|
Originally Posted by GlobalNav
(Post 11338903)
I agree. There are too many examples of using warfare as an ineffective means of "sending a message" and mostly because we fail to grasp the mind of the audience. Strikes against targets in Russia, if there are any, should be to impact Russia's ability to make strikes against Ukraine and to reduce its material capacity to wage war. In spite of Russia's attack on Ukrainian civilians, having little practical military effect, Ukraine should not do the same. As stated by several, Ukraine is smaller than Russia by every measure except morality and grit. Focus limited military resources on Russian military resources to make them all the more limited and keep the world on your side.
Ukraine has fought a war that has been aided by the weapons, but they have outthought, and outperformed Russia on every level of management of the war to date. They have applied flexibility and rapid decision making, good communications and initiative, while Russia fights set piece 1812 reenactments, and the longer this goes on, the closer Russia gets to applying 1812 technology, they have proceeded from 1980's through 1940's to 1891... a bit more and they will be looking for sling shots. How Vlad intends to suppress the states of the federation having shown them that the emperor has no clothes, and is rather uninspiring in what is exposed by that fact, well, I think Vlad is going to be in the books long after his spill from the 6th floor window is carried out for him. Ukraine has managed to unmask Russia, at considerable cost to itself, and a little bit of help seems to go a long way. parking some F-16s in Poland might be helpful in sending a message, but Ukraine needs range within its own borders, the F-16 doesn't significantly alter the ability to do what they have been doing best, fighting Russia in the field, and exposing the incompetence and impotence of the second most powerful army in Ukraine. Vlad has managed to lead Russia to the point that they are able to kill a 1 day old child in a hospital, yet their mercenaries, criminals and draftees are being slaughtered in the field by those that they deride. 97% of all long range weapons employed by Russia to date have been used to commit war crimes. Yup, Vlad will definitely make history, but presumably, not the way he intended. |
Originally Posted by langleybaston
(Post 11338942)
I beg to differ.
Worst case scenario is NATO is indeed dragged in, and the nukes start flying. In my view unlikely, neither NATO nor Russia wish it, and Ukraine doesn't have much say. Doomsday if it happens. Second worst case scenario is indeed Russia "takes" Ukraine, with Ukr armed forces defeated, the citizens exposed to appalling revenge and the country a wasteland. In my view possible, and we now have two losers because: ......... ................ NATO is strengthened in resolve, and Russia is weakened militarily and morally, the customers for gas and oil having long decided to wean themselves. The very possible weakness of this solution is Western resolve in the face of a harsh winter [or two], shortages of all sorts, and weariness. The media are bored with the war unless a big spectacular forces its way up the agenda ......... were it not for Forums such as this, most of us would know little of the war and care less. It is not the subject of pub conversation, and the Churches just ask for the occasional prayer for "peace". They and we should be praying for Victory, the victory of good over evil. Just finished Overreach by Owen Matthews - he is quite pessimistic about any satisfactory possible outcome. |
Originally Posted by Spunky Monkey
(Post 11338943)
There seems tobe a lot of people saying give them more modern equipment, tanks and aircraft.
What those voices forget is that the Ukrainians will need training on this equipment. It will also need different logistics vehicles and methods, as well as different repair and maintenance facilities. It would be like building a whole new second army, with new tactics and command and control. Plus you would have to take large units out of the battle and train them. All this between December and March. The Russians want to negotiate, the Ukrainians understandably do not. Hitting Russian infrastructure although morally correct would be counter productive. A better start would be giving the Ukes the long range MLRS / Himars and allowing them to close the Kerch Bridge and crater all the runways in Crimea, after all it is Ukrainian territory. A couple of F16s and a handful of Abrams on the Polish border sends a strong rearmament message without them having to be fully deployed. Then they can start making noises for negotiations. |
With respect I found it difficult to understand your post langleybaston. Are you suggesting that Europe is fed up with the war and will not react to a counter offensive and the re-taking of (maybe all) Ukrainian territory by Russia? Or are you saying that Russia do not have the means to do it?
|
Originally Posted by uxb99
(Post 11338890)
We have to consider that while Russia may still have some reserves to send into the fight like aircraft, tanks and men so does the west.
If Russia did stage a winter offensive and start to push the Ukrainians back (I think unlikely but never underestimate your enemy) the West would have no option (and I think America would be the main supplier here) to send better equipment. Russia risks losing it's reserves very quickly if it finds itself embroiled in a more high tech war than it's seen so far. Russia will be bringing up more modern equipment it's been holding in reserve. The West is still giving Ukraine it's outdated equipment. That's an interesting war of attrition when you think about it. As an example,
|
Originally Posted by melmothtw
(Post 11338739)
Ukraine is not the Troubles. A far more relevant question would be to ask what ended the Second World War in Europe?
See also Falklands, GW1 etc. The only way this will end is either a total withdrawal or the removal of Putin. |
|
Originally Posted by FUMR
(Post 11339133)
With respect I found it difficult to understand your post langleybaston. Are you suggesting that Europe is fed up with the war and will not react to a counter offensive and the re-taking of (maybe all) Ukrainian territory by Russia? Or are you saying that Russia do not have the means to do it?
|
Originally Posted by NutLoose
(Post 11339139)
|
Originally Posted by Beamr
(Post 11339137)
Out of curiosity, what "more modern equipment" is Russia still holding back?
I also made the assumption the West would supply more modern equipment. They may not be willing in case it falls into Russian hands. We can probably be of more use to Russia than their intel will be to us. That's definitely something to avoid if possible. |
|
Originally Posted by langleybaston
(Post 11338942)
I beg to differ.
The media are bored with the war unless a big spectacular forces its way up the agenda ......... were it not for Forums such as this, most of us would know little of the war and care less. It is not the subject of pub conversation, and the Churches just ask for the occasional prayer for "peace". They and we should be praying for Victory, the victory of good over evil. |
Originally Posted by HOVIS
(Post 11339187)
I beg to differ... Ukraine is on UK news every day, BBC, ITV, SKY, CH4 etc.
|
Originally Posted by HOVIS
(Post 11339187)
I beg to differ... Ukraine is on UK news every day, BBC, ITV, SKY, CH4 etc.
Ditto D Tel online Plenty of football ................... |
Originally Posted by langleybaston
(Post 11339194)
BBC News online as I write .................. very little on the war
Ditto D Tel online Plenty of football ................... |
BBC News online as I write .................. very little on the war https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-europe-63785132 Putin using winter as weapon of war in Ukraine - Nato chief Europe has to prepare for more refugees - Stoltenberg Russia low on ammunition and failing on the battlefield - Stoltenberg |
There appears to be 2 versions of the BBC news, depending on where you are viewing it from.
Outside the UK, coverage of the war and problems in China and Iran are prominent. the cynic in me may think there is a UK government agenda there, while , if viewed in the UK, local news and sport is more prominent . I view their website in several countries during my travels and the tailoring of news is quite obvious, however, i am still a fan. |
Originally Posted by waffler
(Post 11339221)
There appears to be 2 versions of the BBC news, depending on where you are viewing it from.
Outside the UK, coverage of the war and problems in China and Iran are prominent. the cynic in me may think there is a UK government agenda there, while , if viewed in the UK, local news and sport is more prominent . I view their website in several countries during my travels and the tailoring of news is quite obvious, however, i am still a fan. |
I do try to keep it topical on here as I firmly believe it is the most important event in the last 30 years that has the potential to effect all our lives, the lives of those in the poorer countries and destroy our planet.. It also appears the rest of the world, Iran, Turkey, China, North Korea, the Balkan States etc are using it as and excuse to sabre rattle in the background while a lot of the world attention is on Russia.
The world and its security is teetering on an edge, something a year ago was unthinkable. The Russian bear needs it's teeth pulling so peace can resume and famines in Africa can be averted. |
Originally Posted by melmothtw
(Post 11339224)
I wouldn't say there's any conspiracy. Outside the UK there is greater emphasis on World news, while inside the UK there is greater emphasis on UK news though the World news is all still there if you want it.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:32. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.