Russia-Ukraine war has begun

[Joe_Hoopsier]

We've already agreed to 30. This is just the first shipment.

With Over a 400 KM line, with 3 active attack fronts, do you think that 10 now or 30 (some time, maybe, if all goes well with practice gloves) is anything other than a half ass attempt to "diplomacy"?

I pray there is some master strategery behind this. The rest of the world, who are watching also.
There is nothing like sending a formidable weapon, into combat, in inferior numbers, other than to lose that weapon and it's crew. I pray that "they" have a card up their sleeve. Russia needs to feel a decisive fail.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

I read it as the first 10 of a total of 31.
31 tanks provides two armored companies.
10 would serve 2 platoons and HQ.

Yea, supposed to be 31, sometime. It's taken 18 (of our reported 7000 stock pile??) months for 10.
31.

Thirty one : Seven Thousand ...

Sorry for the Dramatics, but damn . Then not even 31, it's 10. over 18 months and then replace the 10 that get destroyed, up to 31 total. I don't want our boys/ girls with boots on the ground, end this MF'er now! with ultra extreme prejudice.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

More news on that 13sept23 attach on the Black Sea Fleet.

https://english.nv.ua/nation/62-crew-killed-in-ukrainian-missile-strike-on-russian-landing-ship-in-sevastopol-news-50356024.html

 

[DANC]

I read it as the first 10 of a total of 31.
31 tanks provides two armored companies.
10 would serve 2 platoons and HQ.

That still isn't much, in the entire scheme of things.

Better than nothing, but I have to agree that it's more of an experiment, at this point. If they prove particularly effective, they'll probably get more.

 

[DANC]

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/it’s-time-west-embrace-ukraine’s-way-war-not-doubt-it

Interesting essay from Gen. Jack Keane’s ISW charges.

Fits the fact pattern on the ground … small unit targets require precision artillery strikes …
Carpet bombing them with massed artillery exposes the artillery to counter battery fire …
And depletes artillery rounds,

It’s timing is perhaps piling on … waiting for success first.

I'd like to see Gen. Keane as Sec of Defense.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I'd like to see Gen. Keane as Sec of Defense.

He's already had the chance, and he's getting old now. Seems unlikely at this point.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

That still isn't much, in the entire scheme of things.

Better than nothing, but I have to agree that it's more of an experiment, at this point. If they prove particularly effective, they'll probably get more.

I just saw a report that the US is already discussing sending 30 more Abrams. Now that's starting to sound better. I sure hope they can inflict some pain before the mud season gets started.

 

[TomEric4756]

The blue part below around Robotyne has been bigger the past few days

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

I enjoy Denys daily video reports.

 

[DANC]

I enjoy Denys daily video reports.

View embedded media

Good stuff.

 

[hoosboot]

The blue part below around Robotyne has been bigger the past few days

How do you think the threat of lessened U.S. aid for the war effort will impact the trends on the battlefield?

 

[TomEric4756]

How do you think the threat of lessened U.S. aid for the war effort will impact the trends on the battlefield?

Don’t have any hard info on existing supply levels. The short run expectation is not that much. Fully funding the Ukrainian government can’t last forever as interest expense increases from US Debt roll over. Sending an IG to audit the shrinkage for Civilian and Military use should have been done a long time ago.

 

[hoosboot]

Don’t have any hard info on existing supply levels. The short run expectation is not that much. Fully funding the Ukrainian government can’t last forever as interest expense increases from US Debt roll over. Sending an IG to audit the shrinkage for Civilian and Military use should have been done a long time ago.

Thanks for the response. I wonder if that would be a way to get continued support. I don't fully grasp the practical realities of trying to have an IG on the ground there, but it makes sense. I agree about the short run, but I think the concern is if it snowballs into less support by NATO allies at a crucial point in the war. If it continues, what does the Spring look like?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Don’t have any hard info on existing supply levels. The short run expectation is not that much. Fully funding the Ukrainian government can’t last forever as interest expense increases from US Debt roll over. Sending an IG to audit the shrinkage for Civilian and Military use should have been done a long time ago.

Slovakia just elected a Putinista, Poland has pulled the plug. It is beginning to look bad for Ukraine.

I am reading a book on Col. Hackworth. He discusses that in the last year of the Korean War, units had to fill out equipment loss forms. This was because Congress/Ike were desperate to reduce costs. He said all officers would make things up, they didn't have time in battle to verify everything. Even behind the lines there was loss, theft was common. Units would steal from each other, Koreans would steal, the enemy would sneak across and steal. He was very upset to be forced into lying on the loss forms, he felt making lying mandatory in this made it easier to lie on important items.

I really don't know how accounting in war zones works. But it is clear Hackworth did not believe it possible. I am up into his Vietnam experience, the book is excellent. He easily could be a movie subject, it is a shame he hasn't been. Though he was the basis for the Air Cav commander in Apocalypse Now.

15 Stories From The Wild Life Of David Hackworth, Who Inspired Two 'Apocalypse Now' Characters

He inspired not one but two characters in Apocalypse Now. David Hackworth, the inspiration for Colonel Kurtz and Bill Kilgore, admits that he went wild in Vietnam. After shooting at his own men and opening a whorehouse, Hackworth hopped on his surfboard to escape a court martial. In his...

www.ranker.com

 

[TomEric4756]

Yes @Marvin the Martian, lots of books, movies, and TV serials, are rife with stories of supply shenanigans.

If we can start with
1) Did the money get paid to legitimate sources of munitions and equipment suppliers?
2) How much of the sourced material made it to the forward supply depots?
3) Is there evidence of over payment, where munitions were diverted at source of supply to undeserving third parties? Or, where funds were kicked back to the procuring officer?
4) What is the apparent shrinkage from the forward supply depots?

Supply officers, knowing they will be audited, may be less willing cheat.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Yes @Marvin the Martian, lots of books, movies, and TV serials, are rife with stories of supply shenanigans.

If we can start with
1) Did the money get paid to legitimate sources of munitions and equipment suppliers?
2) How much of the sourced material made it to the forward supply depots?
3) Is there evidence of over payment, where munitions were diverted at source of supply to undeserving third parties? Or, where funds were kicked back to the procuring officer?
4) What is the apparent shrinkage from the forward supply depots?

Supply officers, knowing they will be audited, may be less willing cheat.

I agree there are general things that can be done, but at the same point a too strict of an audit can create problems in a war. There never has been a war fought without loss/theft. There is some historical figure we know about from American wars, to wildly make up a number, 10%. If we audit and find that 10%, we can't let that become a reason to stop support.

 

[DANC]

Slovakia just elected a Putinista, Poland has pulled the plug. It is beginning to look bad for Ukraine.

I am reading a book on Col. Hackworth. He discusses that in the last year of the Korean War, units had to fill out equipment loss forms. This was because Congress/Ike were desperate to reduce costs. He said all officers would make things up, they didn't have time in battle to verify everything. Even behind the lines there was loss, theft was common. Units would steal from each other, Koreans would steal, the enemy would sneak across and steal. He was very upset to be forced into lying on the loss forms, he felt making lying mandatory in this made it easier to lie on important items.

I really don't know how accounting in war zones works. But it is clear Hackworth did not believe it possible. I am up into his Vietnam experience, the book is excellent. He easily could be a movie subject, it is a shame he hasn't been. Though he was the basis for the Air Cav commander in Apocalypse Now.

15 Stories From The Wild Life Of David Hackworth, Who Inspired Two 'Apocalypse Now' Characters

He inspired not one but two characters in Apocalypse Now. David Hackworth, the inspiration for Colonel Kurtz and Bill Kilgore, admits that he went wild in Vietnam. After shooting at his own men and opening a whorehouse, Hackworth hopped on his surfboard to escape a court martial. In his...

www.ranker.com

60 Minutes ran a story that interviewed a Ukrainian official (or maybe it was a US official) who said they have a database of equipment, where each piece was sent, and what unit was using them.

Whether this is true, I don't know, but it would seem relatively simple to do such a thing.

I think the idea that we're sending war material over there and it's being hijacked or resold for profit is missing the point - the arms industry is the real winner in this war. I would worry more about price gouging from them to replace the material we've sent to Ukraine.

Ukraine is in a war for survival - I imagine they're using whatever we're giving them.

 

[IUCrazy2]

60 Minutes ran a story that interviewed a Ukrainian official (or maybe it was a US official) who said they have a database of equipment, where each piece was sent, and what unit was using them.

Whether this is true, I don't know, but it would seem relatively simple to do such a thing.

I think the idea that we're sending war material over there and it's being hijacked or resold for profit is missing the point - the arms industry is the real winner in this war. I would worry more about price gouging from them to replace the material we've sent to Ukraine.

Ukraine is in a war for survival - I imagine they're using whatever we're giving them.

The grift is most likely in the other aid sent.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

Awesome #'s

 

[DANC]

Awesome #'s

View embedded media

The number of lives lost in such a short time just boggles my mind.

 

[DANC]

The grift is most likely in the other aid sent.

It's clear Ukrainian society is being propped up by US dollars. I don't like it, but I also don't want to see the Baltic states get swallowed up and NATO sucked into a war.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

It's clear Ukrainian society is being propped up by US dollars. I don't like it, but I also don't want to see the Baltic states get swallowed up and NATO sucked into a war.

There are things I'd much rather use the money for, but there aren't things more important than stopping Putin and by extension, stopping Xi.

Ho told the French that he would lose 100 men for every French loss, but he would still win. We are in danger of losing a war where we aren't losing anyone. If we aren't willing to see a war through with no American casualties, we might as well turn over Taiwan now.

 

[Standard Issue]

There are things I'd much rather use the money for, but there aren't things more important than stopping Putin and by extension, stopping Xi.

Ho told the French that he would lose 100 men for every French loss, but he would still win. We are in danger of losing a war where we aren't losing anyone. If we aren't willing to see a war through with no American casualties, we might as well turn over Taiwan now.

We're spending pennies on the dollar helping Ukraine. Russia is bleeding men, equipment and cash and we're writing a check that isn't signed in blood. Seems like a bargain.

 

[BradStevens]

We're spending pennies on the dollar helping Ukraine. Russia is bleeding men, equipment and cash and we're writing a check that isn't signed in blood. Seems like a bargain.

If we aren't willing to see a war through with no American casualties, we might as well turn over Taiwan now.

Serious question: does this kind of thinking mean there is zero opportunity cost to using this money/these assets in this way?

 

[TomEric4756]

https://www.understandingwar.org/ba...hy-putin-invaded-ukraine-and-how-war-must-end

ISW provides a nuanced explanation for why the war started. Bottom Line given as:

The idea of providing Putin with an “off-ramp” and a “face-saving” opportunity completely fails to learn the lessons of the past nine years. Putin created for himself a diplomatic “off-ramp” in 2015 not because diplomacy convinced Putin to abandon his pursuit of Ukraine, but rather because he realized that freezing the frontlines was his best option for continuing to pursue control over Ukraine. In 2014, the Kremlin overestimated support for Russia in Ukraine, underestimated Ukrainian resistance, and overestimated Russia’s ability to create a proxy force capable of achieving military objectives without a large-scale Russian deployment. As a result, Russia was able to secure only portions of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, instead of the originally planned six regions of Ukraine beyond Crimea.[75] Russia would likely have secured even less had it not deployed the Russian military to prevent Ukrainian forces from liberating more territory.[76]

Putin stopped in 2015 because he recognized that his military efforts had failed to reestablish full control over Ukraine, that he had reached the limits of Russian power and his own risk tolerance, and that continuing the active conflict would have required the gamble of launching an unprepared and under-resourced full-scale invasion of Ukraine at the time.[77] Putin chose instead to accept a temporary setback to advance his larger objective. The West’s last ‘off-ramp’ for Putin did not secure peace. It led to the Kremlin’s eight-year-long campaign attempting to convert Russia’s limited military presence in Ukraine into political control over the country, and when that campaign failed, Putin resorted to full-scale invasion.

An enduring end to the current Russian war on Ukraine requires forcing Putin to accept defeat. He—and his successors—must be made to realize that they cannot impose their will on Ukraine and the West militarily, cannot suborn Ukraine politically, and cannot prevail diplomatically. As long as the Kremlin cherishes the hope of success—which any face-saving compromise settlement would fuel—it will continue to seek to overcome its setbacks in ways that make renewed war very likely.

Ukraine and the West should seek a permanent end to this conflict, not a temporary respite.Renewed war will likely be larger in scale and even more dangerous to Ukraine and the West. It will be extremely costly as well since a renewed war once Moscow has rearmed and prepared will likely be far costlier and more dangerous. Demands to reduce the financial burden of supporting Ukraine now simply store up greater risk and expense for the future.

There is no path to real peace other than helping Ukraine inflict an unequivocal military defeat on Russia and then helping to rebuild Ukraine into a military and society so strong and resilient that no future Russian leader sees an opportunity like the ones Putin misperceived in 2014 and 2022. This path is achievable if the West commits to supporting Ukraine in the prolonged effort likely needed to walk down it. If the West is instead lured by the illusion of some compromise, it may end the pain for now, but only at the cost of much greater pain later. Putin has shown that he views compromise as surrender, and surrender emboldens him to reattack. This war can only end not when Putin feels that he can save face, but rather when he knows that he cannot win.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Serious question: does this kind of thinking mean there is zero opportunity cost to using this money/these assets in this way?

There certainly is. I said there were other things I would rather use the money for. But I need to use the money for this. So yes, we aren't able to lower the deficit, or invest in other programs we need. Without a doubt this spending helps contribute to inflation.

There is that West Wing quote I think they attribute to FDR, something like, "when your neighbor's home is on fire, you don't haggle over the price of your hose".

 

[IUCrazy2]

https://www.understandingwar.org/ba...hy-putin-invaded-ukraine-and-how-war-must-end

ISW provides a nuanced explanation for why the war started. Bottom Line given as:

The idea of providing Putin with an “off-ramp” and a “face-saving” opportunity completely fails to learn the lessons of the past nine years. Putin created for himself a diplomatic “off-ramp” in 2015 not because diplomacy convinced Putin to abandon his pursuit of Ukraine, but rather because he realized that freezing the frontlines was his best option for continuing to pursue control over Ukraine. In 2014, the Kremlin overestimated support for Russia in Ukraine, underestimated Ukrainian resistance, and overestimated Russia’s ability to create a proxy force capable of achieving military objectives without a large-scale Russian deployment. As a result, Russia was able to secure only portions of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, instead of the originally planned six regions of Ukraine beyond Crimea.[75] Russia would likely have secured even less had it not deployed the Russian military to prevent Ukrainian forces from liberating more territory.[76]

Putin stopped in 2015 because he recognized that his military efforts had failed to reestablish full control over Ukraine, that he had reached the limits of Russian power and his own risk tolerance, and that continuing the active conflict would have required the gamble of launching an unprepared and under-resourced full-scale invasion of Ukraine at the time.[77] Putin chose instead to accept a temporary setback to advance his larger objective. The West’s last ‘off-ramp’ for Putin did not secure peace. It led to the Kremlin’s eight-year-long campaign attempting to convert Russia’s limited military presence in Ukraine into political control over the country, and when that campaign failed, Putin resorted to full-scale invasion.

An enduring end to the current Russian war on Ukraine requires forcing Putin to accept defeat. He—and his successors—must be made to realize that they cannot impose their will on Ukraine and the West militarily, cannot suborn Ukraine politically, and cannot prevail diplomatically. As long as the Kremlin cherishes the hope of success—which any face-saving compromise settlement would fuel—it will continue to seek to overcome its setbacks in ways that make renewed war very likely.

Ukraine and the West should seek a permanent end to this conflict, not a temporary respite.Renewed war will likely be larger in scale and even more dangerous to Ukraine and the West. It will be extremely costly as well since a renewed war once Moscow has rearmed and prepared will likely be far costlier and more dangerous. Demands to reduce the financial burden of supporting Ukraine now simply store up greater risk and expense for the future.

There is no path to real peace other than helping Ukraine inflict an unequivocal military defeat on Russia and then helping to rebuild Ukraine into a military and society so strong and resilient that no future Russian leader sees an opportunity like the ones Putin misperceived in 2014 and 2022. This path is achievable if the West commits to supporting Ukraine in the prolonged effort likely needed to walk down it. If the West is instead lured by the illusion of some compromise, it may end the pain for now, but only at the cost of much greater pain later. Putin has shown that he views compromise as surrender, and surrender emboldens him to reattack. This war can only end not when Putin feels that he can save face, but rather when he knows that he cannot win.

That sounds rather familiar.....

Not to be a fly in the ointment, but what if Ukraine is unable to force the issue on the battlefield?

 

[DANC]

That sounds rather familiar.....

Not to be a fly in the ointment, but what if Ukraine is unable to force the issue on the battlefield?

They're forcing it now, so I don't see why they wouldn't be able to in the future, unless we abandon them.

 

[IUCrazy2]

They're forcing it now, so I don't see why they wouldn't be able to in the future, unless we abandon them.

I hope that is correct. I'm not in for funding a war neither side can win for 20 more years though. I hope there is some plan here. The people in charge don't give me much faith there is.

 

[DANC]

I hope that is correct. I'm not in for funding a war neither side can win for 20 more years though. I hope there is some plan here. The people in charge don't give me much faith there is.

We can outlast Russia when it comes to spending, I have no doubt about that. We broke the Soviet Union in the 80s with defense spending.

Agree 100% about the people in charge on the US side. Ukrainians have proven themselves capable and adaptable in fighting Russians. We spent years in Vietnam and decades in Afghanistand backing the wrong horse. We can't withdraw when we're backing winners.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

https://www.understandingwar.org/ba...hy-putin-invaded-ukraine-and-how-war-must-end

ISW provides a nuanced explanation for why the war started. Bottom Line given as:

The idea of providing Putin with an “off-ramp” and a “face-saving” opportunity completely fails to learn the lessons of the past nine years. Putin created for himself a diplomatic “off-ramp” in 2015 not because diplomacy convinced Putin to abandon his pursuit of Ukraine, but rather because he realized that freezing the frontlines was his best option for continuing to pursue control over Ukraine. In 2014, the Kremlin overestimated support for Russia in Ukraine, underestimated Ukrainian resistance, and overestimated Russia’s ability to create a proxy force capable of achieving military objectives without a large-scale Russian deployment. As a result, Russia was able to secure only portions of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, instead of the originally planned six regions of Ukraine beyond Crimea.[75] Russia would likely have secured even less had it not deployed the Russian military to prevent Ukrainian forces from liberating more territory.[76]

Putin stopped in 2015 because he recognized that his military efforts had failed to reestablish full control over Ukraine, that he had reached the limits of Russian power and his own risk tolerance, and that continuing the active conflict would have required the gamble of launching an unprepared and under-resourced full-scale invasion of Ukraine at the time.[77] Putin chose instead to accept a temporary setback to advance his larger objective. The West’s last ‘off-ramp’ for Putin did not secure peace. It led to the Kremlin’s eight-year-long campaign attempting to convert Russia’s limited military presence in Ukraine into political control over the country, and when that campaign failed, Putin resorted to full-scale invasion.

An enduring end to the current Russian war on Ukraine requires forcing Putin to accept defeat. He—and his successors—must be made to realize that they cannot impose their will on Ukraine and the West militarily, cannot suborn Ukraine politically, and cannot prevail diplomatically. As long as the Kremlin cherishes the hope of success—which any face-saving compromise settlement would fuel—it will continue to seek to overcome its setbacks in ways that make renewed war very likely.

Ukraine and the West should seek a permanent end to this conflict, not a temporary respite.Renewed war will likely be larger in scale and even more dangerous to Ukraine and the West. It will be extremely costly as well since a renewed war once Moscow has rearmed and prepared will likely be far costlier and more dangerous. Demands to reduce the financial burden of supporting Ukraine now simply store up greater risk and expense for the future.

There is no path to real peace other than helping Ukraine inflict an unequivocal military defeat on Russia and then helping to rebuild Ukraine into a military and society so strong and resilient that no future Russian leader sees an opportunity like the ones Putin misperceived in 2014 and 2022. This path is achievable if the West commits to supporting Ukraine in the prolonged effort likely needed to walk down it. If the West is instead lured by the illusion of some compromise, it may end the pain for now, but only at the cost of much greater pain later. Putin has shown that he views compromise as surrender, and surrender emboldens him to reattack. This war can only end not when Putin feels that he can save face, but rather when he knows that he cannot win.

A cynic might suggest ISW's bias is showing through there.

 

[Bill4411]

We can outlast Russia when it comes to spending, I have no doubt about that. We broke the Soviet Union in the 80s with defense spending.

Agree 100% about the people in charge on the US side. Ukrainians have proven themselves capable and adaptable in fighting Russians. We spent years in Vietnam and decades in Afghanistand backing the wrong horse. We can't withdraw when we're backing winners.

I'd sure hope we would not abandon Ukraine as there is a very clear bad actor guy in this war and Russia is spending way more capital than are we. I wish the sanctions were working better against Russia but they still have cost them some money.

I'd think any US citizen who vacations in Russia as this point would have to be an absolute fool but they are still going there.

 

[DANC]

I'd sure hope we would not abandon Ukraine as there is a very clear bad actor guy in this war and Russia is spending way more capital than are we. I wish the sanctions were working better against Russia but they still have cost them some money.

I'd think any US citizen who vacations in Russia as this point would have to be an absolute fool but they are still going there.

We had a Northern European/Scandinavia cruise booked that included St Petersburg in June of 2000.

Fing Putin screwed me out of it - St Petersburg was high on my bucket list, but I don't think I'll ever see it now.

 

[Bill4411]

We had a Northern European/Scandinavia cruise booked that included St Petersburg in June of 2000.

Fing Putin screwed me out of it - St Petersburg was high on my bucket list, but I don't think I'll ever see it now.

You probably contributed to Putin's billion-dollar dacha construction project.

 

[DANC]

You probably contributed to Putin's billion-dollar dacha construction project.

No, I got 100% of my money back from Royal Caribbean and I hadn't booked flights yet.

I was still tempted to go, even without St Petes, but with my luck, I figured Russia would have seized the ship for being in territorial waters or some such shit With my background, I'd have been thrown in the gulag the rest of my life.

 

[Bill4411]

No, I got 100% of my money back from Royal Caribbean and I hadn't booked flights yet.

I was still tempted to go, even without St Petes, but with my luck, I figured Russia would have seized the ship for being in territorial waters or some such shit With my background, I'd have been thrown in the gulag the rest of my life.

I would have liked to have seen St. Petersburg at one time before I realized it's all new construction. The Germans destroyed the original palaces, etc. and you can't go very far before you stumble into the real Russia, a dump with a bunch of alcoholics wondering around-You could go to San Franscisco for a lot less. And who wants to be "detained" by the FSB.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

If people haven't found Perun on YouTube, he does frequent analysis. The one below is on Russian defense production. It is very long, over an hour, but I believe very thorough. Bottom line, in most areas there is every reason to believe production of new equipment isn't close to losses. But in drones it appears Russia will have a very significant advantage that should concern NATO.

 

[TomEric4756]

If people haven't found Perun on YouTube, he does frequent analysis. The one below is on Russian defense production. It is very long, over an hour, but I believe very thorough. Bottom line, in most areas there is every reason to believe production of new equipment isn't close to losses. But in drones it appears Russia will have a very significant advantage that should concern NATO.

View embedded media

Yes the asymmetric nature of (relatively) inexpensive drones attacking capital intensive assets, begs doctrinal questions as to whether capital intensive assets provide value v. their increased risks.

 

[Earlierthanlater]

No, I got 100% of my money back from Royal Caribbean and I hadn't booked flights yet.

I was still tempted to go, even without St Petes, but with my luck, I figured Russia would have seized the ship for being in territorial waters or some such shit With my background, I'd have been thrown in the gulag the rest of my life.

I adopted a child ( one of the last that was permitted ) in the late 90s. His baby home was north of

 

[DANC]

I adopted a child ( one of the last that was permitted ) in the late 90s. His baby home was north of

Friends of mine adopted a girl from an orphanage in Russia. Took them several trips there and cost a lot. The reason they were able to adopt her was because the doctors there said she had a heart problem.

Once they got her to the States, she had a physical and her heart was fine. Evidently the doctors there would make up medical problems because those kids were more adoptable.

This was also the late 90s.