- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict
Posted on 8/5/23 at 4:17 pm to El Segundo Guy
Posted on 8/5/23 at 4:17 pm to El Segundo Guy
If we accept that Russia if Russia succeeds in Ukraine it will likely continue elsewhere, then perhaps elsewhere is a NATO country, like anywhere in the Baltics. Then perhaps the question is where is defeating Russia cheapest?
I would say the answer is in Ukraine, where there are motivated, competent troops.
Waiting for an attack on a NATO country would be foolish because then our sons are fighting.
Better to end the aggression in Ukraine.
I would say the answer is in Ukraine, where there are motivated, competent troops.
Waiting for an attack on a NATO country would be foolish because then our sons are fighting.
Better to end the aggression in Ukraine.
1
Posted on 8/5/23 at 4:19 pm to ColtRange
quote:
This is a reach.
There is nothing in any of those videos to suggest anything other than that a building in Dontesk is on fire at this point, specifically this one:
Posted on 8/5/23 at 4:47 pm to ColtRange
quote:
Not to mention the media is starting to run articles that ask some realistic questions for once, this was basically nonexistent until the last couple weeks.
The media's narrative has been trending this way since mid June when they first started putting out pieces on the counter offensive not moving as fast as predicted (by them). I see this mainly as covering their arses about those predictions, but it is also a route for the tempering of support to be founded on public sentiment talking points if the political capital shifts enough for it to be warranted.
With that said - why are pieces by MSNBC, The Guardian, CNN, etc any more reliable now that they are saying doom and gloom than overly optimistic ones earlier?
Posted on 8/5/23 at 4:53 pm to OutsideObserver
Exit266 has put out a very good thread on the Ukrainian USV/UAV strikes in the Black Sea over the last few days and the wider implications they may have on the war.
I won't post it as it is very lengthy with lots of footage and secondary sources but encourage those with a genuine interest in this aspect of the conflict to check it out.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1687700933046923264.html
Edit: Clarity
I won't post it as it is very lengthy with lots of footage and secondary sources but encourage those with a genuine interest in this aspect of the conflict to check it out.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1687700933046923264.html
Edit: Clarity
This post was edited on 8/5/23 at 4:54 pm
Posted on 8/5/23 at 4:53 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
This works both ways.
Correct. Neither side can continue to fight this war indefinitely. It may temporarily look like a stalemate, but there's almost nothing static about it.
Either:
1) Ukraine runs out of the ammo it needs to stay on the offensive and/or runs out of time before the mud season; or
2) Russia's lines, weakened by artillery losses and a lack of troop rotations, become too weak and Ukraine advances rapidly.
I actually agree with Colt that, if Ukraine doesn't achieve any strategic objectives by mud season, this is going to end up as a frozen conflict.
The US will continue to provide such things as ammo and spare parts, but I am convinced that there won't be another big package unless Ukraine can show some results from what they've already been given.
I have said similar things many times before here. America loves a winner, and Ukraine will get a lot more military aid if they look like winners. Colt is correct that support for aid to Ukraine is in decline at the moment, and it's for exactly this reason.
Posted on 8/5/23 at 4:56 pm to GOP_Tiger
quote:Good post but I feel compelled to point out that a frozen conflict was my prediction. Colt stated that Ukraine would be forced to surrender if they continued to push the offensive.
I actually agree with Colt that, if Ukraine doesn't achieve any strategic objectives by mud season, this is going to end up as a frozen conflict.
Posted on 8/5/23 at 4:59 pm to GOP_Tiger
quote:
I have said similar things many times before here. America loves a winner, and Ukraine will get a lot more military aid if they look like winners. Colt is correct that support for aid to Ukraine is in decline at the moment, and it's for exactly this reason.
If the US pulls away because we fear Ukraine will not win, we lose bigly. Gotta hand it to the Ukrainians who are fighting a war against a power that is nearly four times their size. On paper they shouldn't win. They need help and perhaps strategy.
Posted on 8/5/23 at 5:02 pm to northshorebamaman
Yeah, Ukraine isn't going to surrender. That's absurd.
Anyway, I just remembered this piece by Dr. Jack Watling in the Financial Times that says much the same thing: by November, the trajectory of the conflict will become clear.
Anyway, I just remembered this piece by Dr. Jack Watling in the Financial Times that says much the same thing: by November, the trajectory of the conflict will become clear.
quote:
The question is which side can sustain the current rate of attrition. On the southern front, Russia’s 58th Combined Arms Army has borne the brunt of the fighting. About a quarter of the force is in the fighting positions at any one time and the Russians have had to rotate troops. They have few reserves. Ukraine, meanwhile, has fed additional units from the 10th Corps into the fight, keeping up the pressure. At some point, Russia’s infantry might be spread too thin and, with insufficient artillery and armoured support the defence could crumble. Dry weather will allow Ukraine to continue its push until the beginning of November. This will be a critical point: from then on, progress will depend on which side has made better preparations for winter fighting.
The stakes are high for Kyiv. If it breaks through it could liberate significant amounts of territory and force Russia to surge new units into Ukraine before they have finished training. Conversely, if Ukraine fails to breach the Surovikin Line then Russia can keep new units back, train and prepare them, and regain the initiative. Either way, Kyiv will need ongoing international assistance. But by autumn, the trajectory of the conflict will be clear.
Posted on 8/5/23 at 5:03 pm to El Segundo Guy
quote:
In my opinion, if Ukraine can't make substantial territorial gains quickly, Crimea is firmly in Russia's control.
I will attempt to make this succinct...
Unfortunately I tend to agree with this statement. But I also tend to view Europes and our country's tepid response/support prior to and during this most recent event to be the cause of this. Clearly Ukraine has the will..
There is a commitment in place to defend Ukraine and imo we have not taken Russia's aggression over recent years seriously enough which is reflected in Ukraine's slow progress.. So for us (as allies) putting a time line on success is imo undermining our own commitment.. However I am fully cognizant of the ebb and flow of public opinion..
Unless and until Russia directly attacks us I have no interest in our direct involvement. But I feel we have under supported Ukraines interests and efforts up to this point based upon our commitment...
The extent of that support would be difficult for me to quantify beyond saying I would like for Ukraines' borders to be restored out of principle... Obviously much easier said than done.. and at the end of the day Ukraine may be satisfied to settle for something different..
Posted on 8/5/23 at 5:08 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:I'm starting to wonder how much influence we even have with regards to strategy after recent rumblings that they're abandoning our tactical advice.
They need help and perhaps strategy.
Posted on 8/5/23 at 5:13 pm to aTmTexas Dillo
quote:
If the US pulls away because we fear Ukraine will not win, we lose bigly.
If Biden is going to continue his wishy-washy approach of trying to give Ukraine just enough, without Russia losing too fast, then yes, "we" will lose, because it would reinforce the picture of US weakness that Biden presented the world with our shameful Afghanistan fiasco.
And it would obviously hurt Biden's chances in the election as well. In fact, the cynical take on how slowly we are providing aid to Ukraine is that Biden wants Ukrainian victory to happen as close to the 2024 election as possible, so that he can bask in the glory of it.
But that's also part of why I think that we are about to finally give Ukraine ATACMS. Those, GLSDB, and Abrams tanks could be part of a decisive Ukrainian push in the next few months. I mean, I don't have any confidence in Biden, but I feel confident that his advisors can figure out the implications either way -- I don't believe he's completely surrounded by idiots.
Posted on 8/5/23 at 5:16 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
I'm starting to wonder how much influence we even have with regards to strategy after recent rumblings that they're abandoning our tactical advice.
We spent two decades training and equipping the Afghan and Iraqi armies only to watch those get toppled in a matter of weeks if not days. Without a massive amount of AirPower and logistical support from the US I don’t see the lines changing dramatically.
Posted on 8/5/23 at 5:27 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
Agree.
Posted on 8/5/23 at 5:28 pm to GOP_Tiger
Sullivan is a pussy. Trying to slow walk this shite was a terrible plan if you actually wanted to accomplish something besides dead Russians.
Posted on 8/5/23 at 5:38 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
I'm starting to wonder how much influence we even have with regards to strategy after recent rumblings that they're abandoning our tactical advice.
I have talked to a lot of friends that I have in Ukraine. The mood on the street in Ukraine is that the USA is doing just enough to keep Ukraine from losing and they do not believe the USA really wants Ukraine to win. They cite the low number of M1A2s given and the lack of fighter planes given by the USA. One of my friends in Odessa believe the USA is setting them up to Vietnam 3.0 and Afghanistan 2.0. Obviously they are not involved in the strategy of the UAF but if the mood of the people on the street reflects the mood of the people involved in the strategy then I would say that USA is losing influence by the day. Which I think it is warranted. Ukraine's 2 biggest success in this war their victory in the Battle of Kyiv last spring and the Kharkiv oblast offensive last fall were both done with minimal US involvement.
ETA: Minimal US involvement in planning strategy and tactics. The USA and NATO gave Ukraine a shite load of intelligence in both cases but the USA did not provide a lot of strategy in the defense of Kyiv and recommended against the Kharkiv oblast offensive.
This post was edited on 8/5/23 at 6:00 pm
Posted on 8/5/23 at 5:42 pm to BRHSBulldog
quote:
if Russia succeeds in Ukraine it will likely continue elsewhere,
I disagree with that premise. Putin isn't invading a NATO country. Ukraine was a fairly soft target and there been hit hard. They're in no position to threaten anyone, especially a NATO country.
This post was edited on 8/5/23 at 5:43 pm
Posted on 8/5/23 at 5:50 pm to AnotherWin4LSU
quote:
Ukraine's 2 biggest success in this war their victory in the Battle of Kyiv last spring and the Kharkiv oblast offensive last fall were both done with minimal US involvement.
As I understand it... without our intelligence and input, Russia would have taken that airport outside of Kyiv and this would've been over by the end of last summer...
Posted on 8/5/23 at 5:57 pm to klrstix
quote:
As I understand it... without our intelligence and input, Russia would have taken that airport outside of Kyiv and this would've been over by the end of last summer...
I meant on the strategic side. Western intelligence helped but it was Russian incompetence more than anything. Some of my friends were in the TDF units that fought at the airport. Western intel let them know that the airport was going to be attacked and let them get into position. However if Russia had come in with a lot of air support then they would have been destroyed while moving from their staging positions to the airport. Luckily for them Russia decided it only needed bare minimum air support for the mission.
Posted on 8/5/23 at 5:58 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:Yes. I believe the hope was that the Ukes would be different because they're much more motivated due to being invaded by outsiders. And while I do believe them to be more motivated than your examples, that's clearly not enough to stand up entire corps in a years time, much less effectively master our combined arms doctrine, so much of which assumes air superiority.
We spent two decades training and equipping the Afghan and Iraqi armies only to watch those get toppled in a matter of weeks if not days.
Posted on 8/5/23 at 6:01 pm to ColtRange
quote:
I think Ukraine's leadership should be realistic about the situation that they're in, instead they choose to mislead their population with fantasies of expelling Russia from the Donbas & Crimea. If they continue losing manpower and resources at this rate, they're going to end up ceding far more territory to Russia. Y'all won't admit it but popular support in the West is fading fast and it's only a matter of time until the aid shipments slow significantly. The best case scenario for Ukraine right now is to negotiate peace, dig in, and save what manpower they left. This is the real world, what's fair rarely factors in.
You actually think that you have a better understanding of Ukraine’s military situation than the Ukrainian military and leadership?
I can’t decide if you’re more delusional or narcissistic
Page 3119 of 5046
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News