Democracy’s Fiery Ordeal: The War in Ukraine 🇺🇦

[Tommy Callahan]

3 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

This is great that GB is sending 20 tanks and Germany 20 and us 31. 

 

However they are all different and use different parts.  So that's 3 different groups of Ukrainians that will get trained up.  But they won't know about the other 2. Same goes for mechanics.   Three supply lines for parts. The Abrams runs on jet fuel so 1 supply line for jet fuel and 1 for diesel.  And then getting them to the battlefield is no small feet either. And that's if Russia does find out where they are and bomb them before they can be used. How is this all gonna work?

 

I suppose this also means we will be shipping them a lot of jet fuel and an endless supply of ammunition.

 

Has anyone considered the environment impact of all this?

Stop using critical thinking skills. Just stick a uke avatars on your header and say something about supporting ukraine or supporting Putin. 

 

 

[ALF]

Trump suggests providing tanks to Ukraine will lead to 'nukes' and says ending the war with Russia would be 'easy'

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-suggests-providing-tanks-to-ukraine-will-lead-to-nukes-2023-1

[sherpa]

4 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

This is great that GB is sending 20 tanks and Germany 20 and us 31. 

 

However they are all different and use different parts.  So that's 3 different groups of Ukrainians that will get trained up.  But they won't know about the other 2. Same goes for mechanics.   Three supply lines for parts. The Abrams runs on jet fuel so 1 supply line for jet fuel and 1 for diesel.  And then getting them to the battlefield is no small feet either. And that's if Russia does find out where they are and bomb them before they can be used. How is this all gonna work?

 

I suppose this also means we will be shipping them a lot of jet fuel and an endless supply of ammunition.

 

Has anyone considered the environment impact of all this?

 

The tank thing is interesting. The Challengers from UK were last produced in the early 2000's, prior to 2005. Giving them 14 of them, old as they are and who knows what spare parts situation is, having been out of production for so long, doesn't seem to be militarily significant.

It certainly did break the diplomatic block that got them US tanks and many Leopards, which makes more sense.

The Leopard is far more easily operated in the Ukraine, including transport, recovery vehicles uniformity of weapons etc.

 

Toss those three into the mix along with scores of other systems they've not operated before and you have to wonder if they will ever achieve full capability.

 

It seems the Russians will attempt some kind of offensive in Feb that must be deterred.

Then, in late April or May they can mount a counter offensive and hopefully impact the current geo situation.

 

The Russians are not terminally stupid though. They are streamlining their defense production and eliminating wasteful programs that aren't doing anything while multiplying production of what they think does work.

 

This is going to be really high casualty warfare for both sides.

 

Edited January 27, 2023 by sherpa

[SoCal Deek]

On 1/26/2023 at 4:36 AM, Chris farley said:

Without air superiority, tanks are sitting targets.

 

 

I’m no war expert but I’m thinking the exact same thing. Those 31 tanks will be toast in three weeks. 

[Coffeesforclosers]

42 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

The tank thing is interesting. The Challengers from UK were last produced in the early 2000's, prior to 2005. Giving them 14 of them, old as they are and who knows what spare parts situation is, having been out of production for so long, doesn't seem to be militarily significant.

It certainly did break the diplomatic block that got them US tanks and many Leopards, which makes more sense.

The Leopard is far more easily operated in the Ukraine, including transport, recovery vehicles uniformity of weapons etc.

 

Toss those three into the mix along with scores of other systems they've not operated before and you have to wonder if they will ever achieve full capability.

 

It seems the Russians will attempt some kind of offensive in Feb that must be deterred.

Then, in late April or May they can mount a counter offensive and hopefully impact the current geo situation.

 

The Russians are not terminally stupid though. They are streamlining their defense production and eliminating wasteful programs that aren't doing anything while multiplying production of what they think does work.

 

This is going to be really high casualty warfare for both sides.

 

 

Yuuuuupppp. 

 

It's that third mobilization wave of 500,000 Russians that's got me worried.  If they're given 3-4 months to train, and if they're matched up with veteran cadres, and if they can leverage streamlined war production for equipment, Ukraine's got a large headache on the way. 

 

[dpberr]

6 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

This is great that GB is sending 20 tanks and Germany 20 and us 31. 

 

However they are all different and use different parts.  So that's 3 different groups of Ukrainians that will get trained up.  But they won't know about the other 2. Same goes for mechanics.   Three supply lines for parts. The Abrams runs on jet fuel so 1 supply line for jet fuel and 1 for diesel.  And then getting them to the battlefield is no small feet either. And that's if Russia does find out where they are and bomb them before they can be used. How is this all gonna work?

 

I suppose this also means we will be shipping them a lot of jet fuel and an endless supply of ammunition.

 

Has anyone considered the environment impact of all this?

You are correct.  I don't think the Ukrainians have a clue how to operate or maintain such sophisticated machinery.  This is like your life long Ford mechanic being asked to work in a Volvo dealership for a month on their own.  I have a feeling we're sending legit old M1 Abrams, but even those, are sophisticated pieces of machinery.  

 

What this move suggests to me is many more US and NATO soldiers in Ukraine.  The tanks themselves are not the dangerous escalation.  It's the increased opportunity of western "advisors" being killed by the Russians.  

[B-Man]

 

I wouldn't trust Putin either, but can't you at least act like you WANT PEACE ?

 

 

 

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky has rejected the prospect of peace talks with Vladimir Putin while dismissing his Russian counterpart Thursday as a “nobody.”

 

 

Zelensky used an interview with Britain’s Sky News to declare Putin “doesn’t want negotiations because he doesn’t want peace.”

https://news.sky.com/video/in-full-zelenskyy-interview-12795768

 

 

Pushed as to whether a face-to-face meeting with Putin would help pause the conflict, Zelensky switched from Ukrainian to English to say: “It is not interesting for me. Not interesting to meet, not interesting to speak.”

 

Key allies like the U.S. have already broached the possibility of a war with no end in immediate sight.

 

Zelensky cited his own reluctance to talk by pointing to a meeting he had with Putin under the Normandy Format before Russia’s full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022: “I saw the man who said one thing and then did another.”

 

Zelensky’s dismissal of Putin is a continuation of personal barbs between the two sides going back as far as last March when Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov labelled the Ukraine leader a “neo-Nazi.”

 

This is not the first time both sides have been subject to speculation about the prospect of talks.

 

U.N. chief Antonio Guterres sought to cast himself as a peacemaker between Russia and Ukraine last year, issuing a letter calling for a ceasefire and talks to be personally brokered by the veteran Portuguese socialist.

 

Both sides showed scant regard for Guterres and roundly ignored him and the globalist organization he represents.

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

I wouldn't trust Putin either, but can't you at least act like you WANT PEACE ?

 

 

 

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky has rejected the prospect of peace talks with Vladimir Putin while dismissing his Russian counterpart Thursday as a “nobody.”

 

 

Zelensky used an interview with Britain’s Sky News to declare Putin “doesn’t want negotiations because he doesn’t want peace.”

https://news.sky.com/video/in-full-zelenskyy-interview-12795768

 

 

Pushed as to whether a face-to-face meeting with Putin would help pause the conflict, Zelensky switched from Ukrainian to English to say: “It is not interesting for me. Not interesting to meet, not interesting to speak.”

 

Key allies like the U.S. have already broached the possibility of a war with no end in immediate sight.

 

Zelensky cited his own reluctance to talk by pointing to a meeting he had with Putin under the Normandy Format before Russia’s full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022: “I saw the man who said one thing and then did another.”

 

Zelensky’s dismissal of Putin is a continuation of personal barbs between the two sides going back as far as last March when Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov labelled the Ukraine leader a “neo-Nazi.”

 

This is not the first time both sides have been subject to speculation about the prospect of talks.

 

U.N. chief Antonio Guterres sought to cast himself as a peacemaker between Russia and Ukraine last year, issuing a letter calling for a ceasefire and talks to be personally brokered by the veteran Portuguese socialist.

 

Both sides showed scant regard for Guterres and roundly ignored him and the globalist organization he represents.

I dunno. After seeing what happened in Bucha and other Russian occupied towns (and imagining what’s happening in currently occupied areas), how can Ukraine accept a peace that leaves Ukrainians in Russian hands? And if they can’t, what’s the point in negotiating when returning to the pre-2014 borders isn’t currently on the table?

 

I imagine they want to see if they can recover the occupied territories or be far along enough in that process that it seems inevitable so that when they come to the table, they have a stronger position to end this on acceptable terms. 

[All_Pro_Bills]

4 hours ago, sherpa said:

 

The tank thing is interesting. The Challengers from UK were last produced in the early 2000's, prior to 2005. Giving them 14 of them, old as they are and who knows what spare parts situation is, having been out of production for so long, doesn't seem to be militarily significant.

It certainly did break the diplomatic block that got them US tanks and many Leopards, which makes more sense.

The Leopard is far more easily operated in the Ukraine, including transport, recovery vehicles uniformity of weapons etc.

 

Toss those three into the mix along with scores of other systems they've not operated before and you have to wonder if they will ever achieve full capability.

 

It seems the Russians will attempt some kind of offensive in Feb that must be deterred.

Then, in late April or May they can mount a counter offensive and hopefully impact the current geo situation.

 

The Russians are not terminally stupid though. They are streamlining their defense production and eliminating wasteful programs that aren't doing anything while multiplying production of what they think does work.

 

This is going to be really high casualty warfare for both sides.

 

I don't expect these tanks will do much good given the timeline to get them and the necessary personnel onto the battlefield.  But already I've seen calls to up the ante by sending F-16s.  I can only guess what the lead time to train crews with that fighter jet are but my guess is its measured in quarters to years in order to develop the necessary proficiency.  Add in the expense and logistics involved for support.

 

I believe assessments produced for domestic consumption that the Ukrainian military has the upper hand are greatly exaggerated.  I think there are several different ways this conflict can play out from here and one of them, which might be worst case scenario, is that no amount of funding or arms shipments of any kind are going to ultimately lead to victory and the Russians prevail, the Ukrainian capitol is occupied with a pro-Russian government installed, and their armed forces are neutralized.  So then what?  Does the administration, seeing this playing out, intervene and send in US forces to prevent this outcome.  I'd say that would be a very unpopular decision domestically both socially and politically.  Or do they just throw in the towel and let the country fall into Russia's sphere of influence?  Or before that happens does some deal get worked out?  There's a lot of things that can happen and also go wrong. 

 

My concern is there's a lot of risk and danger already baked in here for people beyond the borders of Ukraine and a lot more likely that can result from escalations on both sides.  And when I hear American officials such as Kirby speak and they nonchalantly dismiss any concerns about harming US strategic interests or Russian foreign minister Lavrov make thinly veiled threats it makes me worry all the adults have left the room and we're a lot closer to an all-out escalation and confrontation that will leave no winners.    

Edited January 27, 2023 by All_Pro_Bills

[sherpa]

3 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I don't expect these tanks will do much good given the timeline to get them and the necessary personnel onto the battlefield.  But already I've seen calls to up the ante by sending F-16s.  I can only guess what the lead time to train crews with that fighter jet are but my guess is its measured in quarters to years in order to develop the necessary proficiency.  Add in the expense and logistics involved for support.

 

 

The air war is something I do have a significant level of knowledge in.

The F-16 is a bad option for a lot of reasons.

It is far more complicated than other options and would have difficultly operating the Ukrainian runways, which are much rougher than what it is designed to operate on.

 

The Swedish Gripen makes a lot more sense for them. It would be a great choice.

 

Realistically, I think both sides are somewhat beyond the point of no return.

The Russians have totally screwed this up, but they are in a better position now than they were in early Dec.

The Ukrainians have a tough couple months ahead, but if they can hold out, they will be in a much better position in the late spring to utilized the massive aid they are getting.

Either way, supporters of the Ukraine cannot allow Russia a win here.

If separatist areas in the east truly want to hitch their wagon to a fatally flawed regime that has limited time left, let them go.

 

Beyond that, Russia bit off more than it can chew and has no hope of ever successfully occupying areas it once thought it could.

 

The wild card is Russian domestic opinion finally acknowledging reality and getting rid of this nut.

 

[Tiberius]

3 hours ago, Coffeesforclosers said:

 

Yuuuuupppp. 

 

It's that third mobilization wave of 500,000 Russians that's got me worried.  If they're given 3-4 months to train, and if they're matched up with veteran cadres, and if they can leverage streamlined war production for equipment, Ukraine's got a large headache on the way. 

 

I'll believe that when I see it. Like Sherman before Atlanta when Hood took charge of the Confederate army we should hope for an attack. I've seen no reason to believe Russians have cleaned up their sloppy communications and any attack will be telegraphed well in advance with location, units and equipment all known. The intelligence Ukrainians are getting--and the Russians are not getting--will be a giant advantage. Ukraine can plan for action, while the Russians will be mostly forced to react. 

 

I know there has been talk about "spring offensives" from both sides. Hitler waited until June 22 for Barbarossa, and while some say that was because of operation Punishment, the real reason was probably because of the mud. Now Ukraine has to wait to get all those different tanks and APC ready--no way is that done before summer--, so I would make a guess there is not big Ukrainian offensive until the rains stop, and a Russian attack will be a sh it show if it happens. 

18 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

 .  I think there are several different ways this conflict can play out from here and one of them, which might be worst case scenario, is that no amount of funding or arms shipments of any kind are going to ultimately lead to victory and the Russians prevail, the Ukrainian capitol is occupied with a pro-Russian government installed, and their armed forces are neutralized.   

That's just not happening. The Russians can't even pee straight. They are going to have enough trouble just holding onto what they have now. 

[sherpa]

I'm not going to quote the above, but there is evidence, from folks who know, that the Russians have evolved a bit from the initial ten month debacle.

They have been using "recon by fire" tactics, where they send in their conscripts, who immediately get slaughtered, but identify Ukrainian positions which are then attacked by regular Russian forces or their relatively skilled mercenaries.

 

They will do a much better job of this.

They have also gone to a full war mode in their domestic production capability which should result in better supplies for their next offensive.

How long that can las is anybody's guess, but it would be foolish to assume that they are not capable of learning from their idiotic mistakes, and will present a more formidable foe this year.  

[Tiberius]

Putin’s track record speaks for itself. How in the world Putin’s leadership could ever inspire confidence is beyond me. It’s laughable really. 

[sherpa]

5 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Putin’s track record speaks for itself. How in the world Putin’s leadership could ever inspire confidence is beyond me. It’s laughable really. 

 

Ever hear the phrase "Past performance is not indicative of future results?"

 

Military folks must never rely on continued, gross misjudgments.

 

Putin has likely learned quite a bit about his military and the inputs he received.

 

Make no mistake, the Russians have a lot of capability and seemingly not much interest in limiting their own casualties.

 

We are where he thought we'd be months ago; betting if NATO and the west has the stomach to bear the burden of wearing him out.

 

So far, he's looked the fool. I'm guessing he got a lot smarter and the net few months will be really ugly.

[Tiberius]

3 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

Ever hear the phrase "Past performance is not indicative of future results?"

 

Military folks must never rely on continued, gross misjudgments.

 

Putin has likely learned quite a bit about his military and the inputs he received.

 

Make no mistake, the Russians have a lot of capability and seemingly not much interest in limiting their own casualties.

 

We are where he thought we'd be months ago; betting if NATO and the west has the stomach to bear the burden of wearing him out.

 

So far, he's looked the fool. I'm guessing he got a lot smarter and the net few months will be really ugly.

Like I said, I’ll believe it when I see it. 
 

I doubt I will see it. 

[sherpa]

18 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Like I said, I’ll believe it when I see it. 
 

I doubt I will see it. 

 

Thankfully, tens of thousands of lives and a nation's future don't depend on waiting for "what you see."

[Tiberius]

If I'm Ukrainian leadership, this can only be seen as a good thing. But I'm sure those people thinking (hoping?) that this time it will be different for Russia and their "master strategist" Putin. They  see great things coming for an army hollowed out by corruption and burdened with low moral. But hey, ya gotta believe in something, I guess 

 

 

[sherpa]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

If I'm Ukrainian leadership, this can only be seen as a good thing. But I'm sure those people thinking (hoping?) that this time it will be different for Russia and their "master strategist" Putin. They  see great things coming for an army hollowed out by corruption and burdened with low moral. But hey, ya gotta believe in something, I guess 

 

 

 

 

Who are these people you suggest are hoping that Russia does better?

Nobody I know or care about.

 

Anyway, the first step towards military defeat is thinking the next time will be the same as the last time.

 

The Russians have had a year to look over their failure, and it's a near certainty, as well as factually observable that they have learned at least a few lessons.

[Tiberius]

Just now, sherpa said:

 

Who are these people you suggest are hoping that Russia does better?

Nobody I know or care about.

 

Anyway, the first step towards military defeat is thinking the next time will be the same as the last time.

 

The Russians have had a year to look over their failure, and it's a near certainty, as well as factually observable that they have learned at least a few lessons.

Can't wait for this offensive! I'm sure Putin has put together a great force for that! 🤣

[sherpa]

Again, who are "these people" who think that "Russia does better," or that Putin is a master strategist."

Please don't say Trump. That makes no sense and is preposterous.