I agree. I also don't know much artillery we actually use nowadays given that most recent military operations have been counter-insurgencies.
If we get involved in a land war it will be quite a lot....though with our airpower we pretty much dominate. I am most surprised that Russia has not controlled the skies.....that the shoulder covered anti - air missiles have been so successful..... I have heard stories of Russian pilots only flying to the edge of Russia and launching their missiles and turning back they are refusing to go into Ukranian Air Space. DD
Militarily, Russia has vastly underperformed. Politically, it has made NATO stronger. Economically is where Putin has the most leverage and his planning has been relatively shrewd. Russia (and China) have used the West's emphasis on efficiency over reliability over the last several decades against it. Capitalism (efficiency) has outsourced critical supply chains and strategic resources into places that are hostile and adversarial. I don't think it's a coincide that Russia has built up its exports of precious metals and fossil fuels which they can effectively leverage. On the other hand, it won't be cheap or easy losing it's largest trading partner which also happens to be next door.
Air power is super important. Russia is getting exposed now that they're fighting a real army and not defenseless Syrian children.
Very true, but the short term/medium term is different which is what the Russians and Chinese are counting on.
what could go wrong As Ukraine war bogs down, U.S. assessments face scrutiny The growing conjecture is fueled by U.S. assessments of other wars, notably Afghanistan, where officials habitually sidestepped questions of whether success was sustainable https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/07/02/ukraine-russia-us-assessments/ excerpt: The shifting nature of the war in Ukraine has prompted a split among analysts and U.S. lawmakers, with some questioning whether American officials have portrayed the crisis in overly rosy terms while others say the government in Kyiv can win with more help from the West. The growing conjecture comes more than four months after Russia’s invasion and its failure to seize the capital. Russian President Vladimir Putin has since narrowed its objectives, focusing on capturing eastern Ukraine’s industrial Donbas region while launching thousands of artillery rounds per day at outgunned Ukrainian forces. President Biden, speaking Thursday at a summit of NATO leaders, said the United States is “rallying the world to stand with Ukraine” and pledged to support the cause “as long as it takes.” “I don’t know … how it’s going to end,” the president said, “but it will not end with a Russian defeat of Ukraine in Ukraine.” *** The scrutiny is fueled by U.S. government assessments of other wars, notably in Afghanistan, where U.S. officials habitually glossed over widespread dysfunction and corruption and sidestepped questions of whether battlefield successes were not only achievable but sustainable. Successive administrations insisted Afghan forces were “in the lead” even as their performance was often deeply flawed — and their survival depended on U.S. logistical support and air power. The Biden administration has committed more than $6.9 billion in weapons and other security assistance to Ukraine since Russia’s Feb. 24 invasion, while encouraging other Western allies to provide similar help. The weapons have become increasingly sophisticated, with recent packages including the M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, surface-to-air missile defense systems and launchers for Harpoon anti-ship missiles. Several observers said what the Biden administration says about the war in Ukraine appears to be accurate but that the Pentagon sometimes withholds information that would be unflattering to Ukrainian partners or highlight limitations on U.S. support. *** Kori Schake, director of foreign and defense policy studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said that with Ukraine as opposed to Afghanistan, the Pentagon lacks the incentive to “perennially” say the army that it is supporting is turning a corner. There are no known U.S. troops involved in the conflict, limiting the administration’s interest in making such pronouncements, she said. But Schake criticized what she characterized as Pentagon officials “congratulating themselves” about the type and amount of weapons they are providing while leaving out that the United States could send more, faster. “Our sense of self-satisfaction and complacency and confidence is actually a disservice to Ukraine,” she said, calling such complacency “practically and morally suspect.” Schake assessed that Ukrainian forces are able to win the war and probably in the process of accumulating arms ahead of a major counteroffensive that cannot begin until they have enough to repel the Russians. “We just need to slam the gas pedal on the floor and help them succeed as fast as possible,” she said. more at the link
We need Russia to fall and reorg as a democracy.....as their resources will be vital in the years ahead. DD
Not going to happen. If they fail, they'll just reconstitute as something the same but different, equally horrific in new packaging, in the same way that the Tzar's Okhrana became the "totally different", but exactly the same Soviet NKVD/KGB via the Cheka. Same @ssholes, different window dressing.
Can someone make sense of our current Ukraine policy? Russia is winning the war and with yesterday's capturing of Lysychansk, has already secured the eastern region of Ukraine (what they wanted). We are taking half-measures (and not nearly enough to matter) by sending billions of dollars worth of equipment and aid to Ukraine to support a losing effort. Meanwhile, oil & gas prices are soaring, sending the global economy into recession and ruining the quality of life for millions of Americans. Why are we still involving ourselves in this conflict? Why are we not attempting to help negotiate an end to the war? End the killing and restore quality of life to Americans.
We should be careful sending "advisors" to train Ukrainian forces and under no circumstances should US forces be in combat areas. Sending US advisors into combat areas is the type of creep that eventually drew us into Vietnam. I know the US is actively training Ukrainian forces but for the most part is doing so in the far west of Ukraine or in Poland and other NATO countries. If it was me I would do all the training in bordering NATO countries. The political risk of an active duty US troop being killed by Russians is very great and once that happens it will be very hard to resist directly engaging Russians.
Try find some old tweets Putin made in High School and get him canceled. that works int he real world I'm told.
This is one of the most naive things I’ve ever read it’s like pre Iraq war everybody screaming “they just want a taste of urrr freedom
What a shock, My DDingleberry comes in whining. I am not saying Russia WILL fall, but it would be GREAT for the world if it DID fall and reorged into a republic or some less - autocratic nation. Right now they are run by a big old crime family structure. It is called HOPE! DD
there are certainly American "advisors" in Kyiv, CIA for certain, and likely special forces. with Russian shelling, it's inevitable there will be American casualties at some point, if there haven't been already.
Yes there is a high probability this could happen. I think the rush to ramp will be hard to resist if that happens.
