[dabigv13]

I don't think that Britain has many Challenger 2 tanks to send beyond a very token force. I'm not sure UK sending a dozen or so tanks would really get Germany to open the floodgates on Leopard 2's in numbers that will matter. Probably will need to be a joint Polish/German/US deal where we agree to expedite Abrams deliveries to Poland and they send their Leopards, but what gets Germany to move is unclear.

As for the new IFVs, I'm guessing they will be going to reconstitute losses probably in a few select elite Ukrainian units that have been most involved but also likely with highest losses of prior equipment. Perhaps relatively "elite" units like 80th Mechanized, 92nd Mechanized that have been involved in many of Ukraine's mechanized offensives. Would make sense to give your best units the best stuff. That does of course mean sacrificing some of the guys for training but they could likely use the time away from the front. 

-------

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/10/politics/...index.html

As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine enters its 11th month, US and Ukrainian officials tell CNN that Russia’s artillery fire is down dramatically from its wartime high, in some places by as much as 75 percent.

US and Ukrainian officials don’t yet have a clear or singular explanation. Russia may be rationing artillery rounds due to low supplies, or it could be part of a broader reassessment of tactics in the face of successful Ukrainian offenses.

...
Last month, a senior US military official said that Russia has had to resort to 40-year-old artillery shells as their supply of new ammo dwindled. To the US, the use of degraded ammunition, as well as the Kremlin’s outreach to countries like North Korea and Iran, was a sign of Russia’s diminished stocks of weaponry.
...
While Russia still has more artillery ammunition available than Ukraine does, early US assessments vastly overestimated the amount that Russia had its disposal, a US military official said, and underestimated how well the Ukrainians would do at hitting Russian logistics sites.

---

Also this article was interesting

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/10/politics/...index.html

Ukrainian troops are set to begin training on the Patriot missile system in the United States as soon as next week, two US officials familiar with the matter tell CNN.
The training program will take place at Fort Sill in Oklahoma, where the US conducts its own training on operating and maintaining the advanced air defense system. Fort Sill is one of the Army’s four basic training locations and home to the service’s field artillery school, which has been training service members for more than a century.
The training for the Ukrainians on the complex system is expected to take “several months,” said Laura Cooper, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia.
“I’m not going to be able to give you a specific timeframe for the completion of the training,” Cooper said Friday.

[dabigv13]

I don't think that Britain has many Challenger 2 tanks to send beyond a very token force. I'm not sure UK sending a dozen or so tanks would really get Germany to open the floodgates on Leopard 2's in numbers that will matter. Probably will need to be a joint Polish/German/US deal where we agree to expedite Abrams deliveries to Poland and they send their Leopards, but what gets Germany to move is unclear.

As for the new IFVs, I'm guessing they will be going to reconstitute losses probably in a few select elite Ukrainian units that have been most involved but also likely with highest losses of prior equipment. Perhaps relatively "elite" units like 80th Mechanized, 92nd Mechanized that have been involved in many of Ukraine's mechanized offensives. Would make sense to give your best units the best stuff. That does of course mean sacrificing some of the guys for training but they could likely use the time away from the front. 

-------

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/10/politics/...index.html

As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine enters its 11th month, US and Ukrainian officials tell CNN that Russia’s artillery fire is down dramatically from its wartime high, in some places by as much as 75 percent.

US and Ukrainian officials don’t yet have a clear or singular explanation. Russia may be rationing artillery rounds due to low supplies, or it could be part of a broader reassessment of tactics in the face of successful Ukrainian offenses.

...
Last month, a senior US military official said that Russia has had to resort to 40-year-old artillery shells as their supply of new ammo dwindled. To the US, the use of degraded ammunition, as well as the Kremlin’s outreach to countries like North Korea and Iran, was a sign of Russia’s diminished stocks of weaponry.
...
While Russia still has more artillery ammunition available than Ukraine does, early US assessments vastly overestimated the amount that Russia had its disposal, a US military official said, and underestimated how well the Ukrainians would do at hitting Russian logistics sites.

---

Also this article was interesting

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/10/politics/...index.html

Ukrainian troops are set to begin training on the Patriot missile system in the United States as soon as next week, two US officials familiar with the matter tell CNN.
The training program will take place at Fort Sill in Oklahoma, where the US conducts its own training on operating and maintaining the advanced air defense system. Fort Sill is one of the Army’s four basic training locations and home to the service’s field artillery school, which has been training service members for more than a century.
The training for the Ukrainians on the complex system is expected to take “several months,” said Laura Cooper, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia.
“I’m not going to be able to give you a specific timeframe for the completion of the training,” Cooper said Friday.

[dabigv13]

Question for those with military knowledge:

Are the 100 IFVs coming enough for a armored brigade combat team? How many tanks would be required? Are jets needed as well, and if so, would Slovakia’s 11 be sufficient?

Here's a more direct answer to this question

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/LivFaustDieJung/stat...ty1CeDsteQ
[/tweet]

[dabigv13]

Question for those with military knowledge:

Are the 100 IFVs coming enough for a armored brigade combat team? How many tanks would be required? Are jets needed as well, and if so, would Slovakia’s 11 be sufficient?

Here's a more direct answer to this question

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/LivFaustDieJung/stat...ty1CeDsteQ
[/tweet]

[TrumpCard]

Thanks BigV. I guess this tweet is saying 120 IFVs and 90 tanks. No mention of jets, but we probably have a ways to go before Ukraine can dedicate a bunch of planes to one strike force anyway. Fingers crossed that Germany and Poland will come through with Leopards.

[TrumpCard]

Thanks BigV. I guess this tweet is saying 120 IFVs and 90 tanks. No mention of jets, but we probably have a ways to go before Ukraine can dedicate a bunch of planes to one strike force anyway. Fingers crossed that Germany and Poland will come through with Leopards.

[Goose]

Question for those with military knowledge:



Are the 100 IFVs coming enough for a armored brigade combat team? How many tanks would be required? Are jets needed as well, and if so, would Slovakia’s 11 be sufficient?

Here's a more direct answer to this question




https://twitter.com/LivFaustDieJung/stat...ty1CeDsteQ

The key statement is "not committed piecemeal. Amen! Using these vehicles as "replacements" in units that are already using BMP-2s or similar would be a disaster on many fronts. Obviously maintaining disparate vehicles that use different ammunition would be a problem. Using vehicles that have different capabilities would of necessity require misusing some of them. The training problem would also be acute, as you would have to ensure the crew to vehicle mix was right.

The vehicles to be supplied could reasonably form a powerful mobile striking force, which Ukraine really needs. The associated training needs to be done by unit, so these troops can use these tools to best effect. It at least appears that the Ukraine is heading in that direction. Lets hope so!

[Goose]

Question for those with military knowledge:



Are the 100 IFVs coming enough for a armored brigade combat team? How many tanks would be required? Are jets needed as well, and if so, would Slovakia’s 11 be sufficient?

Here's a more direct answer to this question




https://twitter.com/LivFaustDieJung/stat...ty1CeDsteQ

The key statement is "not committed piecemeal. Amen! Using these vehicles as "replacements" in units that are already using BMP-2s or similar would be a disaster on many fronts. Obviously maintaining disparate vehicles that use different ammunition would be a problem. Using vehicles that have different capabilities would of necessity require misusing some of them. The training problem would also be acute, as you would have to ensure the crew to vehicle mix was right.

The vehicles to be supplied could reasonably form a powerful mobile striking force, which Ukraine really needs. The associated training needs to be done by unit, so these troops can use these tools to best effect. It at least appears that the Ukraine is heading in that direction. Lets hope so!

[dabigv13]

Lots of interesting news today. Ukraine has received cluster munitions from Turkey. A couple videos have showed the likely usage of this type of artillery round but was unknown where Ukraine got them.

[tweet] https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/16...-5QHS9LSrg[/tweet]

The whole tweet thread is worth reading. US reticence to provide the DPICM munitions is understandable, but it would seem to be very potentially useful in an offensive especially against entrenched troops.

[dabigv13]

Lots of interesting news today. Ukraine has received cluster munitions from Turkey. A couple videos have showed the likely usage of this type of artillery round but was unknown where Ukraine got them.

[tweet] https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/16...-5QHS9LSrg[/tweet]

The whole tweet thread is worth reading. US reticence to provide the DPICM munitions is understandable, but it would seem to be very potentially useful in an offensive especially against entrenched troops.

[dabigv13]

Warning, this video is somewhat explicit. It shows a thermal imaging view from a drone as a Ukrainian special ops force clears a trench near Bakhmut with grenades and gunfire, including apparently close range fire into dead (or dying?) Russian soldiers. There are also surviving Russian prisoners shown at the end of the video.

Pretty gruesome stuff, I imagine not much different from what trench warfare in WW1 was like, absent the thermal cameras/drone obviously. 

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status...KkTK51dtsA[/tweet]

[dabigv13]

Warning, this video is somewhat explicit. It shows a thermal imaging view from a drone as a Ukrainian special ops force clears a trench near Bakhmut with grenades and gunfire, including apparently close range fire into dead (or dying?) Russian soldiers. There are also surviving Russian prisoners shown at the end of the video.

Pretty gruesome stuff, I imagine not much different from what trench warfare in WW1 was like, absent the thermal cameras/drone obviously. 

[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status...KkTK51dtsA[/tweet]

[Goose]

Lots of interesting news today. Ukraine has received cluster munitions from Turkey. A couple videos have showed the likely usage of this type of artillery round but was unknown where Ukraine got them.

https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/16...-5QHS9LSrg

The whole tweet thread is worth reading. US reticence to provide the DPICM munitions is understandable, but it would seem to be very potentially useful in an offensive especially against entrenched troops.

It is very potentially useful against entrenched troops if they have no or inadequate overhead protection. As probably everybody on this thread already knows, the "finger of God" reputation the HIMARS originally had was earned firing cluster munitions. The high explosive rockets we have now are very effective against point targets. They are not so effective against area targets like troops in the open. They are also not effective if the target is moving or if the location is somewhat uncertain. The rod munitions for HIMARS are not nearly as effective as cluster munitions, despite claims to the contrary. Politics was deeply involved in those tests. That is why the GRAD still uses them.

DPICM fired from 155 mm isn't quite as effective because it delivers a lower volume of munitions. Dual purpose composite munition bomblets are large enough to disable an IFV and in theory a tank. Back "in the day" the the 155 mm recipe was DPICM for armored formations and VT for motor-rifle formations, moving or stopped. IMO the decision to stop using cluster munitions of any kind was stupid. Yes, they don't all explode. But the 95% that do will do a lot of damage that can't be easily done any other way. Sherman was right. War is cruelty and you can't refine it. The corollary fact is that when you try to refine it, you will always fail.

I don't know if we actually have any DPICM is stock that is not expired. That may be why we aren't sending it (besides appearances) because we don't have any?

[Goose]

Lots of interesting news today. Ukraine has received cluster munitions from Turkey. A couple videos have showed the likely usage of this type of artillery round but was unknown where Ukraine got them.

https://twitter.com/JackDetsch/status/16...-5QHS9LSrg

The whole tweet thread is worth reading. US reticence to provide the DPICM munitions is understandable, but it would seem to be very potentially useful in an offensive especially against entrenched troops.

It is very potentially useful against entrenched troops if they have no or inadequate overhead protection. As probably everybody on this thread already knows, the "finger of God" reputation the HIMARS originally had was earned firing cluster munitions. The high explosive rockets we have now are very effective against point targets. They are not so effective against area targets like troops in the open. They are also not effective if the target is moving or if the location is somewhat uncertain. The rod munitions for HIMARS are not nearly as effective as cluster munitions, despite claims to the contrary. Politics was deeply involved in those tests. That is why the GRAD still uses them.

DPICM fired from 155 mm isn't quite as effective because it delivers a lower volume of munitions. Dual purpose composite munition bomblets are large enough to disable an IFV and in theory a tank. Back "in the day" the the 155 mm recipe was DPICM for armored formations and VT for motor-rifle formations, moving or stopped. IMO the decision to stop using cluster munitions of any kind was stupid. Yes, they don't all explode. But the 95% that do will do a lot of damage that can't be easily done any other way. Sherman was right. War is cruelty and you can't refine it. The corollary fact is that when you try to refine it, you will always fail.

I don't know if we actually have any DPICM is stock that is not expired. That may be why we aren't sending it (besides appearances) because we don't have any?

[BostonCard]

I know people here are skeptical of the idea that "Russia is running out of ammunition", but it does seem like they are firing a whole lot less of it.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1612800207221145600?s=20&t=usM1VFPhfcmjZTF4B_RrIQ[/tweet]

BC

[BostonCard]

I know people here are skeptical of the idea that "Russia is running out of ammunition", but it does seem like they are firing a whole lot less of it.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1612800207221145600?s=20&t=usM1VFPhfcmjZTF4B_RrIQ[/tweet]

BC

[Goose]

I know people here are skeptical of the idea that "Russia is running out of ammunition", but it does seem like they are firing a whole lot less of it.

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/16128...ZTF4B_RrIQ

BC

Nobody on "our side" really knows for sure what the cause may be. There are several things in play. Ukraine has done a good job of blowing up Russian ammunition storage, which for sure cuts down on the availability of shells. Russia is undoubtedly aware of the fact using outdated ammunition is dangerous and often relatively ineffective (because it misses the target or is a dud). Undoubtedly Russia is going to need replacement barrels for their guns and in the past have often used induced lulls in firing to do it. That may be going on to get ready for spring.

Lastly, and probably more importantly, Russia clearly has realized that much of their artillery was being fired without actually having a target. The targeting data was often old or too vague to be useful. Russia also doesn't have good BDA, so they often kill the same target many times over. They are cleaning up their act in this respect. No point in wasting ammunition when it won't help. How much they can improve on their targeting is unknown, but they are clearly trying.

[Goose]

I know people here are skeptical of the idea that "Russia is running out of ammunition", but it does seem like they are firing a whole lot less of it.

https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/16128...ZTF4B_RrIQ

BC

Nobody on "our side" really knows for sure what the cause may be. There are several things in play. Ukraine has done a good job of blowing up Russian ammunition storage, which for sure cuts down on the availability of shells. Russia is undoubtedly aware of the fact using outdated ammunition is dangerous and often relatively ineffective (because it misses the target or is a dud). Undoubtedly Russia is going to need replacement barrels for their guns and in the past have often used induced lulls in firing to do it. That may be going on to get ready for spring.

Lastly, and probably more importantly, Russia clearly has realized that much of their artillery was being fired without actually having a target. The targeting data was often old or too vague to be useful. Russia also doesn't have good BDA, so they often kill the same target many times over. They are cleaning up their act in this respect. No point in wasting ammunition when it won't help. How much they can improve on their targeting is unknown, but they are clearly trying.

[BostonCard]

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgro...ry-10-2023

Commander of Eastern Kharkiv and Northern Donetsk seems to have failed upward.

BC

[BostonCard]

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgro...ry-10-2023

Commander of Eastern Kharkiv and Northern Donetsk seems to have failed upward.

BC

[M T]

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgro...ry-10-2023

Commander of Eastern Kharkiv and Northern Donetsk seems to have failed upward.

BC

Will Colonel General Vasily Tonkoshkurov be the newest member of the Russian Ultra High Diving team?

[M T]

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgro...ry-10-2023

Commander of Eastern Kharkiv and Northern Donetsk seems to have failed upward.

BC

Will Colonel General Vasily Tonkoshkurov be the newest member of the Russian Ultra High Diving team?

[TrumpCard]

I don’t know whether this estimate is close to reality, but Ukraine’s armed forces claims that it has killed more than 100,000 Russian troops and mercs in the war to date: https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukraine-cl...hs-war.amp

For what it’s worth, the article says the US estimates up to 80,000 “casualties,” which I take to include wounded. 

But if you believe the Ukrainian source, the most up to date claim (113k) if true would be similar to the number of lives than the US military lost in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

[TrumpCard]

I don’t know whether this estimate is close to reality, but Ukraine’s armed forces claims that it has killed more than 100,000 Russian troops and mercs in the war to date: https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukraine-cl...hs-war.amp

For what it’s worth, the article says the US estimates up to 80,000 “casualties,” which I take to include wounded. 

But if you believe the Ukrainian source, the most up to date claim (113k) if true would be similar to the number of lives than the US military lost in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

[AlbanyCardinal]

But that figure (~80,000) given by the Pentagon is from early August, so I'd think their estimates today would be closer to Ukraine's. Even if casualties includes wounded, which it technically shouldn't, I agree, that's an awfully high figure for a war not even a year old. 

I don’t know whether this estimate is close to reality, but Ukraine’s armed forces claims that it has killed more than 100,000 Russian troops and mercs in the war to date: https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukraine-cl...hs-war.amp

For what it’s worth, the article says the US estimates up to 80,000 “casualties,” which I take to include wounded. 

But if you believe the Ukrainian source, the most up to date claim (113k) if true would be similar to the number of lives than the US military lost in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

[AlbanyCardinal]

But that figure (~80,000) given by the Pentagon is from early August, so I'd think their estimates today would be closer to Ukraine's. Even if casualties includes wounded, which it technically shouldn't, I agree, that's an awfully high figure for a war not even a year old. 

I don’t know whether this estimate is close to reality, but Ukraine’s armed forces claims that it has killed more than 100,000 Russian troops and mercs in the war to date: https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukraine-cl...hs-war.amp

For what it’s worth, the article says the US estimates up to 80,000 “casualties,” which I take to include wounded. 

But if you believe the Ukrainian source, the most up to date claim (113k) if true would be similar to the number of lives than the US military lost in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

[Goose]

But that figure (~80,000) given by the Pentagon is from early August, so I'd think their estimates today would be closer to Ukraine's. Even if casualties includes wounded, which it technically shouldn't, I agree, that's an awfully high figure for a war not even a year old. 

I don’t know whether this estimate is close to reality, but Ukraine’s armed forces claims that it has killed more than 100,000 Russian troops and mercs in the war to date: https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukraine-cl...hs-war.amp

For what it’s worth, the article says the US estimates up to 80,000 “casualties,” which I take to include wounded. 

But if you believe the Ukrainian source, the most up to date claim (113k) if true would be similar to the number of lives than the US military lost in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

"Casualties" does include wounded, at least according to the Oxford definition. It is a somewhat imprecise term because "wounded" ranges from not expected to live to needs a bandage. The military itself has more precise reporting methods, not that the actual numbers are necessarily more accurate.

Unfortunately I think we have to take these numbers with a box of salt. Even best case, the "reports" from the field are wrong. Enemy casualty counts are extrapolations in most cases, not exhaustive counts. There is no time for that. They are also greatly influenced by wishful thinking, even when everybody is trying to "do it right". If you are being forced back, you don't control the area where the count would be made, so it becomes a guess. Several units are fighting in the same area. They make a guess and somebody adds them together. To what degree they overlap (or don't) is unknown. You then have any intentional "distortions" tacked on by higher headquarters or the propaganda ministry. These numbers could be exactly right, but we can't know that. However, even if they are 200% of "reality", it is a lot of dead Russians. The real "interesting" fact that should really give one pause is how Russian society could be so in the dark about the number of guys who aren't coming back. It may be you can fool all the people for a very long time, or it may be that Russian society is so inured to such arbitrary loss of life that it is "no big deal" to them.

[Goose]

But that figure (~80,000) given by the Pentagon is from early August, so I'd think their estimates today would be closer to Ukraine's. Even if casualties includes wounded, which it technically shouldn't, I agree, that's an awfully high figure for a war not even a year old. 

I don’t know whether this estimate is close to reality, but Ukraine’s armed forces claims that it has killed more than 100,000 Russian troops and mercs in the war to date: https://www.foxnews.com/world/ukraine-cl...hs-war.amp

For what it’s worth, the article says the US estimates up to 80,000 “casualties,” which I take to include wounded. 

But if you believe the Ukrainian source, the most up to date claim (113k) if true would be similar to the number of lives than the US military lost in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

"Casualties" does include wounded, at least according to the Oxford definition. It is a somewhat imprecise term because "wounded" ranges from not expected to live to needs a bandage. The military itself has more precise reporting methods, not that the actual numbers are necessarily more accurate.

Unfortunately I think we have to take these numbers with a box of salt. Even best case, the "reports" from the field are wrong. Enemy casualty counts are extrapolations in most cases, not exhaustive counts. There is no time for that. They are also greatly influenced by wishful thinking, even when everybody is trying to "do it right". If you are being forced back, you don't control the area where the count would be made, so it becomes a guess. Several units are fighting in the same area. They make a guess and somebody adds them together. To what degree they overlap (or don't) is unknown. You then have any intentional "distortions" tacked on by higher headquarters or the propaganda ministry. These numbers could be exactly right, but we can't know that. However, even if they are 200% of "reality", it is a lot of dead Russians. The real "interesting" fact that should really give one pause is how Russian society could be so in the dark about the number of guys who aren't coming back. It may be you can fool all the people for a very long time, or it may be that Russian society is so inured to such arbitrary loss of life that it is "no big deal" to them.

[TrumpCard]

Three years ago, I would have said that America would never ever tolerate a needless loss of such an enormous number of lives.

---

By the way, it looks like Ukraine will get some trickle of western tanks, which hopefully will start to flow more rapidly soon. Poland to send a company of Leopards: https://t.co/lBOoYkYFZ5. And Sunak ordering the UK to begin “working with partners” to deliver western tanks as well. https://www.politico.eu/article/british-...-says/amp/

[TrumpCard]

Three years ago, I would have said that America would never ever tolerate a needless loss of such an enormous number of lives.

---

By the way, it looks like Ukraine will get some trickle of western tanks, which hopefully will start to flow more rapidly soon. Poland to send a company of Leopards: https://t.co/lBOoYkYFZ5. And Sunak ordering the UK to begin “working with partners” to deliver western tanks as well. https://www.politico.eu/article/british-...-says/amp/

[AlbanyCardinal]

Really? What about the Syrian civil war, with over 600,000 casualties estimated so far? Going back further in history, the Spanish Civil War comes to mind, with ~500,000 dead. I would think that's the tip of the iceberg.

Three years ago, I would have said that America would never ever tolerate a needless loss of such an enormous number of lives.

---

[AlbanyCardinal]

Really? What about the Syrian civil war, with over 600,000 casualties estimated so far? Going back further in history, the Spanish Civil War comes to mind, with ~500,000 dead. I would think that's the tip of the iceberg.

Three years ago, I would have said that America would never ever tolerate a needless loss of such an enormous number of lives.

---

[TrumpCard]

Sorry, I meant American lives. And just to preempt further responses, I would not consider the civil war, WWI, and WWII needless and I would not consider most of the loss of life in prior pandemics preventable/needless either.

[TrumpCard]

Sorry, I meant American lives. And just to preempt further responses, I would not consider the civil war, WWI, and WWII needless and I would not consider most of the loss of life in prior pandemics preventable/needless either.

[81alum]

I want to commend the restraint shown by many people on this thread.  We are having a fascinating in-depth discussion about a war, which as Clausewitz said "is the continuation of politics by other means."  And we are having this intensely political discussion while attempting to avoid domestic political division.  As hard as it is to have this discussion on the Cardboard, it has obviously been much harder to have it in other settings.  It is a testament to the intelligence and good will of Cardboarders that we have reached 10 months and 137 pages of useful analysis.  Special kudos to Goose, whom I do not personally know, but who obviously has some relevant professional expertise here.

[81alum]

I want to commend the restraint shown by many people on this thread.  We are having a fascinating in-depth discussion about a war, which as Clausewitz said "is the continuation of politics by other means."  And we are having this intensely political discussion while attempting to avoid domestic political division.  As hard as it is to have this discussion on the Cardboard, it has obviously been much harder to have it in other settings.  It is a testament to the intelligence and good will of Cardboarders that we have reached 10 months and 137 pages of useful analysis.  Special kudos to Goose, whom I do not personally know, but who obviously has some relevant professional expertise here.

[AlbanyCardinal]

Oh, no worries. I sensed that I was misreading you or something. I would tend to agree, but one never knows. People can tolerate a lot, especially if they're being fed misinformation. On a somewhat related note, perhaps, before Putin's invasion I wasn't sure we'd ever see a ground war between two nations like this again. Humanity is full of surprises.

Sorry, I meant American lives. And just to preempt further responses, I would not consider the civil war, WWI, and WWII needless and I would not consider most of the loss of life in prior pandemics preventable/needless either.

[AlbanyCardinal]

Oh, no worries. I sensed that I was misreading you or something. I would tend to agree, but one never knows. People can tolerate a lot, especially if they're being fed misinformation. On a somewhat related note, perhaps, before Putin's invasion I wasn't sure we'd ever see a ground war between two nations like this again. Humanity is full of surprises.

Sorry, I meant American lives. And just to preempt further responses, I would not consider the civil war, WWI, and WWII needless and I would not consider most of the loss of life in prior pandemics preventable/needless either.

[Goose]

On a somewhat related note, perhaps, before Putin's invasion I wasn't sure we'd ever see a ground war between two nations like this again. Humanity is full of surprises.

You and the vast majority of the "experts" didn't expect to see a war like this again either. There are a whole lot of things about this war that make no sense, and most nations prepare for what they think are "reasonable" threats, not crazy ones. Still, one only has to count the troops in the PLA to conclude such a war is very possible. Just not one on the border of "Europe". In a way, it goes back to the tension of preparing against another nation's intent and and that same nation's capability. The US has swung between these two regarding Russia for about the last 25 years or so, mostly falling on the "intent" side. Bad choice, as it usually is. Determining another nations capability is difficult at best. Determining it's intent, especially if it is run by a dictator, is impossible.

[Goose]

On a somewhat related note, perhaps, before Putin's invasion I wasn't sure we'd ever see a ground war between two nations like this again. Humanity is full of surprises.

You and the vast majority of the "experts" didn't expect to see a war like this again either. There are a whole lot of things about this war that make no sense, and most nations prepare for what they think are "reasonable" threats, not crazy ones. Still, one only has to count the troops in the PLA to conclude such a war is very possible. Just not one on the border of "Europe". In a way, it goes back to the tension of preparing against another nation's intent and and that same nation's capability. The US has swung between these two regarding Russia for about the last 25 years or so, mostly falling on the "intent" side. Bad choice, as it usually is. Determining another nations capability is difficult at best. Determining it's intent, especially if it is run by a dictator, is impossible.