"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The UAF has a lot of new and non compatible equipment to organize and mobilize. I'm sure they are paying more attention to the logistics chain than the other guys.

If they're not doing this, they should be. Right now they're fighting for time to integrate the new weaponry, and that may demand retreats until they get the new stuff spooled up. But they'll be falling back onto supply lines if that is indeed what they choose to do, whereas the Russians ... well, "running out of gas" can be both literal and figurative as a turn of speech.
 
WASHINGTON, May 26 (Reuters) - As the United States and its allies provide Ukraine with increasingly sophisticated arms, Washington has held discussions with Kyiv about the danger of escalation if it strikes deep inside Russia, U.S. and diplomatic officials tell Reuters.

The behind-the-scenes discussions, which are highly sensitive and have not been previously reported, do not put explicit geographic restrictions on the use of weapons supplied to Ukrainian forces. But the conversations have sought to reach a shared understanding of the risk of escalation, three U.S. officials and diplomatic sources said.

"We have concerns about escalation and yet still do not want to put geographic limits or tie their hands too much with the stuff we're giving them," said one of the three U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity.



This angers me. Nothing we are supplying to Ukraine can make for an existential threat to Russia, so why are we even opening this conversation? If you're giving weapons to a guy you know is in for the fight of his life, you accept that your own weapons may cause offense, or harm, or mayhem, or deaths. We Americans should not be attaching strings to any arms we lend or lease or donate. And we shouldn't be pussyfooting around about it.

At the very least, if DC wants to micromanage the war, they should grow a pair of balls and put American troops into the line. Absent that, they should STFU about how these weapons are used.

/rant (hopefully, I may return to this as circumstances warrant, god damn it.)
 
If there was ever a time for the Belorussian people to rise up in revolution against their Russian-linked oppressors now is it.
Since Belorussian people don't have tanks - I would assume that any attempt towards "revolution" would be squashed by Belarusian and Russian tanks. Just like the Hungarian Uprising of 1956. Especially by Russian troops since they are already in Belarus and the Kremlin will not be willing to give up onto the strategic Suwalki corridor/gap.
 
If they're not doing this, they should be. Right now they're fighting for time to integrate the new weaponry, and that may demand retreats until they get the new stuff spooled up. But they'll be falling back onto supply lines if that is indeed what they choose to do, whereas the Russians ... well, "running out of gas" can be both literal and figurative as a turn of speech.
What "new weaponry" aside from some artillery equipment, small arms, munition, ATGM's/Manpads and some APC's?
NATO has decided just a couple of days ago not to supply e.g. tanks, MLRS and aircraft.
 
WASHINGTON, May 26 (Reuters) - As the United States and its allies provide Ukraine with increasingly sophisticated arms, Washington has held discussions with Kyiv about the danger of escalation if it strikes deep inside Russia, U.S. and diplomatic officials tell Reuters.

The behind-the-scenes discussions, which are highly sensitive and have not been previously reported, do not put explicit geographic restrictions on the use of weapons supplied to Ukrainian forces. But the conversations have sought to reach a shared understanding of the risk of escalation, three U.S. officials and diplomatic sources said.

"We have concerns about escalation and yet still do not want to put geographic limits or tie their hands too much with the stuff we're giving them," said one of the three U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity.



This angers me. Nothing we are supplying to Ukraine can make for an existential threat to Russia, so why are we even opening this conversation? If you're giving weapons to a guy you know is in for the fight of his life, you accept that your own weapons may cause offense, or harm, or mayhem, or deaths. We Americans should not be attaching strings to any arms we lend or lease or donate. And we shouldn't be pussyfooting around about it.

At the very least, if DC wants to micromanage the war, they should grow a pair of balls and put American troops into the line. Absent that, they should STFU about how these weapons are used.

/rant (hopefully, I may return to this as circumstances warrant, god damn it.)
I don't think Ukraine has any interest in attacking Russia proper - their sole aim is to get rid of the invaders and reclaim their land.

I can see them perhaps hitting a supply depot or a command center near the border, but it's highly unlikely they'll target anything further inland.

I suspect the diplomats are just making legal noise that'll be overheard by Putler, sort of a disclaimer of sorts.
 
I think Ukraine is going to lose the east.
Zelensky has made it clear that Ukraine will not accept anything less than Russia leaving Ukrainian soil.
The only way they'll lose the east, is if Russia is able to completely over run the nation and kill every last combatant.

As far as tanks being sent to Ukraine, the Czech Republic sent five T-72s and five BVP-1 AFVs.
Poland sent over two hundred T-72M1 tanks along with Soviet era self-propelled howitzers and Grad rocket launchers.
 
I think Ukraine is going to lose the east.
Only if they lose everything. Ukraine will not stop fighting till then.

This war will end when Putin does, most likely by whatever disease he obviously has. I believe it's terminal in the short term as well since only that gives a reason for him to push a war that they weren't ready for to regain an empire that doesn't want them. At that point the Russians will pull back for 10 to 20 years before the next attempt to take on NATO and regain the Empire. Even the hawks would understand that.
 
Pragmatism will prevail. The West and US have already been nudging for an immediate ceasefire. My prediction is that Putin will soon take most of the Donbas, declare victory and stand down, calling for talks.
That would be very optimistic - taking the existing Russian military and economic losses into account. IMO he will continue towards his ultimate goal - Kiev.
In the meantime he will wait for NATO and Ukraine to come up with "peace-talks" proposals.
 
Everyone has been calling for a ceasefire since the first week of March.

But in order for a ceasefire to work, both sides need to agree. Early on, Zelensky did consider concessions but Putin would not hold a talk - now, Zelensky has made it absolutely clear that it's all or nothing. There will be no concessions.
If Putin calls a unilateral ceasefire, and if the West wants a ceasefire, they'll turn off the weapons to Ukraine. Zelensky will have no choice.
 
If Putin calls a unilateral ceasefire, and if the West wants a ceasefire, they'll turn off the weapons to Ukraine. Zelensky will have no choice.
Zelensky will keep going no matter what.

But the ones calling for a ceasefire are mostly noisemakers anyway.

The rational ones in charge know that if we lose Ukraine, then Russia is encouraged to make another excuse to "protect an ethnic Russian population" in another country.

It's not a matter of "if" but "when" and where.
 
No, if at all the Baltic republics are far more appealing to him.
You are probably right. The revanchist/irredentist would only push to reclaim previously controlled territory. The Baltic states, Ukraine, Poland, Moldova, Alaska. Espousing a Greater Slavic Co-prosperity Sphere, you could throw in Slovakia, Czech Republic, Bulgaria. Rumenia, Hungary and Germany just to round out the old Soviet Empire. But Puton is a true believer in a sort of Manifest Destiny of Russian led world communism. So why stop?
 
But the ones calling for a ceasefire are mostly noisemakers anyway.
They'll quieten down when Ukraine begins taking back more territory not previously abandoned by the Russians. Kharkiv's rescue was a good sign. Everyone wants to back an underdog who's successful. The Ukrainians now have the better weapons, training, intel and morale. It's now time for that to bear fruit.

If Ukraine wants to retake the East and Crimea, at some point, once there are sufficent weapons and kit to go around, Zelensky is going to have to call up all male citizens aged 18 and up to fight. When Israel is attacked, everyone, man and women are soliders.
 
Last edited:
What "new weaponry" aside from some artillery equipment, small arms, munition, ATGM's/Manpads and some APC's?
NATO has decided just a couple of days ago not to supply e.g. tanks, MLRS and aircraft.

New weaponry is exactly stuff like the 777s and other guns coming in from other countries. Couple of weeks to pull crews off for cross-training, and I bet setting up logistics for the new ammo and such requires a little time too. I don't think it's as simple as "here's a gun, now shoot it".

Granted that small arms are easily transferable, but even APCs require a supply chain that Ukraine may not have in place.

It stands to reason that integrating this new (to them) stuff is not going to get a Star Trek matter-transporter solution. And that means that they are right now fighting for time, to get sufficient numbers to the front lines.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

  • Back