"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (6 Viewers)

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

Thumpalumpacus said:
Putin's regime will not survive this war no matter how he tries to win it.
Click to expand...
I have to agree. I can't see how Putin can rollback now that he's annexing Ukrainian land and mobilizing Russian civilians. There's no way out now for Putin. With an energy-independent Europe and a militarily and econominally strong Ukraine, the Russia of 2030 is going to be very different than that of 2022.
 

True, but very unlikely because pretty much everyone wants to fight Russia without risking a nuclear conflict.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
True, but very unlikely because pretty much everyone wants to fight Russia without risking a nuclear conflict.
Click to expand...
If due to a reasonable fear of a nuclear conflict we're asking Ukrainians alone to fight the Russians on the West's behalf, then we should give the Ukrainians whatever they need. For starters, long range attack missiles so the AFU can destroy the Kerch bridge between Crimea and Russia. We have to trust that the AFU won't shoot them into Belgorod.
 

Well-said, Beezy. Those sonsabitches in Ukraine are biting the bullets, and we owe them everything we can to help them out, if we're not putting troops in. I was happy to see yesterday that we've given 18 more HIMARS units, more than doubling the Ukrainian fleet. May they put them to good use!

Much earlier in this thread I was very skeptical about a no-fly zone, but now I think it may be a foregone conclusion if Putin continues his brinksmanship. While I didn't support it then, I think it is tenable now if circumstances warrant.
 
Last edited:

I would not call it a fear of nuclear war, rather a desire not to incite one.

Despite what you think, I'm pretty sure everyone is already providing what they can. I know you don't want to hear it, but its not as easy as just snapping your fingers.

But yes, overall I agree with you.
 
Many countries (NATO members or not) want to aid Ukraine directly, but doing so would escalate the situation more than it has.
Right now, the world community is doing the right thing by providing what Ukraine needs to whip Russia's ass and they are doing an excellent job of it.

The only way I could see direct military involvement by outaide nations, is if Putin does deploy nuclear weapons, then the U.S. would most likely intercept the nuke(s) where possible, with the Aegis system that are on station nearby (one cruiser in the Baltic, one cruiser in the Aegean).
This defense would be covered by artical 4 of the Budapest Memorandum, too.
 

I think we have land-based ABMs in Poland as well, but I'd defer to J J_P_C 's knowledge on that score.
 
DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
I'm pretty sure everyone is already providing what they can.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you're right, but I have the sense that entire categories of weapons are been declined, not because of AFU inability or inexperience, but due to foreign/military service risk assessors whispering into Biden and NATO's ears. What's the holdup on ATACMS for the HIMARS, for example? And why didn't the US facilitate Poland's MiG-29 donation? Here in Canada, why did we sent three dozen LAV 6 in their unarmed layout instead of the armed version, did the US block the LAV's Bushmaster transfer?

U.S. military leaders are reluctant to provide longer-range missiles to Ukraine

Senior U.S. military leaders have advised the White House against sending longer-range missiles to Ukraine over fears it could provoke a wider war with Russia, officials said.
www.nbcnews.com

This is good news below, given the earlier US refusal to provide Patriots.

Ukraine receives U.S. air defense system

President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said in an interview broadcast on Sunday that Ukraine had received sophisticated air defence systems from the United States.
www.reuters.com

Are the West's governments really providing all what they can?
 
Last edited:

I think that early on in the war, donor countries were afraid the Ukrainians couldn't hold out.

As the war has gone on, and the Ukrainians have shown their mettle, most countries seem to be relaxing restrictions. USAF is (edit -- or will be, this is FY 2023 budget so effective 1 Oct) training Ukrainian pilots on F-16s, for example.
 

Again…

NATO countries are only going to provide what they can without diminishing their own ability to defend their territories or wage war otherwise if necessary. Each country has to maintain a certain level of readiness and capability. What good does it do the US for example to provide all their, lets say, ATACMs, and then their stock is so low the US's ability to fight is degraded. Russia is not the only "bad guy" out their. China would love the US to be put in a position where China can do what it wants with impunity.

Furthermore , I am sure their is a lot of politics involved, especially when it comes to providing potential long range offensive type weapons. NATO countries must behave in a manner that does not make them appear to be fighting Russia (even though everyone knows it), because they can't afford to give Russia justification (at least in Putler's eyes) to lash out at other countries such as Poland, Latvia, Estonia, or Finland. That would drag us into the 3rd World War, and no matter how better our fighting forces are compared to Russia's, World War 3 would see potentially millions of deaths. Most likely a majority of them civilian.

Lastly, Biden does not control the world, let alone NATO. He does not control what other NATO countries provide.

Try and see the whole picture…
 
Last edited:
Thumpalumpacus said:
I think that early on in the war, donor countries were afraid the Ukrainians couldn't hold out.
Click to expand...

I think that was a huge part of it. Why degrade your capability, and potentially allow your technology to be captured by the Russians if the Ukrainians are going to lose anyhow? I don't think anyone thought this war would still be going on.

At this point I think its more about "you can't give what you can't give." If my armed forces need 10 "M-5000 MBT's" (fictitious made up tank) to maintain our level of readiness, and I have 3 in reserves, then all I can give is 1, because I need the to rest maintain my readiness and posturing incase Putler decides to roll to Warsaw or Helsinki.

It's all about strategy. What weapons can I provide that will give the Ukrainians the best chance to win? Now what can I realistically give?
 

Right, just like a bank account, an arms-park is not an unlimited line of credit, it is tied to actual resources on hand. My understanding is that all of the American aid is coming straight out of depots, not straight off the assembly line; we will be building a lot the next few years to replace what we have donated from existing stocks. But once that stock hits operational minimums, you cannot donate more.

I know Raytheon will be busy the next decade.
 
Just to make this crystal clear especially for those who don't grasp the concept.

NATO's essential and enduring purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of all its members by political and military means. Collective defense is at the heart of the Alliance and creates a spirit of solidarity and cohesion among its members.


NATO strives to secure a lasting peace in Europe, based on common values of individual liberty, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Since the outbreak of crises and conflicts beyond Allied borders can jeopardise this objective, the Alliance also contributes to peace and stability through crisis prevention and management, and partnerships. Essentially, NATO not only helps to defend the territory of its members, but also engages where possible and when necessary to project its values further afield, prevent and manage crises, stabilise post-conflict situations and support reconstruction.

NATO also embodies the transatlantic link whereby the security of North America is tied to Europe's. It is an intergovernmental organization, which provides a forum where members can consult on any issue they may choose to raise and take decisions on political and military matters affecting their security. No single member country is forced to rely solely on its national capabilities to meet its essential national security objectives. The resulting sense of shared security among members contributes to stability in the Euro-Atlantic area.

NATO's fundamental security tasks are laid down in the Washington Treaty (the Alliance's founding treaty, also known as the North Atlantic Treaty). They are sufficiently general to withstand the test of time and are translated into more detail in the Organization's strategic concepts. Strategic concepts are the authoritative statement of the Alliance's objectives: they provide the highest level of guidance on the political and military means to be used to achieve these goals and remain the basis for the implementation of Alliance policy as a whole.
During the Cold War, NATO focused on collective defence and the protection of its members from potential threats emanating from the Soviet Union. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of non-state actors affecting international security, many new security threats have emerged, such as terrorism. Moreover, since 2014, Russia's aggressive actions against Ukraine and its brutal and unprovoked war on the country since February 2022 have radically altered the security environment.

NATO is countering this vast array of threats by strengthening its deterrence and defense as the backbone of its commitment to collective defense; helping to prevent and manage crisis situations; and encouraging cooperative security, as outlined in the 2022 Strategic Concept.

Organization

www.nato.int
 
If what they are charged with is true, take them both out and hang them.
 
Assuming Lyman gets pocketed, what are the next moves for Ukraine before large numbers of Russian reinforcements start to arrive?

Pushing east from Kupyansk and North from Oskil up towards Svatove seems to be the next major objective. Svatove is about 30km from the current forward edge of the battlefield. Russia is reportedly preparing a defensive line stretching the length of the P-66 highway from the Russian border down to Sievierodonetsk/Lysychansk.

Capturing, or even just interdicting, Svatove would put a major crimp in Russian logistics efforts, but I think a bigger prize is actually further to the north at Troitske. That's right up near the northern border, but it's a major railway and highway interchange. It's one of the two main rail routes out of Voronezh, which (I'm assuming) is one of the major distribution points for men, guns and stuff coming down from the north.

You cut that rail line nexus and Russia's logistics to the entire part of the northern Luhansk Oblast get hurt. Everything that is going by rail now has to go around the pre-war borders and them come west from Luhansk city, which adds several hundreds of kilometers of extra travelling distance and a couple of major interchanges as well. Essentially, they would need to travel two sides of a triangle instead of a straight shot southwards.

If it was me, I'd be trying to push north/northeast as fast as I could, cut those supply lines and then start to think about circling southward and coming down towards Starobilsk

The alternative is to move east from Lyman into the more urban spaces of the Sievierodonetsk-Lysychansk-Rubizhne area. That seems like a more difficult option to me - these areas have already been fought over once, and pushing in here is attacking a point of strength for little gain. You might interdict the western-most major supply line. But, if you go for Troitske you get that anyway, and one other in the mix.
 
I saw that too. That might be too close to Russia. Rather than go too far and stretch supply lines it might be better to take Svatove and Starobilsk. That would force Russian supply trains to a circuitous route. Plus there's a lot of dismounted Russian soldiery to round up. Prove me wrong because I think taking Troitske is a good idea too.
 
Jabberwocky said:
Assuming Lyman gets pocketed, what are the next moves for Ukraine before large numbers of Russian reinforcements start to arrive?
Click to expand...

[...]

Jabberwocky said:
If it was me, I'd be trying to push north/northeast as fast as I could, cut those supply lines and then start to think about circling southward and coming down towards Starobilsk.
Click to expand...

Great answer to a good question. disrupt the supply line and only then roll up combat troops. Hungry men don't fight well, and guns do little good once out of ammo.

I'd make sure that every bridge was zeroed in, too. There's a lot of streams there that serve as chokepoints. If I could, I'd put artillery in range of major crossroads, for the random time-on-target to catch any potential counterattacks.

Essentially, as you are getting at, force the Russians onto external lines of communication while securing one's own internal lines. This gives the potential for bringing large forces to bear against pocketed Russians.

If the Ukrainians have the manpower, I wouldn't be surprised to see a thrust south to split Kherson and Mariupol in order to isolate the Russians in the south. But I don't know if the Ukrainians are strong enough to do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 1 more.
    • Total: 7 (members: 2, guests: 5)

    Similar threads

    A
    The coming $26 billion windfall for the Canadian Armed Forces. What to buy?
    2
    Replies
    37
    Views
    1K
    Sisu
    S
    M
    All V-22's Grounded
    Replies
    2
    Views
    1K
    GTX
    M
    All This For The Low, Low Price of .....
    Replies
    19
    Views
    2K
    MIflyer
    M
    M
    The Wrath of KAAN?
    Replies
    3
    Views
    839
    Snautzer01
    M
    The USAF V-22 Mishap of 2023
    Replies
    2
    Views
    496
    Thumpalumpacus
    Menu
    Log in
    Register