Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question is: will the US send more high tech weapons later? In 2025 for example?

No. Everything that's been sent is 90s era stuff that's been due to be decommissioned anyway. And it's been doing the job just fine. The US is definitely not revealing what it can really do. The problem in Ukraine is mines and artillery. And without air dominance, you can't just walk in and clear that. And Ukraine is not getting F-35s. But hopefully they get more longer range missiles - HIMARS, ATACMS, Storm Shadow. And more artillery shells

The mines are the problem

Let me rephrase. Will they get weapons that will help them do more than just slowly bleeding out the Russians, as a PP said?

What weapons?

They need artillery shells. And they need as many longer distance missiles as they can get so they can hit arms depots, command and control, fuel, ships - they got a good one this weekend, a missile carrier in Crimea

What they really need is air dominance. Air power would solve so many problems. But that's not going to happen. And so it's become a war of attrition. What they need is shells. They're firing about 6000 a day. But Russia is firing 20,000 shells a day

So the setup of today is not going to change? Or will they get their shells?
I am trying to understand what’s going to happen with that war

We'd all like to know. It's been a catastrophe for both sides

It will be a long winter on the front lines. Trenches and shelling and freezing temperatures is no one's idea of a good time. There is so much shelling going on that it's hard for even NATO countries to keep up with supplies. This is an extremely violent war.

Then it will be mud for a month or two in the Spring. And then it goes intense again when the ground can accommodate armor.

It's a mess.

It's a very good lesson about how important air power is. Without air dominance, there's no magic bullet. It's going to be a grind for a good while longer. Russia gets wrecked, but so do the Ukrainians

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just find the fact that Russia lost 300k men and has thousands of violent criminals back in society committing more crimes against Russians humorous.

The fact that 1m educated males fled just leaves the dumb barbarians to get wiped out.

It’s like Russia developed the “easy button” to destroy itself and pushed it.

The west just gets to enjoy the show.

It’s not like Russia is destroying “itself”. The rift between its government the ultimate goal of which is the survival of the regime and their people is one of the greatest in history.
It’s sad that many people have no idea what’s being done to them.
Of course they will be discarded as collateral damage just like Gaza’s children now are, but as someone who has spent a lot of time there and developed emotional ties I find it extremely sad.

Really? It's always quiet before a storm. Come back in January. If I'm right, it should be interesting to watch what happens in Russia.
Then see how things change again after Sunday, 17 March. Bring popcorn!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question is: will the US send more high tech weapons later? In 2025 for example?

No. Everything that's been sent is 90s era stuff that's been due to be decommissioned anyway. And it's been doing the job just fine. The US is definitely not revealing what it can really do. The problem in Ukraine is mines and artillery. And without air dominance, you can't just walk in and clear that. And Ukraine is not getting F-35s. But hopefully they get more longer range missiles - HIMARS, ATACMS, Storm Shadow. And more artillery shells

The mines are the problem

Let me rephrase. Will they get weapons that will help them do more than just slowly bleeding out the Russians, as a PP said?

What weapons?

They need artillery shells. And they need as many longer distance missiles as they can get so they can hit arms depots, command and control, fuel, ships - they got a good one this weekend, a missile carrier in Crimea

What they really need is air dominance. Air power would solve so many problems. But that's not going to happen. And so it's become a war of attrition. What they need is shells. They're firing about 6000 a day. But Russia is firing 20,000 shells a day

So the setup of today is not going to change? Or will they get their shells?
I am trying to understand what’s going to happen with that war

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just find the fact that Russia lost 300k men and has thousands of violent criminals back in society committing more crimes against Russians humorous.

The fact that 1m educated males fled just leaves the dumb barbarians to get wiped out.

It’s like Russia developed the “easy button” to destroy itself and pushed it.

The west just gets to enjoy the show.

It’s not like Russia is destroying “itself”. The rift between its government the ultimate goal of which is the survival of the regime and their people is one of the greatest in history.
It’s sad that many people have no idea what’s being done to them.
Of course they will be discarded as collateral damage just like Gaza’s children now are, but as someone who has spent a lot of time there and developed emotional ties I find it extremely sad.

Anonymous wrote:Ukriane running for the exits.

Panic on k street.

Anonymous wrote:Time to make peace before Ukraine falls apart. Mutiny against zelensk6z

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question is: will the US send more high tech weapons later? In 2025 for example?

No. Everything that's been sent is 90s era stuff that's been due to be decommissioned anyway. And it's been doing the job just fine. The US is definitely not revealing what it can really do. The problem in Ukraine is mines and artillery. And without air dominance, you can't just walk in and clear that. And Ukraine is not getting F-35s. But hopefully they get more longer range missiles - HIMARS, ATACMS, Storm Shadow. And more artillery shells

The mines are the problem

Let me rephrase. Will they get weapons that will help them do more than just slowly bleeding out the Russians, as a PP said?

What weapons?

They need artillery shells. And they need as many longer distance missiles as they can get so they can hit arms depots, command and control, fuel, ships - they got a good one this weekend, a missile carrier in Crimea

What they really need is air dominance. Air power would solve so many problems. But that's not going to happen. And so it's become a war of attrition. What they need is shells. They're firing about 6000 a day. But Russia is firing 20,000 shells a day

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
^^^^ the spinning on Biden losing another war has begun.

I guess it’s over.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine has been a huge win for the US. We've spent about 5 percent of the defense budget on this. And most of that was transferring older weapons systems that were due to be decommissioned regardless. In return, we've seen Russia, our most significant adversary over the past 80 years, get absolutely wrecked on the battlefield. The've lost well more than half of their military capabilities. They've literally lost thousands of tanks. Their casualty count is approximating 300,000. Their economy will be shattered for years. A brain drain has already happened. Russia is completely crippled. There is no coming back from this. Meanwhile, NATO is stronger than ever. Even Finland and Sweden joined. There is no risk at all of Russia invading any other European country. And that is no small thing. Russia's miscalculation has been a gift to the West. Biden has handled this really well.

If this is even remotely true, then why is NATO pushing Ukraine to surrender rather than doubling down here? Why would NATO let Russia off the hook if Russia is losing so badly here at so little cost?

What do you mean if this is remotely true? It is absolutely true. What's not said above is that the Russian Black Sea Navy is also crippled and cannot operate effectively in this region any more. They just lost one of their most advanced ships, capable of firing Kalibr cruise missiles, this weekend. These ships cannot be easily replaced (if at all). The West also got the benefit of seeing Russian military "tactics" (being generous here) in action for the past two years.

So why stop then? Why not spend 2x and basically finish off Russia militarily?

The West has decided to do a slow bleed instead. Remember, this has always been an evolving situation. When Russia first invaded, no one really expected the Ukrainians to not only survive with their outdated equipment, but to claw back a good percentage of the land lost to Russia. Everything north of Kiev is now firmly Ukrainian. The offensives in Kharkiv and Kherson took back major swaths of land.

Ukrainian success finally got the West to provide Leopards, Challengers, and a few Abrams tanks. Some Bradleys. Western thinking changed. Here was an opportunity to really weaken the Russian military. But the've been very cautious about it and each member nation has to be mindful of their own military needs. It's not like Holland and Sweden have an excess army just sitting around in warehouses like the US does. Longer distance HIMARS were only made available six months ago. ATACMS about a month ago. F-16s won't be in action until sometime next year. But they are not a game changer since Russian S-300 and S-400 air defense systems can shoot down fourth generation fighters.

And there's the problem. Neither Russians or Ukrainians have air superiority. So many planes and helicopters on both sides have been shot down. So the war has settled into a brutal WW1 style quagmire. It's trench warfare and artillery. And drones, which are terrifying. Absolutely everything is mined. Think of an area from DC to Maine where every field is heavily mined and dialed in with artillery. When Ukraine first launched their counter-offensive, it took them basically a week to figure out that launching armor and infantry over these fields is a suicide mission. The Russians don't care about human life so they're still losing hundreds of tanks and other armor as well as 1000s of soldiers trying to take a little town called Avdiivka. It's been a complete slaughter for them. Literally hundreds of tanks. And Russia has already lost north of 2000 tanks.

So without air superiority it's now effectively a stalemate. But the Russians are really determined to die and destroy their military. The West isn't going to stop them from their idiocy. And whenever Russians send suicide attacks, the Ukrainians oblige them.

This has been a terrible war for Ukrainians. But it's been stellar for NATO.

We should all be grateful for the existence of fifth-generation F-22s and F-35s so that our soldiers never have to fight this kind of war.

In all likelihood Syria downed an Israeli F-35 with "just" an S200. Stealth has been solved more than people want to admit. At least until something like the B21 comes online.

So until then, we need to be a lot more humble in our actions unless we want our own boys to be sitting in trenches.

I've been trying to look this up. I really don't think any F-35s have been downed anywhere.

And certainly no F-22. That's basically an alien spaceship. No one else gets that plane. It has the radar profile of a mosquito. With the B-2s, the US will develop air dominance everywhere. And then the F-35s. Followed by gunships and Apaches. No one in the US military will be fighting in a trench.

The F-16s are definitely vulnerable to S-300s and S-400s. However, the Ukrainians took out out an S-400 system this past week. Probably with ATACMS. That's a $500 million system. Don't think that's being replaced.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question is: will the US send more high tech weapons later? In 2025 for example?

No. Everything that's been sent is 90s era stuff that's been due to be decommissioned anyway. And it's been doing the job just fine. The US is definitely not revealing what it can really do. The problem in Ukraine is mines and artillery. And without air dominance, you can't just walk in and clear that. And Ukraine is not getting F-35s. But hopefully they get more longer range missiles - HIMARS, ATACMS, Storm Shadow. And more artillery shells

The mines are the problem

Let me rephrase. Will they get weapons that will help them do more than just slowly bleeding out the Russians, as a PP said?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The question is: will the US send more high tech weapons later? In 2025 for example?

No. Everything that's been sent is 90s era stuff that's been due to be decommissioned anyway. And it's been doing the job just fine. The US is definitely not revealing what it can really do. The problem in Ukraine is mines and artillery. And without air dominance, you can't just walk in and clear that. And Ukraine is not getting F-35s. But hopefully they get more longer range missiles - HIMARS, ATACMS, Storm Shadow. And more artillery shells

The mines are the problem

Anonymous wrote:The question is: will the US send more high tech weapons later? In 2025 for example?