Are you my new stalker? It's an opinion. If you have any evdience to the contrary please share.
This might be a little tougher than Putin thought...
- Thread starter Nole Lou
- Start date
Not new and not a stalker. Just highlighting another example of your backasswards logic being on display.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 97,954
- 204,314
- 113
It is poop or get off the pot time for the west. Putting in small amounts of weapons in dribs and drabs is just a waste of money and resources. Go big or get out. https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukrain...ew6x0440e92&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink
Following
and Stephen Fidler
Follow
Updated June 13, 2022 6:13 am ET
The war in Ukraine has turned into a grinding artillery contest where Russia is steadily gaining ground thanks to its overwhelming advantage in firepower. As the U.S. and allies gather Wednesday to discuss fresh military aid to Kyiv, Ukraine’s fate will largely depend on how fast and in what quantities these heavy weapons arrive.
Without a broad and rapid increase in military assistance, Ukraine faces a defeat in the eastern Donbas region, Ukrainian officials warn. That would pave the way for Russia to pursue its offensive to Odessa and Kharkiv after regrouping in coming months, they say, and potentially all the way back to the capital, Kyiv, after that.
Western officials and analysts question whether Russia has the wherewithal to achieve this, even if it makes further gains in the Donbas area. They say Russia’s military has been severely battered in the war, and might lack the manpower and equipment to advance beyond the Donbas region soon.
Yet Russia still enjoys a significant superiority over Ukraine in artillery and armor. Ukrainian forces estimate that they have one artillery piece per 10 to 20 Russian ones on the front lines, with each of these guns allotted only a fraction of the ammunition at the Russian gunners’ disposal. As a result, every day that Western heavy-weapons supplies are delayed is measured in hundreds of Ukrainian casualties, they say.
Artillery shells litter the ground near a destroyed Russian military vehicle in southern Ukraine.
While Kyiv was initially cagey about its losses, unwilling to dent the population’s morale, Ukraine’s government now acknowledges that the country’s military is losing between 100 and 200 soldiers killed in action each day, with about five times that number injured daily.
“In this war, the victory will be with the side that has more and better weapons. And, if Ukraine doesn’t obtain enough weapons in time, it will bleed out,” said Anton Gerashchenko, an adviser to Ukraine’s interior minister.
U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin is slated to host the third Ukraine Contact Group conference of defense ministers and top military officers from North Atlantic Treaty Organization members and other allies and partners in Brussels on Wednesday, looking into how best to help the Ukrainian military at this stage of the war.
At the start of the month, President Biden released $700 million in new weapons deliveries to Ukraine, the first slice of a $40 billion aid package authorized by Congress that includes as much as $19 billion in military assistance. That would bring the total to $5.3 billion of U.S. weapons supplied to Ukraine since the invasion. The U.K., Poland, the Baltic states and other allies have also made weapons deliveries.
These weapons, particularly the antitank and antiaircraft missiles, played a critical role in enabling Ukraine to withstand the onslaught on Kyiv in the first weeks of the war, precipitating a Russian withdrawal from northern Ukraine in late March. Moscow has reorganized its forces since then to focus on seizing all of the Donbas region, using heavy artillery to blast its way from one town to another.
Russian President Vladimir Putin in February recognized the independence of the Moscow-created proxy states in the Donbas area and no longer acknowledges the region as part of Ukraine. He also began issuing Russian passports and introduced the ruble in occupied parts of southern Ukraine’s Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, where Russian-appointed authorities say they are working on referendums to annex these territories to Russia.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said that the war won’t end until Russia withdraws from all the territories it occupied since the invasion began on Feb. 24. If Ukraine is sufficiently armed to defend itself, this goal is realistic, some Western military experts say.
“I do believe that by the end of this calendar year the Ukrainian forces are going to drive the Russian forces back to the Feb. 23 line,” said retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, a former commander of the U.S. Army in Europe who is now with the Center for European Policy Analysis. But to achieve this, he said, Ukraine must get enough Western long-range artillery and rocket systems, as well as the necessary ammunition. “If we fail to do that…then this is going to go on for potentially years,” Gen. Hodges said.
Ukrainian presidential adviser Mykhailo Podolyak published a wish list of weapons Monday that he said would help Ukraine end the war, including 1,000 howitzers, 300 multiple-launch rocket systems and 500 tanks.
“We are waiting for a decision,” he wrote on Twitter.
Ukraine Fears Defeat in East Without Surge in Military Aid
Russia advances in Donbas region as U.S., allies prepare to discuss new heavy-weapons supplies for Kyiv
By Yaroslav TrofimovFollowing
and Stephen Fidler
Follow
Updated June 13, 2022 6:13 am ET
The war in Ukraine has turned into a grinding artillery contest where Russia is steadily gaining ground thanks to its overwhelming advantage in firepower. As the U.S. and allies gather Wednesday to discuss fresh military aid to Kyiv, Ukraine’s fate will largely depend on how fast and in what quantities these heavy weapons arrive.
Without a broad and rapid increase in military assistance, Ukraine faces a defeat in the eastern Donbas region, Ukrainian officials warn. That would pave the way for Russia to pursue its offensive to Odessa and Kharkiv after regrouping in coming months, they say, and potentially all the way back to the capital, Kyiv, after that.
Western officials and analysts question whether Russia has the wherewithal to achieve this, even if it makes further gains in the Donbas area. They say Russia’s military has been severely battered in the war, and might lack the manpower and equipment to advance beyond the Donbas region soon.
Yet Russia still enjoys a significant superiority over Ukraine in artillery and armor. Ukrainian forces estimate that they have one artillery piece per 10 to 20 Russian ones on the front lines, with each of these guns allotted only a fraction of the ammunition at the Russian gunners’ disposal. As a result, every day that Western heavy-weapons supplies are delayed is measured in hundreds of Ukrainian casualties, they say.
While Kyiv was initially cagey about its losses, unwilling to dent the population’s morale, Ukraine’s government now acknowledges that the country’s military is losing between 100 and 200 soldiers killed in action each day, with about five times that number injured daily.
“In this war, the victory will be with the side that has more and better weapons. And, if Ukraine doesn’t obtain enough weapons in time, it will bleed out,” said Anton Gerashchenko, an adviser to Ukraine’s interior minister.
U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin is slated to host the third Ukraine Contact Group conference of defense ministers and top military officers from North Atlantic Treaty Organization members and other allies and partners in Brussels on Wednesday, looking into how best to help the Ukrainian military at this stage of the war.
At the start of the month, President Biden released $700 million in new weapons deliveries to Ukraine, the first slice of a $40 billion aid package authorized by Congress that includes as much as $19 billion in military assistance. That would bring the total to $5.3 billion of U.S. weapons supplied to Ukraine since the invasion. The U.K., Poland, the Baltic states and other allies have also made weapons deliveries.
These weapons, particularly the antitank and antiaircraft missiles, played a critical role in enabling Ukraine to withstand the onslaught on Kyiv in the first weeks of the war, precipitating a Russian withdrawal from northern Ukraine in late March. Moscow has reorganized its forces since then to focus on seizing all of the Donbas region, using heavy artillery to blast its way from one town to another.
Russian President Vladimir Putin in February recognized the independence of the Moscow-created proxy states in the Donbas area and no longer acknowledges the region as part of Ukraine. He also began issuing Russian passports and introduced the ruble in occupied parts of southern Ukraine’s Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions, where Russian-appointed authorities say they are working on referendums to annex these territories to Russia.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has said that the war won’t end until Russia withdraws from all the territories it occupied since the invasion began on Feb. 24. If Ukraine is sufficiently armed to defend itself, this goal is realistic, some Western military experts say.
“I do believe that by the end of this calendar year the Ukrainian forces are going to drive the Russian forces back to the Feb. 23 line,” said retired Lt. Gen. Ben Hodges, a former commander of the U.S. Army in Europe who is now with the Center for European Policy Analysis. But to achieve this, he said, Ukraine must get enough Western long-range artillery and rocket systems, as well as the necessary ammunition. “If we fail to do that…then this is going to go on for potentially years,” Gen. Hodges said.
Ukrainian presidential adviser Mykhailo Podolyak published a wish list of weapons Monday that he said would help Ukraine end the war, including 1,000 howitzers, 300 multiple-launch rocket systems and 500 tanks.
“We are waiting for a decision,” he wrote on Twitter.
Everything I've read for at least a month, after Russia changed their entire approach, has been to expect this to go into late August/Early September before we see a swing in fortunes and that Ukraine is going to have to just hold on.
Yes, earlier on many were suggesting that Russia's invasion was about to collapse, and it was. Then Putin killed off a bunch of generals, put some other people in charge, changed tactics (To more brute destruction/cannon fodder) and decided to focus their entire forces on taking over the SE. The analysts then switched to the, early September and just make it through approach that they're going with now.
So we'll see. I still say, can Ukraine keep holding on until mid-August when the advanced weaponry and training really starts to show up. We shall see.
The problem as I see it is that I think there's a very good chance it's going to be several years of Russia lobbing missiles at Infrastructure in Ukraine and causing annoyance on their borders even if they get pushed out. I don't know how you get away from that.
Yes, earlier on many were suggesting that Russia's invasion was about to collapse, and it was. Then Putin killed off a bunch of generals, put some other people in charge, changed tactics (To more brute destruction/cannon fodder) and decided to focus their entire forces on taking over the SE. The analysts then switched to the, early September and just make it through approach that they're going with now.
So we'll see. I still say, can Ukraine keep holding on until mid-August when the advanced weaponry and training really starts to show up. We shall see.
The problem as I see it is that I think there's a very good chance it's going to be several years of Russia lobbing missiles at Infrastructure in Ukraine and causing annoyance on their borders even if they get pushed out. I don't know how you get away from that.
Imagine if the French hadn't intervened to box in Cornwallis and force a British surrender.....
If hell freezes over and Trump is back in office in 2024 he should definitely look into hiring you to head his anti-NATO propaganda campaign.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone show how worthless the organization appears to be without even knowing they're doing so. It's almost brilliant if you're of the opinion it should be gutted and replaced with an organization that actually tries to accomplish something and not let the US deal with shit and foot the bill all the time.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 97,954
- 204,314
- 113
The whole thing now hinges on whether the "West" remains aligned and committed to seeing it through to the end.
Putin is counting on the will and desire of Western democracies to keep up the fight to wane over time -- and there is some evidence that is already happening.
The absolute worst thing that can happen for the nation of Ukraine and frankly the security of Europe as a whole would be to allow Putin to wriggle out of this jam through a negotiated settlement that cedes Ukrainian territory to Russia. If/when that happens, he will know that he can attack any country in Russia's sphere with impunity.
I don't think Biden lets that happen. I think we are doing this for the right reasons, but even if some wrong ones creep in (don't want to admit failure), that means we will see it through. As bleak as eastern Ukraine is looking these days, on the whole, the Russian army is running out of steam. All it can really do is shell cities into oblivion. Once we get more and better equipment into their hands, with longer ranges, Russia will be on the ropes.
Fun to read what the neocons thought in 2016:
What should Washington do? It should keep providing Kyiv political support, and work with the European Union to offer additional financial assistance, provided that Ukraine accelerates reforms and anti-corruption measures. It should also provide additional military assistance.
On the last point, we are two of eight coauthors of a report issued early last year—“Preserving Ukraine’s Independence, Resisting Russian Aggression: What the United States and NATO Must Do”—that argued for providing Ukraine additional military assistance, including light antiarmor weapons. Those were intended to fill a gap when the Russian military was pouring tanks and other armored vehicles into the Donbas.
The administration rejected lethal military assistance. In our meetings last year with senior U.S. officials, it was apparent that the White House’s main concern was escalation: that the Russians might out-escalate the United States, or that U.S. leaders would find themselves on an escalation ladder that would end up with the Eighty-Second Airborne Division deploying to Donetsk.
These were good questions to raise, but they had good answers. Could Moscow escalate if the United States provided light antiarmor weapons? Certainly. But would Moscow escalate, given the risks—more dead Russian soldiers, which the Kremlin disgracefully hides from the public, and additional sanctions on an economy already mired in recession?
As for an escalation ladder, Washington would control that. None of the report’s coauthors advocated sending U.S. soldiers to fight or even proposed high-end arms. Washington would have owed it to Kyiv to make clear where it would draw the line, but the argument that providing some arms would have led to an inevitable U.S.-Russian military clash does not hold water.
I wonder if the author would like to deploy the 82nd Airborne to Donetsk, or if we’re getting off the escalation ladder now that Putin has pushed in his chips.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 97,954
- 204,314
- 113
Hope you are right. I am a little more worried about our Western European allies losing the will to fight before the US or the Eastern European NATO members. Germany and France dominate the EU and both of them seem to be wavering in commitment.
That’s a threat taken lightly only when it isn’t your city next on the list.
Aw, you're still butthurt all these months later. You ever finish digging your nuke bunker in your back yard?
They aren't really doing that much anyway. We will have the cooperation of the eastern half of Europe because they know they are next on the hit list. I am sure we are ramping up production in the MIC, and currently here's how things stand:
NATO tank distribution:
Fighters-interceptors by country (note these totals and the ones below for Russia are before they lost equipment in the war):
Self-propelled artillery by country :
MLRS by country:
Are you stupid or just forget that I said I didn't see that likely happening? You sure as shit could say I wasn't for direct escalation with a nuclear power, which the administration you must have jaw issues from blowing seem to be onboard with as well.
So again, remind me how great is NATO?
Does the next Republican run on ending the war?
“I Shall Go to Korea”- Candidate Eisenhower
Well, those two aren’t providing any significant quantities of heavy weaponry anyway, so F them.
Maybe...
If supporting Ukraine is a priority.... then blaming the continuation of that war for high gas prices and inflation seems a little counter productive to that goal.
- Sep 13, 2002
- 97,954
- 204,314
- 113
But they have political clout and could begin pushing hard for a negotiated settlement. That is the concern.
Political clout backed by what? What can they take away to force Ukraine to negotiate?
Weird thing is, Trump was a walking gaffe machine for >4 years.
But everyone believed all that BS. And the stolen-election nonsense continues to this day.
First, Biden should get somebody other than Victoria Nuland in her position. Too much conflict of interest there.
So, in other words, NOT extort Zelensky in delaying support for a "political favor".
Got it.
NATO weapons are the ONLY reason Ukraine is still able to fight. W/o them, this war was over in March/April.
