re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Clearly he likes to flex his vocabulary and is pro Ukrainian in the end, but he gives a pretty even hand recount of what appears to be happening even if from a hope for Ukraine perspective. It is a far cry from anything oml level and more antithetical to OML style.

I think he fancies himself an amateur reporter. I believe he was an actual reporter in the past. Anyway, I appreciate his summaries and writing style, but I understand your objection.

quote:

---

Either way, it has shown that the only thing the Russians are capable of is encircle big cities near the border and shell them to the ground.

---

I have listened to HR McMaster a good bit over the past few weeks and he says this is by design. He calls the Russian Army an Artillery Army and everything is built to support that. Seems to be playing out pretty accurately.

quote:

---

I have listened to HR McMaster a good bit over the past few weeks and he says this is by design. He calls the Russian Army an Artillery Army and everything is built to support that. Seems to be playing out pretty accurately.

---

Makes sense when looking at all the artillery pieces and rockets they have. My question then is why in the world they tried to blitzkrieg Ukraine the first two weeks? If your army is set up to do these big encirclements and siege the city, why not just go with that? They're having to now resort back to that because their initial assault failed so spectacularly.

And even the only place where they've successfully been able to surround and shell is Mariupol.

quote:

---

Makes sense when looking at all the artillery pieces and rockets they have. My question then is why in the world they tried to blitzkrieg Ukraine the first two weeks? If your army is set up to do these big encirclements and siege the city, why not just go with that? They're having to now resort back to that because their initial assault failed so spectacularly.

And even the only place where they've successfully been able to surround and shell is Mariupol.

---

I think they expected to see the same sort of combat the USA saw in Iraq. And what they are seeing is that a free citizenry are far more willing to fight than the Iraqi citizens. Ukraine's militias are a force mulitplier that Russia likely did not expect.

Senator Roger Marshall (R-KS)

quote:

---

We don’t need to debate or talk about it.
Get the Ukrainians the damn weapons!
They will use them.
They will fight to the death, but they have to be empowered to do so.
The U.S. has been given so much. We are the leader of the free world - we need to start acting like it.

---

LINK

quote:

---

Full list of 31 Senators who voted against 2022 Omnibus Appropriations Act which included $13.6 billion in military and humanitarian aid for Ukraine

About half of the $13.6 billion will be spent on military aid for Ukraine as well as the cost of sending U.S. troops to NATO countries in Europe amid the crisis. The rest will be used for humanitarian aid and economic assistance. That aid is just one aspect of the much larger bill, which will fund the U.S. government and avoid a shutdown.

Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, John Boozman of Arkansas, Mike Braun of Indiana, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, Mike Crapo of Idaho, Ted Cruz of Texas, Steve Daines of Montana, Deb Fischer of Nebraska, Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, Josh Hawley of Missouri, John Hoeven of North Dakota, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, John Kennedy of Louisiana, James Lankford of Oklahoma, Mike Lee of Utah, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Roger Marshall of Kansas, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Jim Risch of Idaho, Mitt Romney of Utah, Mike Rounds of South Dakota, Marco Rubio of Florida, Ben Sasse of Nebraska, Rick Scott of Florida, Tim Scott of South Carolina, Dan Sullivan of Arkansas, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

---

quote:

---

About half of the $13.6 billion will be spent on military aid for Ukraine as well as the cost of sending U.S. troops to NATO countries in Europe amid the crisis. The rest will be used for humanitarian aid and economic assistance.

---

LINK

You army guys...Since McMaster (whom I trust) says this is an artillery army (Russia), what are its weaknesses as compared to what we do? Supply lines?

From my standpoint if you have adequate protection, an artillery unit is pretty hard to beat, esp with little or no air force.

quote:

---

You army guys...Since McMaster (whom I trust) says this is an artillery army (Russia), what are its weaknesses as compared to what we do? Supply lines?

---

The military term would be called combined arms. Artillery is pretty fricking awesome if you use it in conjunction with armor or infantry to accomplish a certain task. The idea is to put the enemy into a dilemma. Shoot a bunch of artillery so he has to hide in his hole or move in order to not die. While he’s hiding your ground units can advance without being shot at. If he moves he runs into a minefield or ambush. If he retreats you get to take his position. You should use all of your weapons in coordination to leave the enemy with no good options. This works on a micro and macro level. At the squad level you can use a machine gun and mortars to keep the enemy from popping up and shooting at you while your infantrymen through grenades into the enemy foxholes. So either die by grenade or die by machine gun fire. At a larger level you can assault with with tanks to drive the enemy into the open where artillery will frick them up.

Just launching a bunch of rockets and shells into the city or woods will kill some people but you’ll never take the actual ground you want.

quote:

---

Artillery is pretty fricking awesome

---

Fister