[TrumpCard]

Is it overly sanguine to hope that the war will come to a conclusion, even if that conclusion is the reversion to a new stalemate position, before either side runs out of artillery ammunition?  Years of conflict at the current level of intensity would be a bigger tragedy than I care to consider for now.

[TrumpCard]

Is it overly sanguine to hope that the war will come to a conclusion, even if that conclusion is the reversion to a new stalemate position, before either side runs out of artillery ammunition?  Years of conflict at the current level of intensity would be a bigger tragedy than I care to consider for now.

[Treefence]

Bloomberg is reporting that the US is considering sending Bradley IFV's to Ukraine.  I believe these would be the first of western IFV's that would be sent (besides modified APC's), and I wonder if this is step before western tanks are sent.  I'd imagine if western tanks were sent, it would be German Leopard tanks and not Abrams, for logistical reasons.  Ukraine should be getting 90 upgraded T-72's soon as well as M1117's.  

I'm wondering if this will all help lead to a major offensive by Ukraine soon, if we aren't already seeing that in the Luhansk region.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...f=yYYRek8e

[Treefence]

Bloomberg is reporting that the US is considering sending Bradley IFV's to Ukraine.  I believe these would be the first of western IFV's that would be sent (besides modified APC's), and I wonder if this is step before western tanks are sent.  I'd imagine if western tanks were sent, it would be German Leopard tanks and not Abrams, for logistical reasons.  Ukraine should be getting 90 upgraded T-72's soon as well as M1117's.  

I'm wondering if this will all help lead to a major offensive by Ukraine soon, if we aren't already seeing that in the Luhansk region.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...f=yYYRek8e

[gocard14]

Bloomberg is reporting that the US is considering sending Bradley IFV's to Ukraine.  I believe these would be the first of western IFV's that would be sent (besides modified APC's), and I wonder if this is step before western tanks are sent.  I'd imagine if western tanks were sent, it would be German Leopard tanks and not Abrams, for logistical reasons.  Ukraine should be getting 90 upgraded T-72's soon as well as M1117's.  

I'm wondering if this will all help lead to a major offensive by Ukraine soon, if we aren't already seeing that in the Luhansk region.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...f=yYYRek8e

If Bradley’s are going, I suspect it won’t be for an offensive anytime soon due to the time needed for training and logistic support. That being said it would be great news, and we certainly have a lot of them so ongoing support shouldn’t be an issue.

[gocard14]

Bloomberg is reporting that the US is considering sending Bradley IFV's to Ukraine.  I believe these would be the first of western IFV's that would be sent (besides modified APC's), and I wonder if this is step before western tanks are sent.  I'd imagine if western tanks were sent, it would be German Leopard tanks and not Abrams, for logistical reasons.  Ukraine should be getting 90 upgraded T-72's soon as well as M1117's.  

I'm wondering if this will all help lead to a major offensive by Ukraine soon, if we aren't already seeing that in the Luhansk region.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...f=yYYRek8e

If Bradley’s are going, I suspect it won’t be for an offensive anytime soon due to the time needed for training and logistic support. That being said it would be great news, and we certainly have a lot of them so ongoing support shouldn’t be an issue.

[Hurlburt88]

Help me with the value of the Bradley.  I view them as a fairly old design, and not overly armored and thus vulnerable.  So curious for insight into how they could be used (maybe more for rapid movement?).

[Hurlburt88]

Help me with the value of the Bradley.  I view them as a fairly old design, and not overly armored and thus vulnerable.  So curious for insight into how they could be used (maybe more for rapid movement?).

[gocard14]

Help me with the value of the Bradley.  I view them as a fairly old design, and not overly armored and thus vulnerable.  So curious for insight into how they could be used (maybe more for rapid movement?).

No expert here, but they seem to provide a good balance of mobility, armor against most threats, and a good amount of firepower, even to the point of handling itself just fine against older Russian MBTs in desert storm. No idea if it’s true, but you read that the Bradley took out more T72s then the Abrams in Iraq. Less armored and less firepower then an Abrams, but lighter, easier to maneuver, and easier to supply and probably maintain as it runs on a diesel engine and not a jet turbine.

All in all, it probably makes more sense then an Abrams given the logistic issues as well as the fact that this hasn’t seemed to be a brobdingnagian tank V tank war.

[gocard14]

Help me with the value of the Bradley.  I view them as a fairly old design, and not overly armored and thus vulnerable.  So curious for insight into how they could be used (maybe more for rapid movement?).

No expert here, but they seem to provide a good balance of mobility, armor against most threats, and a good amount of firepower, even to the point of handling itself just fine against older Russian MBTs in desert storm. No idea if it’s true, but you read that the Bradley took out more T72s then the Abrams in Iraq. Less armored and less firepower then an Abrams, but lighter, easier to maneuver, and easier to supply and probably maintain as it runs on a diesel engine and not a jet turbine.

All in all, it probably makes more sense then an Abrams given the logistic issues as well as the fact that this hasn’t seemed to be a brobdingnagian tank V tank war.

[Softball Fan]

Is it overly sanguine to hope that the war will come to a conclusion, even if that conclusion is the reversion to a new stalemate position, before either side runs out of artillery ammunition?  Years of conflict at the current level of intensity would be a bigger tragedy than I care to consider for now.

These are my sentiments.  I don't see a settlement on the horizon.  Many more people will be killed, more infrastructure destroyed.  Putin will not settle without getting some land from Ukraine.  Ukraine will not give up any land.  How is this going to end?  I don't buy the idea Russia will be militarily defeated by Ukraine to the point of unconditional surrender.

[Softball Fan]

Is it overly sanguine to hope that the war will come to a conclusion, even if that conclusion is the reversion to a new stalemate position, before either side runs out of artillery ammunition?  Years of conflict at the current level of intensity would be a bigger tragedy than I care to consider for now.

These are my sentiments.  I don't see a settlement on the horizon.  Many more people will be killed, more infrastructure destroyed.  Putin will not settle without getting some land from Ukraine.  Ukraine will not give up any land.  How is this going to end?  I don't buy the idea Russia will be militarily defeated by Ukraine to the point of unconditional surrender.

[dabigv13]

Is it overly sanguine to hope that the war will come to a conclusion, even if that conclusion is the reversion to a new stalemate position, before either side runs out of artillery ammunition?  Years of conflict at the current level of intensity would be a bigger tragedy than I care to consider for now.

These are my sentiments.  I don't see a settlement on the horizon.  Many more people will be killed, more infrastructure destroyed.  Putin will not settle without getting some land from Ukraine.  Ukraine will not give up any land.  How is this going to end?  I don't buy the idea Russia will be militarily defeated by Ukraine to the point of unconditional surrender.

Russia will eventually leave Ukraine, just like the US left Vietnam and Russia left Afghanistan. It's been less than a year, this is still early innings.

[dabigv13]

Is it overly sanguine to hope that the war will come to a conclusion, even if that conclusion is the reversion to a new stalemate position, before either side runs out of artillery ammunition?  Years of conflict at the current level of intensity would be a bigger tragedy than I care to consider for now.

These are my sentiments.  I don't see a settlement on the horizon.  Many more people will be killed, more infrastructure destroyed.  Putin will not settle without getting some land from Ukraine.  Ukraine will not give up any land.  How is this going to end?  I don't buy the idea Russia will be militarily defeated by Ukraine to the point of unconditional surrender.

Russia will eventually leave Ukraine, just like the US left Vietnam and Russia left Afghanistan. It's been less than a year, this is still early innings.

[TrumpCard]

Is it overly sanguine to hope that the war will come to a conclusion, even if that conclusion is the reversion to a new stalemate position, before either side runs out of artillery ammunition?  Years of conflict at the current level of intensity would be a bigger tragedy than I care to consider for now.

These are my sentiments.  I don't see a settlement on the horizon.  Many more people will be killed, more infrastructure destroyed.  Putin will not settle without getting some land from Ukraine.  Ukraine will not give up any land.  How is this going to end?  I don't buy the idea Russia will be militarily defeated by Ukraine to the point of unconditional surrender.

Russia will eventually leave Ukraine, just like the US left Vietnam and Russia left Afghanistan. It's been less than a 9 years, this is still early innings.

Fixed it for you.

[TrumpCard]

Is it overly sanguine to hope that the war will come to a conclusion, even if that conclusion is the reversion to a new stalemate position, before either side runs out of artillery ammunition?  Years of conflict at the current level of intensity would be a bigger tragedy than I care to consider for now.

These are my sentiments.  I don't see a settlement on the horizon.  Many more people will be killed, more infrastructure destroyed.  Putin will not settle without getting some land from Ukraine.  Ukraine will not give up any land.  How is this going to end?  I don't buy the idea Russia will be militarily defeated by Ukraine to the point of unconditional surrender.

Russia will eventually leave Ukraine, just like the US left Vietnam and Russia left Afghanistan. It's been less than a 9 years, this is still early innings.

Fixed it for you.

[dabigv13]

Yes, I think everyone here is aware Ukraine and Russian proxy forces have been in some state of conflict since 2014. 

The intensity of the conflict from 2014 until Feb 2022 is not at all comparable to that after Feb 22.

[dabigv13]

Yes, I think everyone here is aware Ukraine and Russian proxy forces have been in some state of conflict since 2014. 

The intensity of the conflict from 2014 until Feb 2022 is not at all comparable to that after Feb 22.

[TrumpCard]

Yes, I think everyone here is aware Ukraine and Russian proxy forces have been in some state of conflict since 2014. 

The intensity of the conflict from 2014 until Feb 2022 is not at all comparable to that after Feb 22.

I agree with you.  My comment earlier today was that I'd rather see a reversion to the stalemate that existed during the prior 8-year period than see the conflict continue at this level of intensity for years.  My most recent comment, admittedly too snarky, was just that Russia already has proven that it can stay in Ukraine for the long term by achieving a stalemate.  Russia has done the same in South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Transnistria.  Frozen conflicts on foreign soil have become Russia's MO.  I think we easily could see that happen in Ukraine, and that Russia would see no reason to leave at any time in the foreseeable future.

[TrumpCard]

Yes, I think everyone here is aware Ukraine and Russian proxy forces have been in some state of conflict since 2014. 

The intensity of the conflict from 2014 until Feb 2022 is not at all comparable to that after Feb 22.

I agree with you.  My comment earlier today was that I'd rather see a reversion to the stalemate that existed during the prior 8-year period than see the conflict continue at this level of intensity for years.  My most recent comment, admittedly too snarky, was just that Russia already has proven that it can stay in Ukraine for the long term by achieving a stalemate.  Russia has done the same in South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Transnistria.  Frozen conflicts on foreign soil have become Russia's MO.  I think we easily could see that happen in Ukraine, and that Russia would see no reason to leave at any time in the foreseeable future.

[BostonCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ralee85/status/1608612347035398144?s=46&t=m4QH7kl9a3vVFBZtkZpHZA[/tweet]

Interesting.

BC

[BostonCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ralee85/status/1608612347035398144?s=46&t=m4QH7kl9a3vVFBZtkZpHZA[/tweet]

Interesting.

BC

[dabigv13]

A frozen conflict is a possibility, particularly if western support is cut off. Not sure why you would want a return to a frozen conflict though, as it will have meant Russian aggression was rewarded with territorial gains and will probably not be frozen for long.

The quickest way to end the war is to increase military aid to Ukraine so they can kill enough Russians that the war becomes untenable. A durable peace is only possible once Russia loses.

[dabigv13]

A frozen conflict is a possibility, particularly if western support is cut off. Not sure why you would want a return to a frozen conflict though, as it will have meant Russian aggression was rewarded with territorial gains and will probably not be frozen for long.

The quickest way to end the war is to increase military aid to Ukraine so they can kill enough Russians that the war becomes untenable. A durable peace is only possible once Russia loses.

[BostonCard]

Looks like it was seconded…

[tweet]https://twitter.com/markhertling/status/1608650114377330689?s=46&t=m4QH7kl9a3vVFBZtkZpHZA[/tweet]

BC

[BostonCard]

Looks like it was seconded…

[tweet]https://twitter.com/markhertling/status/1608650114377330689?s=46&t=m4QH7kl9a3vVFBZtkZpHZA[/tweet]

BC

[dabigv13]

Good piece on the counteroffensive of Kharkiv.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/202...n-donetsk/

BC

This was a great piece. And after reading it, you can appreciate that Bradley's would be really handy. Ukrainian troops were using old Russian cars with all their windows blown out as ambulances due to lack of armored vehicle options.

Hopefully we send them a lot.

[dabigv13]

Good piece on the counteroffensive of Kharkiv.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/202...n-donetsk/

BC

This was a great piece. And after reading it, you can appreciate that Bradley's would be really handy. Ukrainian troops were using old Russian cars with all their windows blown out as ambulances due to lack of armored vehicle options.

Hopefully we send them a lot.

[Goose]

Good piece on the counteroffensive of Kharkiv.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/202...n-donetsk/

BC

This was a great piece. And after reading it, you can appreciate that Bradley's would be really handy. Ukrainian troops were using old Russian cars with all their windows blown out as ambulances due to lack of armored vehicle options.

Hopefully we send them a lot.

Agree, great article. It talks about what Ukraine did right, which was a lot, and a bit about what Ukraine did wrong. Sitting a week before advancing on Lyman was a big mistake, and they paid dearly for it. The Ukrainians were correct that speed was essential at the beginning. Hopefully, what they learned was that speed is also essential all the time until you are stopped by the enemy or literally out of gas. You have to have a plan for the response to both unexpectedly strong resistance and total collapse, because both happen. That is how you avoid the frozen conflict and minimize casualties. Hopefully, the Bradley's will help with that speed. Hopefully, the better training the Ukraine is getting will too. It won't be easy. That is why talk from the Ukrainian side about fighting a long artillery battle worries me. Ukraine can't "win" that way.

This war, if Ukraine is going to win, will be won in the South, not the Donbas. Russia knows this and is acting accordingly. That is not to say that pressure in the Donbas isn't important, but the South is where Russia can be cut off. They can fall back all the way to mother Russia in the North. Not good for Russia, but not fatal either. In the South, that isn't the case. Further, losing the Crimea would be a political catastrophe potentially large enough to bring down Putin. Other things could do it, but losing Crimea would do it. It is their "center of gravity", and therefore is the place to beat them.

That is my story, and I am sticking to it :-)

[Goose]

Good piece on the counteroffensive of Kharkiv.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/202...n-donetsk/

BC

This was a great piece. And after reading it, you can appreciate that Bradley's would be really handy. Ukrainian troops were using old Russian cars with all their windows blown out as ambulances due to lack of armored vehicle options.

Hopefully we send them a lot.

Agree, great article. It talks about what Ukraine did right, which was a lot, and a bit about what Ukraine did wrong. Sitting a week before advancing on Lyman was a big mistake, and they paid dearly for it. The Ukrainians were correct that speed was essential at the beginning. Hopefully, what they learned was that speed is also essential all the time until you are stopped by the enemy or literally out of gas. You have to have a plan for the response to both unexpectedly strong resistance and total collapse, because both happen. That is how you avoid the frozen conflict and minimize casualties. Hopefully, the Bradley's will help with that speed. Hopefully, the better training the Ukraine is getting will too. It won't be easy. That is why talk from the Ukrainian side about fighting a long artillery battle worries me. Ukraine can't "win" that way.

This war, if Ukraine is going to win, will be won in the South, not the Donbas. Russia knows this and is acting accordingly. That is not to say that pressure in the Donbas isn't important, but the South is where Russia can be cut off. They can fall back all the way to mother Russia in the North. Not good for Russia, but not fatal either. In the South, that isn't the case. Further, losing the Crimea would be a political catastrophe potentially large enough to bring down Putin. Other things could do it, but losing Crimea would do it. It is their "center of gravity", and therefore is the place to beat them.

That is my story, and I am sticking to it :-)

[TrumpCard]

A frozen conflict is a possibility, particularly if western support is cut off. Not sure why you would want a return to a frozen conflict though, as it will have meant Russian aggression was rewarded with territorial gains and will probably not be frozen for long.

The quickest way to end the war is to increase military aid to Ukraine so they can kill enough Russians that the war becomes untenable. A durable peace is only possible once Russia loses.

I don’t want a frozen conflict unless it’s compared with a conflict of the current intensity for a long enough time for ukraine to run out of ammo.

[TrumpCard]

A frozen conflict is a possibility, particularly if western support is cut off. Not sure why you would want a return to a frozen conflict though, as it will have meant Russian aggression was rewarded with territorial gains and will probably not be frozen for long.

The quickest way to end the war is to increase military aid to Ukraine so they can kill enough Russians that the war becomes untenable. A durable peace is only possible once Russia loses.

I don’t want a frozen conflict unless it’s compared with a conflict of the current intensity for a long enough time for ukraine to run out of ammo.

[dabigv13]

Good thread on the Bradley that hopefully will be going to Ukraine soon, from a former Bradley operator.

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/secretsqrl123/status...TglJ4loU3w[/tweet]

[dabigv13]

Good thread on the Bradley that hopefully will be going to Ukraine soon, from a former Bradley operator.

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/secretsqrl123/status...TglJ4loU3w[/tweet]

[GK3]

Yes, I think everyone here is aware Ukraine and Russian proxy forces have been in some state of conflict since 2014. 

The intensity of the conflict from 2014 until Feb 2022 is not at all comparable to that after Feb 22.

I agree with you.  My comment earlier today was that I'd rather see a reversion to the stalemate that existed during the prior 8-year period than see the conflict continue at this level of intensity for years.  My most recent comment, admittedly too snarky, was just that Russia already has proven that it can stay in Ukraine for the long term by achieving a stalemate.  Russia has done the same in South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Transnistria.  Frozen conflicts on foreign soil have become Russia's MO.  I think we easily could see that happen in Ukraine, and that Russia would see no reason to leave at any time in the foreseeable future.

I wonder how hard the Oligarchs are getting hit in the pocketbook as a result of this?  My guess that their is a certain risk to Putin in their unhappiness, but then maybe that is why there is an epidemic of people falling out of windows.

[GK3]

Yes, I think everyone here is aware Ukraine and Russian proxy forces have been in some state of conflict since 2014. 

The intensity of the conflict from 2014 until Feb 2022 is not at all comparable to that after Feb 22.

I agree with you.  My comment earlier today was that I'd rather see a reversion to the stalemate that existed during the prior 8-year period than see the conflict continue at this level of intensity for years.  My most recent comment, admittedly too snarky, was just that Russia already has proven that it can stay in Ukraine for the long term by achieving a stalemate.  Russia has done the same in South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Transnistria.  Frozen conflicts on foreign soil have become Russia's MO.  I think we easily could see that happen in Ukraine, and that Russia would see no reason to leave at any time in the foreseeable future.

I wonder how hard the Oligarchs are getting hit in the pocketbook as a result of this?  My guess that their is a certain risk to Putin in their unhappiness, but then maybe that is why there is an epidemic of people falling out of windows.

[gocard14]

https://warontherocks.com/2023/01/americ...r-ukraine/

Interesting article arguing that cheap and ubiquitous battlefield surveillance from drones and proliferation of long range portable anti-armor weapons strongly favors rapidly available precise long range fires and attrition over maneuver based warfare. 

It doesn’t take an extreme view and suggest abandoning combined arms maneuvers, but that NATO may want to shift focus more on long range fires over MBT/IFVs

[gocard14]

https://warontherocks.com/2023/01/americ...r-ukraine/

Interesting article arguing that cheap and ubiquitous battlefield surveillance from drones and proliferation of long range portable anti-armor weapons strongly favors rapidly available precise long range fires and attrition over maneuver based warfare. 

It doesn’t take an extreme view and suggest abandoning combined arms maneuvers, but that NATO may want to shift focus more on long range fires over MBT/IFVs

[BostonCard]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-str...1672665144

Pho­tos of the site have since spread on Russ­ian so­cial me­dia. Sev­eral of the mil­i­tary blog­gers said the army had stored am­mu­ni­tion at the same lo­ca­tion that trig­gered a large ex­plo­sion lev­el­ing the build­ing. Mil­i­tary equip­ment placed right next to the build­ing “with­out the slight­est sign of dis­guise” was also de­stroyed, said Igor Girkin, a for­mer Russ­ian in­tel­li­gence of­fi­cer who com­manded ir­reg­u­lar Russ­ian forces in the area in 2014, on the so­cial-me­dia app Telegram.

Not a military guy, but storing munitions close to barracks sounds ill-advised.

BC

[BostonCard]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-str...1672665144

Pho­tos of the site have since spread on Russ­ian so­cial me­dia. Sev­eral of the mil­i­tary blog­gers said the army had stored am­mu­ni­tion at the same lo­ca­tion that trig­gered a large ex­plo­sion lev­el­ing the build­ing. Mil­i­tary equip­ment placed right next to the build­ing “with­out the slight­est sign of dis­guise” was also de­stroyed, said Igor Girkin, a for­mer Russ­ian in­tel­li­gence of­fi­cer who com­manded ir­reg­u­lar Russ­ian forces in the area in 2014, on the so­cial-me­dia app Telegram.

Not a military guy, but storing munitions close to barracks sounds ill-advised.

BC