Russia's War Against Ukraine

[Jarhead0331]

Ive rewatched that section over and over and I dont see any white flags at all.

I see what Pete is referring to though. However, it appears to be a piece of torn cloth or plastic of some kind. Debris that  was blown onto a tree adjoining the trench by the concussion of the tank round blasts. It was clearly stuck against the tree and outside of the trench, not being waived by any of the infantry.

It is really amazing how much protection was afforded to the entrenched infantry. At some point, you think they would have realized though that their best and only chance of survival was to exfil and either swarm over the tank, or just scatter across the field.

Its amazing piece of footage. I caught it on Funker.

[GDS_Starfury]

possible new turret toss champion!   

https://twitter.com/i/status/1642191759437340675

[Skoop]

That being said, I don't think there is anyone here who would object to seeing how the Russian media is spinning the war, particularly as it pertains to the strategic situation on the battlefield. Starfury has definitely posted some twitter clips of Russian media discussing the war. Most will find it amusing and I don't think there is any risk of any of our members actually buying into any of Russian propaganda like some of them seem to have done with the Western brand of propaganda, which in my view is at least equally responsible for prolonging the war in certain respects.

I probably should just walk away, but let me pick up this bone and chew on it a little.

1) I grant you that both sides are doing their best to change hearts and minds, using methods both authentic and devious.  Are you asserting some kind of moral equivalence between the pro-Russian propaganda targeting its own people and the pro-Ukraine propaganda largely targeting Westerners?

2) Could you elaborate why you think Western propaganda is responsible for prolonging the war? 

I can imagine answers to these questions above, but you're a very logical guy.  Star, please don't start yelling at him and calling him names if he responds.  I'm trying to understand a side of the argument that I don't yet understand.

No reason to walk away. Your questions are genuine, reasonable and asked with interest in the spirit of open dialogue and discussion. That is refreshing and I am happy to indulge.

No. I am not asserting a moral equivalence. As I have said several times, and putting the issue of NATO expansion aside, nobody can make a credible argument that Russia's invasion is anything but entirely illegal and that the Russian military and Putin haven't committed egregious crimes in flagrant violation of international law.

However, while Russian propaganda is aimed at justifying its blatant acts of aggression, Western propaganda is substantially aimed at maintaining public support for the war not to ensure the freedom of the Ukrainian people, but rather to wage a proxy war that destabilizes Russia while benefiting the military industrial complex and multi-trillion dollar corporations that have extremely close ties to government.

Adam Schiff said before Congress, and I quote, "the United States aides Ukraine and her people so we can fight Russia over there so we don't have to fight Russia over here..."

In war, it is said, the truth is the first casualty.

Glad you guys hashed this out.  And I'd agree with you JH that we should be fearful of our military industrial complex running wild.  I'm pretty sure that's why Afghanistan went on for 20 years with no end in sight.

I do think Ukraine is far more complex though.  It does suck that defense corporations get rich off war, but as you can see they put out a good product and the Ukrainians are screaming for more of it.

What would be the alternative though, we put our foot down on the defense industry and end our support for Ukraine siting "we're only making ratheon execs rich here".  Meanwhile Putin is jumping for joy as Ukraine's supply of weapons runs out and he can now capture all of Ukraine.

This is just one of those situations where supporting Ukraine and enriching our defense industry aligned even though we don't like the idea of enriching our defense industry.

I'd agree with star, we would have pressed harder with support early on.  The Ukrainians should already be flying Jsow laden f16s and launching ATACM himars, the spring offensive would be a war winning final offensive.

[JasonPratt]

Not to get too far off-thread, but one reason Afghanistan went on for 20ish years with no end in sight, was because we couldn't stabilize the government enough to survive our departure. The Mil-Ind-Plex no doubt profited from that (as did all its employees, and the employees of companies supporting it, down to the McDonald's on the corner), but I would need to see some evidence that they actively hampered that stability (or created/sustained the instability) in order to keep producing product for their profits. Alternately, I'd want evidence that we could have left at any time prior to when we did without a Afghan collapse relatively soon afterward. Even Trump's phased withdrawal plan didn't leave behind a good chance of the government continuing, iirc -- it would just have been cleaner and more people would have migrated out more safely.

This could become relevant someday if Ukraine ends up depending on NATO force for continued survival without cleaning up its own act better.

[Skoop]

Yeah I wouldn't say the mil industrial complex sabotaged it, but it definitely benefited and I'm sure those lobbyists did their work to keep the mission going.

But yes the afghan government was never going to succeed with out including the tribal pastunes.  In hind site, they should have made a hybrid tribal government that represented all their people, not just corrupt karzi.  It's like Vietnam, we were just backing the wrong dog in the fight. 

[FarAway Sooner]

Yup.  That's why nation-building is so hard.  Karzai was the leader of the most powerful faction fighting the Talibs, but he was more interested in serving his faction (and himself) than he was in fighting the Taliban.

From an expense standpoint, we've still only spent a fraction in Ukraine of what we spent each year in Iraq and Afghanistan.  It's my understanding that, when we talk about the $$ value of equipment sent out to Ukraine, we're generally talking about the purchase cost of equipment we were likely throwing out in another 10 years anyway, as opposed to the actual expense we'll incur getting the stuff ready for combat and shipped overseas.

We'll obviously have to replace a lot of that inventory, but we were going to have to do so sooner or later anyways, and we will be replacing it with more modern stuff. 

On the topic of jets, I heard Ward Carroll and Justin Bronk discussing the topic of Western fighters a few months ago, and Bronk suggested that, in the case of F-16s, the combat juice wouldn't be worth the logistical squeeze.  The F-16 is a fine plane, he said, and better than much of what the Russians are flying, but it's not a good fit for what the Ukrainians need right now. 

It has a big logistical tail (easy for the Russians to spot and target) and requires a long, very clear runway (hard for the Ukrainians to find these days).  It's also not particularly well-suited to the mission required right now, which is primarily an anti-air mission operating from a low-altitude (the F-16 is a very capable air superiority platform, he says, but it's really designed to be firing at opponents from 20,000 feet).  Bronk suggested--and Carroll agreed--that the Swedish JAS-39 Grypen is a much better fit and specifically designed for the situation that the Ukrainians find themselves in today.

I can dig up that thread if anybody's interested.  I think it was probably even posted on here 40 or 50 pages ago.

[FarAway Sooner]

On the topic of missteps by the West, there are a number of folks saying that the Ukrainians didn't really have the logistical capabilities to support some of the fancier weapons systems (including NATO MBTs) much sooner.  Nobody is disputing that Ukraine really would have benefitted from already getting another quarter-million artillery shells right now.

All the NATO countries are relying on peacetime procurement protocols, which rely on clear market signals (e.g., signed contracts and multi-year spending commitments) before private actors start investing heavily in bringing additional factories online.  While that's worked fine for the weapons manufacturers, it hasn't worked well for the Ukrainians who need the weapons sooner.

[Gusington]

Unf*ckingbelievable 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65146557

[GDS_Starfury]

its 30 days, what could go wrong.
Im also a big fan of the Ukraine eventually getting Grippens.  fantastic platform!

[GDS_Starfury]

the beaver saga continues.
now with the name Sigourney Beaver.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1642322005520269312

[GDS_Starfury]

[GDS_Starfury]

[Crossroads]

Mrs Star: If I catch you one more time googling internet for beaver pictures...   [leaves room, smoldering]

Star:

[GDS_Starfury]

a bad day to take gift is russia.

[JasonPratt]

It hadn't occurred to me before that Reactive Armor may be no good against even a small kaiju...