Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine (/thread-23071.html)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Mick - 07-06-2025

(07-05-2025, 07:01 PM)GK3 Wrote:  Another series of interesting articles on the economic impact of the war on Russia.  I have no idea as to the validity of the conclusions but hope those more educated can comment.
1.https://united24media.com/war-in-ukraine/russias-war-chest-is-drying-up-how-sanctions-and-oil-prices-bite-into-the-national-wealth-fund-9599
2. https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/the-warning-signs-for-russias-economy-are-flashing-red-ff1658bd
3. https://www.newsweek.com/putin-russia-economy-gref-2092918

Interesting. Their National Wealth Fund has been depleted by 74% since the start of the war.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-06-2025

(07-06-2025, 06:15 AM)Mick Wrote:  

(07-05-2025, 07:01 PM)GK3 Wrote:  Another series of interesting articles on the economic impact of the war on Russia.  I have no idea as to the validity of the conclusions but hope those more educated can comment.
1.https://united24media.com/war-in-ukraine/russias-war-chest-is-drying-up-how-sanctions-and-oil-prices-bite-into-the-national-wealth-fund-9599
2. https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/the-warning-signs-for-russias-economy-are-flashing-red-ff1658bd
3. https://www.newsweek.com/putin-russia-economy-gref-2092918

Interesting. Their National Wealth Fund has been depleted by 74% since the start of the war.

This is a "good news, bad news" situation. Sanctions have bitten deeply into the Russian government's finances, and even more importantly into their cash reserves. When the National Wealth Fund is exhausted they will have to borrow even more money to keep fighting, and lots of that money needs to "work" for foreign purchases. The bad news is that at the current rate that doesn't happen for 2.65 years. Seems improbable it will actually matter to the war in Ukraine.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 07-06-2025

(07-06-2025, 07:38 AM)Goose Wrote:  

(07-06-2025, 06:15 AM)Mick Wrote:  

(07-05-2025, 07:01 PM)GK3 Wrote:  Another series of interesting articles on the economic impact of the war on Russia.  I have no idea as to the validity of the conclusions but hope those more educated can comment.
1.https://united24media.com/war-in-ukraine/russias-war-chest-is-drying-up-how-sanctions-and-oil-prices-bite-into-the-national-wealth-fund-9599
2. https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/the-warning-signs-for-russias-economy-are-flashing-red-ff1658bd
3. https://www.newsweek.com/putin-russia-economy-gref-2092918

Interesting. Their National Wealth Fund has been depleted by 74% since the start of the war.

This is a "good news, bad news" situation. Sanctions have bitten deeply into the Russian government's finances, and even more importantly into their cash reserves. When the National Wealth Fund is exhausted they will have to borrow even more money to keep fighting, and lots of that money needs to "work" for foreign purchases. The bad news is that at the current rate that doesn't happen for 2.65 years. Seems improbable it will actually matter to the war in Ukraine.

Completely agree that the 2.65 years may be a bridge too far for Ukraine. 

There is also an immense amount of information out there now regarding Ukraine, Taiwan, China, Russia, NATO and the military budgets of the various potential participants. Lacking any access to classified info now days, what is true and what isn't is hard to identify

FWLIW, here are some of the articles I found interesting and thought provoking. The reader has to make up his or her own mind on the subject.

1. Best described as maybe "What is Happening in the Pentagon": https://breakingdefense.com/tag/defense-budget-2026/
2. An almost certainly biased article, which does not make it wrong, but a heads up. : https://kyivindependent.com/german-lawmakers-call-on-merz-to-increase-aid-to-ukraine-bild-reports-06-2025/.
3. https://www.gmfus.org/news/germanys-defense-budget-increase-analytically-wrong-politically-right

The Russian War Chest has not yet dried up, but it is drying up.  At the same time it appears NATO is strengthening its forces. Does Russia want to go to war when its ability to economically support its operations are drying up? If NATO countries continue their current path towards larger, strong forces, Russia is left with lesser forces and with only Nuclear Weapons as a back up. How a conflict in the Taiwan Straits would affect all of this is unknown.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-06-2025

(07-05-2025, 09:27 AM)GK3 Wrote:  On paper, NATO should dominate Russia.  https://www.statista.com/statistics/1293174/nato-russia-military-comparison/

I agree that the NATO nations possess on paper massive material and personnel superiority. However such a comparison is very misleading for many reasons. One reason is that many of the military personnel cited as NATO assets are committed to other missions. In quite a few cases the restriction is legal, i.e. they can't be deployed outside of their own country. In other cases it is national priorities. The US for example isn't going to remove all its Pacific military personnel and move them to Europe to defend say the Baltic states. A second critical problem is that no overall plan to commit even the forces theoretically available in Europe (let alone the reserve forces) to fight in defense of any given NATO country. It is unknown what forces any given NATO nation will commit (if any) to an Article 5 invocation. It is also unclear how long it will take them to make that choice. In any case it would take months to make such a plan, and by then the war may be over. A third critical problem is geographic dispersion. Getting the available forces to "the front" requires transportation infrastructure that in many cases does not exist. Even when it theoretically does things often don't go well. When the US and Germany attempted a "mini REFORGER" several years ago it was a disaster. Roads marked as suitable for tanks had been blocked by new building construction, concrete bollards for bike lanes, etc. This was stuff that had been planned and at one time was known to work. Imagine if it was improvised.
 
On top of all that the plurality of the actual military force will have to come from the continental US. Right now the US has about 67,000 military personnel stationed in Europe. Over half, 35,068 is based in Germany. This includes a rather substantial USAF presence and support functions like the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center. These troops support the US presence in lots of places, not just Europe. V Corps is the (obviously small) Army fighting component (https://www.europeafrica.army.mil/Units/). For comparison, in 1989 the US had over 250,000 troops stationed in Germany. As of now and for the foreseeable future the largest single ground force element that is officially committed to fight in Europe is US. Unfortunately almost all of it is US based. Even best case it will take time to move it thousands of miles to Europe and deploy it. This assumes a prompt US political commitment. That is no longer a given. Russia, while having fewer forces can control the time and place of any conflict starting. Their troops will be positioned and will have objectives/phase lines from the get-go. As Russia proved in Ukraine, these advantages can be frittered away, but relying on that happening a second time is unwise.

Quote:The airpower difference is extraordinary.  My guess the NATO air forces are probably better prepared to fight than the ground forces.

Agree. However there is one big qualification. Events in Ukraine and Iran clearly demonstrate that SEAD is a necessary function of a "NATO style" air force. While SEAD can be performed by fourth-generation aircraft the cost in aircraft and lives would be quite high. It would also be quite slow, as deep penetration raids to destroy the C3 nodes of a Russian IADS would be suicidal. SEAD with 4th generation aircraft has to be performed incrementally. Against Iraq in 1991, no problem. Time was available. Iraq wasn't attacking, it was just sitting there. It can be argued the SEAD mission took 37 days. Against e.g. a Russian incursion into the Baltics in 2026, time will be of the essence. Therefore, F-35s must be used almost exclusively to accomplish the SEAD mission. After that is done the massive numerical superiority of the NATO forces will be unleashed and indeed provide the "Aluminum Overcast" NATO needs in order to fight on the ground.
 
The F-35 situation is not "optimal" but it isn't too bad. The USAF has two F-35 squadrons in Europe, both at RAF Lakenheath in the UK. These units provide approximately 52 F-35 aircraft. These two squadrons are trained in SEAD.  Norway already has its full order of 52 F-35s delivered and operational. Their pilots are well trained, but one of their major missions is to protect Norwegian airspace. How many can be spared to execute SEAD is unknown. The Netherlands has 46 delivered and operational with 12 more on order for delivery "soon". Denmark has 15 F-35s operational in Denmark and another 6 used for training in the US. 6 more will be delivered for a total of 27 aircraft. The Netherlands and Denmark can contribute pilots and aircraft to a SEAD mission, but exactly how much right now is very unclear. Italy has a total of 115 F-35s delivered/on order. Italy currently has about 35 F-35A and 2 F-35B (for their two air-capable ships), but these numbers may be a bit dated. 25 more F-35s were recently ordered, 15 A and 10 B.  These aircraft are assembled in Italy. (https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/stealth-superpower-italy-will-soon-have-115-f-35-fighters-212831) Nobody else has any capability, although that is a temporary condition.
 
If ones states that NATO has about 100 F-35s to do the SEAD mission, that would probably be a good initial estimate. Israel had about 45 F-35s for its SEAD mission against Iran. Russia is not Iran. 100 F-35s will be at best cutting it very very fine. The US will have to surge some planes. We can do so. We have actually practiced doing so, but never "at scale". This deployment is yet another moving part in this notional war that at best introduces delay and at worst can go pear-shaped. The other obvious fact is that if the US doesn't fight, neither can anyone else. There won't be near enough F-35 aircraft if we don't participate.
 
One may note that the Germany and France, major European powers, have no 5th generation aircraft. The UK has a few F-35Bs for its aircraft carriers, with more on order. Germany has some on order. The German order is 35 aircraft, just barely enough to allow it to remain part of the NATO nuclear deterrent. Of course, if the military had been given what it said it needed, Germany would already have a potent force of F-35s. https://theaviationgeekclub.com/german-air-force-chief-fired-for-supporting-f-35/ explains why it doesn't and why I think Ursula von der Leyen shouldn't be elected dog catcher, let alone President of the European Commission. Another equally interesting link https://cepa.org/article/the-f-35-should-have-been-natos-fighter-whats-gone-wrong/.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-06-2025

(07-05-2025, 09:27 AM)GK3 Wrote:  Considering obvious targets, NATO defense industries are probably much more distributed that the Russian version and it could be much easier to hurt Russian production.

True, because most of the production facilities are in CONUS and would be "immune" from attack in a limited war. However, since many European militaries use unique equipment made only in their own countries that doesn't help as much as it seems. We don't make Leopard 2A7s. We also don't make CAESAR howitzers or Eurofighter Typhoons. Those production facilities are within easy reach of Russian tactical ballistic missiles and various cruise missiles. There is also a great interdependence between NATO nations. Knocking out one factory can totally halt production because a required assembly becomes unavailable. It is estimated that around 25% of  the F-35 is from "international" sources. (https://simpleflying.com/how-many-international-parts-us-f-35-fighter-jet/#:~:text=While%20Germany%20has%20opted%20for%20its%20F%2D35As,produce%20fuselage%20sections%20for%20around%20400%20F%2D35s)

Quote:From what I have read, Russia is thought to be able to produce 150 to 250 new tanks a year.  They have lost almost almost 11,000 tanks in the Ukraine, a staggering number. Their losses in APC's and artillery are equally staggering.  How many relatively modern main battle tanks do they have left?

Russia is indeed in a bad way in terms of tanks and IFV/APCs. They are in OK shape artillery-wise. The government owned Lima Army Tank Plant (LATP) operated by General Dynamics Land Systems (GDLS) has the capacity to produce a whopping 135 M1A2s per year. When the tank was at full rate production the US produced 850 per year. It is highly unlikely we could do that again even given years to "ramp up". The workforce is just not available.

Quote:One other thing, Poland seems to be buying South Korean K2 tanks now, now M1's.  The K2 has certain advantages over the M1, but it still seems to me that the latest M1 is perhaps better suited to a European conflict on flat ground.

https://defence-blog.com/poland-gets-second-batch-of-m1a2-sepv3-abrams-tanks/ Maybe, but that doesn't matter to the Poles. Their problem is the M1A2 production is so glacially slow that it can't come anywhere close to meeting Poland's immediate needs. K2s are in major production in Korea right now. Poland already has  M1A1s, M1A2 SEPV3s, and K2s. Apparently the K2s are "good enough". Unlike the US, Hyundai Rotem is also assisting Poland in developing the capability to manufacture K2s in Poland. Win-win for South Korea and Poland.

Quote:Today, the Russian infantry do not have to worry about opposing airpower making their chose riding place a very unsafe place to be.
 
Even though I am old army guy, I saw enough of what combined airpower, helos and fast movers can do that I still think Russia would have a hard time combating the NATO advantage in this area.

I totally agree. Those Russian infantry will also have to worry about a lot more than just getting blown up themselves. They will have to worry even more about their re-supply of food, ammunition, and FPV drones simply never arriving. The also have to worry about their artillery support disappearing not just because the guns are destroyed but because the shells for the guns didn't arrive. Russian logistics have not been good in Ukraine. They will be orders of magnitude worse when they are subject to constant air interdiction. The only fly in the ointment is that the airpower has to get there on day 1, not weeks later. By then Russia may have most of its immediate war aims and be able to convince most of NATO (and in particular the US) that the cost/risk to reverse that just isn't worth it.

Quote:As Iran has just shown us, you can have what you think is a robust air defense system only to see it made worthless in short order.

I doubt Iran was under any illusions about the state of its air defense system. They have been pushing Russia continually for more systems. They even paid up-front for systems they have yet to receive. I do think Iran expected it could inflict some casualties on the IAF, which they did not. They expected their point-defense systems to get a few kills. That was all they could hope for. They knew that.

Quote:As you point out, the political will of the NATO countries will be critical. That question may not be answered until a war has actually started.

Plus Putin is not a young man. Would his successor embrace his goals?

There are so many what ifs, maybe's and political questions that we are just engaging in what theoretical maybe's which are interesting to think about, but don't solve much.

Very true! Interesting to think about, but unfortunately not directly useful.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 07-06-2025

By the way, I have not heard of any IDF planes being down at all.  I don’t know how many sorties they ran, but as Goose noted, mistakes happen, and the chances of a mishap through pilot error or sheer bad luck will sooner or later cause at least one downed plane.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-06-2025

https://breakingdefense.com/2025/06/army-considering-terminating-general-dynamics-oversight-of-new-155mm-production-lines/
I have no idea who is really "at fault" here, GD or the Army. I am guessing a lot of both. The important "take away" is that it isn't all that easy in today's environment to "ramp up" production of anything, even something as "simple" and well understood as 155 mm artillery shells. This is particularly true in the US.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Mick - 07-06-2025

Former Netherlands PM and current NATO head Mark Rutte told the New York Times that if China invates Taiwan, Beijing will enlist Russia's help to tie up NATO forces in Europe.

Rutte, gasoline and matches in hand, pointed to the early 2022 China/Russia "no limits partnership" and stated that Chinese President Xi Jinping "would first make sure that he makes a call to his very junior partner in all of this," referring to Putin. Rutte has repeatedly branded Putin as Jinping's subordinate.

NATO chief predicts China's plan for Taiwan

Not sure how Russia could attack NATO countries or why, given their lack of success in Ukraine, though Europe is paying attention. Rutte also says military conscription across Europe is up to the individual country:

NATO Chief Weighs In on Military Conscription Across Europe - Newsweek

Dmitry Medvedev disagrees:

NATO chief Mark Rutte reveals chilling way WW3 will most likely begin

Former Putin opponent Gennady Gudkov thinks Putin should avoid windows in tall buildings:

Betrayal at the Kremlin: Former KGB agent reveals Putin can’t trust his inner circle

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 07-07-2025

In another subject for this thread, here is an AI evaluation of the vulnerability of the Russian Rail Network

https://www.google.com/search?q=Vulnerability+of+Russian+rail+network+to+drone+attack&rlz=1C1VDKB_enUS1137US1139&oq=Vulnerability+of+Russian+rail+network+to+drone+attack&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCjE5NTU4ajBqMTWoAgiwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Another view of the Russian Rail System:
 https://www.cna.org/analyses/2023/04/russias-railway-troops

Here is a fairly negative view of our ability to deal with current drone technology.
https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/countering-the-drone-threat-steps-the-us-military

If you consider that a Reaper drone costs around $30 000,000 dollars, how many Ukrainian level drones can you buy for that amount of money?

One has to consider whether we are even remotely ready to fight this kind war?
https://warontherocks.com/2024/12/america-is-not-prepared-for-a-protracted-war/

One big question is whether our system is capable of changing approaches in midstream, fast enough to make a difference.  NATO  faces these same issues since they have pretty much integrated their systems with ours?

I am perhaps becoming a believer in the Ukrainian approach to drones warfare.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Mick - 07-07-2025

(07-07-2025, 05:17 PM)GK3 Wrote:  One has to consider whether we are even remotely ready to fight this kind war?
https://warontherocks.com/2024/12/america-is-not-prepared-for-a-protracted-war/

One big question is whether our system is capable of changing approaches in midstream, fast enough to make a difference.  NATO  faces these same issues since they have pretty much integrated their systems with ours?

The article didn't even mention the possibility of domestic sabotage. We don't really know who is within our borders, who is directing them or what they're capable of. Our infrastructure is vulnerable not just from overseas cyber challenges but from domestic physical challenges.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 07-07-2025

Quote:President Trump on sending more weapons to Ukraine: "We're gonna send some more weapons. We have to. They have to be able to defend themselves. They're getting hit very hard now."

https://x.com/Archer83Able/status/1942373320047092077

Very cool and normal that defense policy is being made by a DOD undersecretary and then within days changed during a press interview with the president. Of course let's see if/when Patriot missile shipments resume.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-07-2025

(07-07-2025, 05:17 PM)GK3 Wrote:  In another subject for this thread, here is an AI evaluation of the vulnerability of the Russian Rail Network

https://www.google.com/search?q=Vulnerability+of+Russian+rail+network+to+drone+attack&rlz=1C1VDKB_enUS1137US1139&oq=Vulnerability+of+Russian+rail+network+to+drone+attack&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCjE5NTU4ajBqMTWoAgiwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Another view of the Russian Rail System:
 https://www.cna.org/analyses/2023/04/russias-railway-troops

Here is a fairly negative view of our ability to deal with current drone technology.
https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/countering-the-drone-threat-steps-the-us-military

If you consider that a Reaper drone costs around $30 000,000 dollars, how many Ukrainian level drones can you buy for that amount of money?

There are a few questions that would also need to be asked in addition to the one you pose. One obvious one is why does the Reaper cost so much and what has been done to lower that cost? Another one is does the Reaper do critically important things that Ukrainian drones cannot, and visa versa? It is similar to asking how many Ukrainian drones can be purchased at the same cost as an F-35?
 

Quote:One has to consider whether we are even remotely ready to fight this kind war?
 
https://warontherocks.com/2024/12/america-is-not-prepared-for-a-protracted-war/

No, were are not. We also have absolutely no intention of fighting this kind of war. That would be surrendering our vast advantage in air power, among other things. We (and by extension NATO) intend to make Russia fight our kind of war, not vice versa. Obviously given that intention, we need to be damn sure we can do so. To do that, we need to develop appropriate means to counter what Russia might do to prevent that. I am pretty sure we are doing a less-than-great job of that. Part of the problem is that out military sometimes forgets that we don't want to become Ukraine or Russia, but we do need to be able to fight Russia. We don't want to be the best equipped and best trained Mavic drone army in the world. We want to be an army that can crush the best trained and best equipped Mavic drone army in the world. IMO that can't be done by adopting the same weapons and tactics as Ukraine and Russia. OTOH the tactics and weapons of Ukraine and Russia have to be evaluated and considered.

Quote:One big question is whether our system is capable of changing approaches in midstream, fast enough to make a difference.  NATO  faces these same issues since they have pretty much integrated their systems with ours?
 
I am perhaps becoming a believer in the Ukrainian approach to drones warfare. 

Depends on what we want to change. IMO the US and NATO could never fight a war the way Ukraine is fighting theirs now, even if it were a "good idea", which IMO it is not. Ukraine is making do with what it can. Would it work against the US and NATO? I very much doubt it. Keep in mind Ukraine's only path to victory is that Russia quits or cannot continue. It has not happened in the last three years and it appears unlikely that is going to happen within the next two years, at least. Would the American public sit still for Ukraine sized casualties and continuous missile bombardment for that long? I doubt it.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Mick - 07-08-2025

Russia couldn't fight NATO, particularly after (a) losing so much in Ukraine and (b) telegraphing how they fight. They would have 1,000:1 loss ratios. They'd have to resort to nukes or biological weapons.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - GK3 - 07-08-2025

(07-07-2025, 09:01 PM)Goose Wrote:  

(07-07-2025, 05:17 PM)GK3 Wrote:  In another subject for this thread, here is an AI evaluation of the vulnerability of the Russian Rail Network

https://www.google.com/search?q=Vulnerability+of+Russian+rail+network+to+drone+attack&rlz=1C1VDKB_enUS1137US1139&oq=Vulnerability+of+Russian+rail+network+to+drone+attack&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCjE5NTU4ajBqMTWoAgiwAgE&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Another view of the Russian Rail System:
 https://www.cna.org/analyses/2023/04/russias-railway-troops

Here is a fairly negative view of our ability to deal with current drone technology.
https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/countering-the-drone-threat-steps-the-us-military

If you consider that a Reaper drone costs around $30 000,000 dollars, how many Ukrainian level drones can you buy for that amount of money?

There are a few questions that would also need to be asked in addition to the one you pose. One obvious one is why does the Reaper cost so much and what has been done to lower that cost? Another one is does the Reaper do critically important things that Ukrainian drones cannot, and visa versa? It is similar to asking how many Ukrainian drones can be purchased at the same cost as an F-35?
 

Quote:One has to consider whether we are even remotely ready to fight this kind war?
 
https://warontherocks.com/2024/12/america-is-not-prepared-for-a-protracted-war/

No, were are not. We also have absolutely no intention of fighting this kind of war. That would be surrendering our vast advantage in air power, among other things. We (and by extension NATO) intend to make Russia fight our kind of war, not vice versa. Obviously given that intention, we need to be damn sure we can do so. To do that, we need to develop appropriate means to counter what Russia might do to prevent that. I am pretty sure we are doing a less-than-great job of that. Part of the problem is that out military sometimes forgets that we don't want to become Ukraine or Russia, but we do need to be able to fight Russia. We don't want to be the best equipped and best trained Mavic drone army in the world. We want to be an army that can crush the best trained and best equipped Mavic drone army in the world. IMO that can't be done by adopting the same weapons and tactics as Ukraine and Russia. OTOH the tactics and weapons of Ukraine and Russia have to be evaluated and considered.

Quote:One big question is whether our system is capable of changing approaches in midstream, fast enough to make a difference.  NATO  faces these same issues since they have pretty much integrated their systems with ours?
 
I am perhaps becoming a believer in the Ukrainian approach to drones warfare. 

Depends on what we want to change. IMO the US and NATO could never fight a war the way Ukraine is fighting theirs now, even if it were a "good idea", which IMO it is not. Ukraine is making do with what it can. Would it work against the US and NATO? I very much doubt it. Keep in mind Ukraine's only path to victory is that Russia quits or cannot continue. It has not happened in the last three years and it appears unlikely that is going to happen within the next two years, at least. Would the American public sit still for Ukraine sized casualties and continuous missile bombardment for that long? I doubt it.

You are correct that we do not do well at small wars mostly because over time the number of body bags coming home reaches a critical political level.
It seems to me that if the West can continue to help Ukraine out where it really needs help, not including boots on the ground, they can continue to bleed the Russian forces and its economy.  They once gave up in Afghanistan mostly because the losses became too large. But the Russian electorate today is not the electorate of then.  It think that Putin has a grabbed a tiger by the tail that he had no intention of grabbing. Now if he lets go of the tiger's tail it may eat him or he may fall out of a window.  A big question is how long will the "Siloviki" continue their support?
Regarding cost of our toys, we have probably way over paid for those toys.
I can't see Russia attacking NATO while still bogged down in Ukraine, but if they do, I still think high volume use of cheap small drones can to a certain extent compensate for lack of manpower.  I also assume that a high volume drone attack could saturate air defense systems, but maybe this is wishful thinking on my part. I realize this type of warfare is not what we train for and not what we buy for, but it still exists.

Most of all I think as a country, we need a Plan, something well thought out and considering all the myriad of possibilities in today's world.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - M T - 07-08-2025

(07-08-2025, 06:43 AM)Mick Wrote:  Russia couldn't fight NATO, particularly after (a) losing so much in Ukraine and (b) telegraphing how they fight. They would have 1,000:1 loss ratios. They'd have to resort to nukes or biological weapons.

Define “fight”. I believe you are limiting your thoughts to kinetic fighting. 

Consider cyber, economic, or political fighting. 

Btw. Naval resources when at sea are probably invulnerable to the kind of surprise drone attack that seems hard to prevent.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-08-2025

(07-08-2025, 06:43 AM)Mick Wrote:  Russia couldn't fight NATO, particularly after (a) losing so much in Ukraine and (b) telegraphing how they fight. They would have 1,000:1 loss ratios. They'd have to resort to nukes or biological weapons.

Russia indeed couldn't fight NATO. But they could fight Latvia. You might say "Wait, that would be fighting NATO". However Putin may believe 1) He can take over Latvia before NATO can even get organized, let alone starts fighting, and/or 2) NATO isn't going to risk a general war over Latvia. It is unfortunately not at all unlikely that Putin is right about one or both of these opinions. Worse still, if he is wrong about either of them a NATO vs. Russia war will be in progress. Then the NCB warfare possibilities become "real", especially if Russia starts losing. Remember, Hitler believed Poland would be a re-run of Austria and Czechoslovakia. He didn't expect either Britain or France to actually fight. Substitute the other Baltic state names for Latvia as you think appropriate :-).

(07-08-2025, 07:48 AM)GK3 Wrote:  You are correct that we do not do well at small wars mostly because over time the number of body bags coming home reaches a critical political level.

True, and a NATO/US vs. Russia conflict could never remain a "small" war. The currently losing side will always attempt to change the calculus by striking what it believes is a "weak point" of the other, thus expanding the war rapidly.

Quote:It seems to me that if the West can continue to help Ukraine out where it really needs help, not including boots on the ground, they can continue to bleed the Russian forces and its economy.  They once gave up in Afghanistan mostly because the losses became too large. But the Russian electorate today is not the electorate of then.  It think that Putin has a grabbed a tiger by the tail that he had no intention of grabbing. Now if he lets go of the tiger's tail it may eat him or he may fall out of a window.  A big question is how long will the "Siloviki" continue their support?

I totally agree the West should continue to help Ukraine resist the Russian invasion, short of actually entering the war. Russia would regard planes in the air the same as boots on the ground. Given the current state of play there is really no other viable choice than to continue supplying military material to Ukraine.

The West too has a tiger by the tail, although the current administration attempts to ignore that fact. When the previous administration started massively assisting Ukraine in this war it in large measure tied the credibility and influence of the US and NATO to success in Ukraine. Unfortunately that administration appears to have had no plan to deliver that success. Right now, the Ukrainian government can realistically look forward to an endless war or a temporary peace that leaves their nation as a shadow of its former self with no viable path to security and economic growth. Optimistically they can hope that with Western help they can hang on until Russia has to / chooses to give up. When will that be? I don't think anybody has even a good guess.
 
Putin has his tiger. He isn't going to quit unless forced by economic collapse/political upheaval. Ukraine cannot force either of those outcomes. They can only hold on and hope. How long they can do that is also unknown. The US possibly could by tightening down the economic pressure even tighter. It appears we will not do that.

Quote:Regarding cost of our toys, we have probably way over paid for those toys.

Absolutely, although "it is much more complicated than that". This is such a massive subject it would be inappropriate to even attempt to discuss it in a Ukraine thread.

Quote:I can't see Russia attacking NATO while still bogged down in Ukraine, but if they do, I still think high volume use of cheap small drones can to a certain extent compensate for lack of manpower.  I also assume that a high volume drone attack could saturate air defense systems, but maybe this is wishful thinking on my part.

I think a drone swarm can saturate an Russian IADS system. Ukraine has demonstrated this. However, why would we bother with such an approach when our DEAD plan will render that system nonexistent?

Quote:I realize this type of warfare is not what we train for and not what we buy for, but it still exists.

Indeed it does. It is however a form of warfare we absolutely must train AGAINST, because we may well face opponents who adopt it. NATO and the US do not use a Russian style IADS, so our vulnerabilities are different. We have always used and intend to use AWACs type aircraft to manage the air battle, from the Willie Victors to the E-3s. There are very good reasons for that choice. Unfortunately the administration has canceled the E-7. It is unclear how we will proceed now, as the lack of a fully capable AWACS undermines our entire air war philosophy.

Quote:Most of all I think as a country, we need a Plan, something well thought out and considering all the myriad of possibilities in today's world.

This! 1000 Amens. Unfortunately to have such a plan that is any good we have to have the right people in the leadership positions at the Pentagon and in the myriad supporting positions that make such plans and subsequently execute them. We don't have that, and arguably haven't had that for a very long time. While Goldwater-Nichols may have solved some problems, it created many others, both directly and indirectly. This is a big part of the problem, but isn't close to the whole problem. Again, a massive issue.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 07-08-2025

(07-07-2025, 07:18 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  

Quote:President Trump on sending more weapons to Ukraine: "We're gonna send some more weapons. We have to. They have to be able to defend themselves. They're getting hit very hard now."

https://x.com/Archer83Able/status/1942373320047092077

Very cool and normal that defense policy is being made by a DOD undersecretary and then within days changed during a press interview with the president. Of course let's see if/when Patriot missile shipments resume.

Isn’t defense policy normally formulated by undersecretaries and staffers and endorsed by the Secretary?

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Mick - 07-08-2025

(07-08-2025, 07:48 AM)GK3 Wrote:  Most of all I think as a country, we need a Plan, something well thought out and considering all the myriad of possibilities in today's world.

Do we not have a plan?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 07-08-2025

A bit off topic, but I must admit I am very surprised to not hear some serious grousing about the Iran-Israel "12 day war" outcome. Obviously there is still no solid information on the damage to the Iranian nuclear program. That said, it appears Iran is still dead-set on continuing Uranium enrichment. We do see things like this:https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/07/07/donald-trump-us-officials-will-meet-with-iranians-after-bombing/84499425007/. However, there is no indication Iran actually intends to back away from their position on enrichment. We also see this: https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/iran-receives-chinese-surface-air-missile-batteries-after-israel-ceasefire-say-sources
 
It may be the public in Israel and the US is in a "wait and see" mode, but frankly I expected the Israeli public to want answers by now on the way ahead. So far it appears that for all the hoopla Iran is still going to behave as it always had. That should IMO call into question to what degree the Israeli military operation succeeded in its goals. It also raises questions about Israeli preparedness for Iranian tactical ballistic missile attacks. IOW, did Israeli quit fighting because it had to, not because it wanted to?

---

(07-08-2025, 11:30 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  

(07-07-2025, 07:18 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  

Quote:President Trump on sending more weapons to Ukraine: "We're gonna send some more weapons. We have to. They have to be able to defend themselves. They're getting hit very hard now."

https://x.com/Archer83Able/status/1942373320047092077

Very cool and normal that defense policy is being made by a DOD undersecretary and then within days changed during a press interview with the president. Of course let's see if/when Patriot missile shipments resume.

Isn’t defense policy normally formulated by undersecretaries and staffers and endorsed by the Secretary?

BC

After Goldwater-Nichols this indeed became somewhat "normal". Paul Wolfowitz comes to mind. However, there is another path that can be involved. The JCS advises the President. The President may re-direct the SecDef based on that advice or his own whim. It also usual for the SecDef and his underlings to clear major policy changes, such as cutting off aid to Ukraine, through the President. IMO the policy changing "administratively" and somewhat behind the scene is a bit "unusual". I would have expected a formal announcement from the SecDef at a minimum if not the President for such a policy change. It is even more unusual for the President to contradict such a policy change in such short order without a particular event driving the change.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 07-08-2025

(07-08-2025, 11:30 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  

(07-07-2025, 07:18 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  

Quote:President Trump on sending more weapons to Ukraine: "We're gonna send some more weapons. We have to. They have to be able to defend themselves. They're getting hit very hard now."

https://x.com/Archer83Able/status/1942373320047092077

Very cool and normal that defense policy is being made by a DOD undersecretary and then within days changed during a press interview with the president. Of course let's see if/when Patriot missile shipments resume.

Isn’t defense policy normally formulated by undersecretaries and staffers and endorsed by the Secretary?

BC

That would make sense. But after it's formulated, it would normally be put through interagency consultations and for something this important probably getting sign off from POTUS, before it was implemented.

The reporting on the Ukraine aid being withheld indicates the State Department and military leaders were blindsided and upset. Trump has said he didn't know about it and was surprised when it happened.

Quote:During a Cabinet meeting, when President Trump was asked who ordered the pause of missiles and ammunition shipment to Ukraine last week, he said he didn't know.

https://bsky.app/profile/nbcnews.com/post/3lthwp2vqki2j

If this were to happen in most administrations, I would think the undersecretary and the SecDef would be fired. Not expecting that now but would be happy to be wrong.

---