when it comes to American teaching. To "appreciate the impact of slavery on our nation's development". That's what many people would call "woke"(and that's where DeSantis comes in, because he's pushing back on teaching what you just said in the quotation marks....and I was simply pointing out that from DeSantis and other's perspectives, you're being woke here.

Not looking for a fight, and turning down the vitriol as best I can. You don't have any comment? That's fine. Go back to tanks.
You did specifically ask for his definition of woke not one from a dictionary. And presumably further you want him to state why he is using it the way he is. But you won’t get that. Afraid of “putting it on wax”.
Old Segregationist uses the term “woke” more than anyone on this site and more than anyone I have ever met. Most people bring up here in response to Old Segregationist’s posts. Most….not all but most.
It’s just childish. And that’s coming from someone who could be charitably described as a “habitual line stepper” (me)
Now I love those cowboys, I love their gold
Love my uncle, God rest his soul
Taught me good, Lord, taught me all I know
Taught me so well, that I grabbed that gold
I left his dead ass there by the side of the road, yeah
Post Reply

Return to “POLITICS”