Our history over the last hundred years or so has been not just fickle, but openly untrustworthy. Ever since we sent troops into Russia during WWI we’ve abandoned not only our Allie’s, but our own troops to political expediency. It is shameful how many of our allies and own citizens we’ve left to fend for themselves. Honestly, all of our treaties should come with a warning label.
Defense Secretary James R. Schlesinger after a closed‐door meeting with the Senate Armed. Services Committee on military sales to Saudi Arabia, said that the “niggardly” approach of Congress toward military aid, to the Saigon Government was the “approximate cause” for withdrawal of South Vietnamese forces from provinces in the Central Highlands.
A. Johnson (a Democrat BTW) had not straight up lied about the supposed -and entirely fictitious- second attack on the Turner Joy, then there would not have been a hot war in 1965...
B). Johnson (a Democrat BTW) had not hobbled the USAF/USN air campaign in 1965 and 1966, then its
entirely likely the North Vietnamese would have come to the table like they did after ...finally... being pummeled by Linebacker II in 1972.
So, it was the same style feckless half measure foreign policy style that Biden is reprising toay that dug that never ending hole.
So, your deflection is right empty one.
Also, the North Vitnamese themselves said that they were emboldened by the slow shut down of American support from Congress from 1973 on.
Line backer I was the destruction of the PAVN Conventional attack in Easter of 1972 Line backer II was bombing the PAVN back to the negotiation table so they could accept our surrender.
What did happen with Linebacker II ...forcing the North Vietnamese to seriously negotiate via an unrestricted air campaign...could have happened six years earlier.
However, the then resident 'Smartest Guy In The Room' McNamara, convinced the timorous LBJ to hold back on properly applying the combat power that was available...
Every President from Eisenhower thru Ford had skin in the game of our ill-advised SEA adventure. Johnson ramped up the war but he was not the one that got us to take over from the French. Eisenhower (a Republican BTW) got us into Vietnam.
The Korean end came to show that a DMZ much like South Koreas, running from the Tonkin gulf, to Laos, Cambodia through terrible terrain to the Mekong river, we would have been fighting there forever.
Shouldn't have been there in the first place. Not our circus, not our monkeys. Just like Iraq several decades later, and just like WWI many decades earlier.
But, but, but the DOMINO THEORY!! If we lose Vietnam, the commies would invade Australia! Just like if we lose in Ukraine the commies (oops, it's the Russkies now) will invade France!
true, but are we really any different from any other large nation during that time period - especially those with (ostensibly) representative forms of government?
as with the wokists, it is easy in reviewing our foreign policy to find faults.
IMHO, the correct response is to learn and improve, but also to acknowledge that we probably still do better than everywhere else...
In the old days (late 70s thru 91, yes, I'm that old) we used to talk about the "threat". Threat was simplistically defined as Threat = Capability times intent. A strong force with no desire or perceived desire by the adversary that it would be used was low threat.
Russia was a perceived / declared huge threat, and obviously had the will to use their force. Apparently the capability of the Russian armed forces was poorly assessed, or the UKR forces exceeded all expectations on the upside.
We don't know, because the lack of actual accurate information is glaring.
America has proven to be an unreliable ally since 91 (arguably before that, yes, we can argue).
In the old bipolar world, threat estimation was easy, if not accurate.
Today, in a truly multipolar world, threat estimation is very hard, and also likely not accurate.
Why? When we have so much information, is it so hard? To steal (and mangle a quote), it's not what we don't know, it's what we think we know that just isn't so.
Information / influence operations have become the new critical component in the shaping of national public opinion. By definition public support for national participation in UKR, the middle east, Pacific theater are now largely driven by social media. AI use, misinformation, disinformation, propaganda are shaping things in ways we don't realize, or understand if we do realize they are being used.
I'd view this video as possibly honest and true, or a tiny piece of a larger influence campaign.
"Apparently the capability of the Russian armed forces was poorly assessed, or the UKR forces exceeded all expectations on the upside."
Embrace the power of "and." The thing is, the somewhat parlous state of the Russian military has been something of a byword for decades for those who were paying attention. They had a rough time beating the Chechens in the early oughts, the quick defeat of Georgia in 2008 was a matter of overwhelming force against a weak opponent, and the rapid takeover of Donetsk, Luhansk, and the Crimea in 2014 were facilitated by the fact that Ukraine was in utter chaos. Lots of people, however, were still thinking in terms of the Red Army of WWII and its capabilities, rather than the corruption-riddled and ramshackle force that remains to Russia now.
As to the Ukrainian military, while it performed very badly against the Russian "volunteers" in 2014, to quote Samuel Johnson, "Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully." Kiev figured Moscow was going to come take another bite at the apple and that their options were get good or get wrecked, and they decided to get good. However, most of the best and the brightest didn't think they would be able to get good enough fast enough. Turned out the smartest guys in the room were less right than they thought they were.
Because, as you say, one of the components of Threat is Intent and , to paraphrase, "Who knows what Intent lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!". The rest of us can only guess.
The problem here, for Russia, as near as I can tell, is that they didn't plan on a war at all. In other words, some asshole(s) at FSB or GRU (or both) told Putin what he probably wanted to hear, namely, that the Ukrainians wouldn't fight. Nothing else accounts for the lack of logistic preparedness, the small numbers, or the exceptionally restrained ROE in the first few weeks of the war.
Mechanized Warfare 101: you will not succeed in your objective unless you control the airspace. History is replete with such examples. Perhaps you get lucky and your adversary has few or effective air assets. As it currently stands, Ukraine cannot establish air superiority and, thus, it is madness to take the offensive and they should have been persuaded otherwise. We are all surely aware that combined arms is a deadly, violent dance that requires training, leadership, comms, intel and logistics. In what measure do the Ukrainians possess any of this? I truly admire their fighting spirit but they were not ready to take the offensive against an entrenched enemy who will not quit the battlefield.
I think Ukraine has those qualities you mention, but there's never been the necessary air support. The skies could have and should have been closed prior to Day 1. The US and UK were patroling constantly and then walked away just before Feb. 24.
Certainly the Ukrainians possess the requisite leadership and intelligence to successfully resist the Russians. My point was that they have not properly trained nor provisioned themselves to initiate a combined arms offensive....which only succeeds if one can establish air superiority. I get it, they want to seize the initiative with their newfound armor, but the results in this case are telling, and I believe, predictable.
"The US and UK were patroling constantly..." The US/UK were not flying CAP in Ukrainian airspace at any time. Had we been insanely committed to that course of action the Russian invasion of Ukraine would be effectively over in 72 hours.
The second paragraph was my point precisely. Ukraine had no real airforce to talk about and the russians tried to wipe out what little they had on Day One. The West STILL isn't committed to an outcome here. Just shillly-shallying right now. Sad and scary.
The Ukes earned what they got by wasting their 30 years of independence bin the most corrupt country in Europe. The Ukes should have been more like Finland.
Ron: Ukraine just carried on being a former Soviet republic, because the region formerly known as "the Ukraine" has never really been a single, unified county. Rather, the region has been home to a number of ethnically and culturally different people: Russians, Poles, Cossaks, Tatars, etc.
Lots of russian trolls here today. Must be feeling hungry. Well if someone thinks Ukraine's problem is lots of ethnicities and not a rapacious neighbor that is 33 times its size, then how do you explain russia with its entire hinterland from just outside Moscow to Vladivostok, mostly not even European, never mind Slavic?
And, by extension, my point, as well. Ukraine did not and does not have a capable air force. Your feasible options with anything mechanized are quite limited against a capable, determined enemy if you don't decide what flies and what dies. A naval example that comes to mind is HMS Prince of Wales; somebody thought it was a good idea to sally forth without air cover. Ignore the intel and risks and the "HMS Unsinkable" becomes an easy target that now rusts away on the sea floor.
I want the Ukrainians to prevail for many reasons but the West is simply unwilling to do much more that would become a true casus belli for Putin. The dearth of Western leadership is the prime mover here.
Interestingly enough, deep ocean enviroments tends towards being oxygen-poor. Galvanic and stray current corrosion modalities start to dominate in that environment. The HMS Prince of Wales is likely dissolving away faster than rusting away.
That is interesting. Although not ignorant of naval matters, I am not a proper Navalist like many of you! My knowledge/experience lies in a different lane (all such lanes inevitably merging at some level).
I assume this is why the PRC is plundering the wreckage...before it quickly dissolves. Bastards.
The enemy was not entrenched in fall of 22. It was the delays of the West that allowed that. Biden with his 'I've got 3000 extra M1 tanks, how about I send you 31 in a year and a half?' And why don't the Ukrainians have an effective air force? Remember that Joe "Minor Incursion" Biden wouldn't let the Poles transfer Mig 29s to Ukraine in March of 2022?
I completely agree. The time for taking the initiative has passed. The Ukrainians wanted to deploy that trickle of AFVs before the training was complete. Had they done that out of desperation it would be understandable. It appears they thought a full scale offensive, rather, was in order. If I'm a senior Russian commander I'd be preparing a defense in depth once aware of the Western armor on its way.
If you overthrow your government in a violent coup then the people who voted 90%+ for the guy you overthrow should have the right to leave the country.
Instead the Ukrainian military cracked down on them.
You do know where all the fighting is taking place right now and what the purpose of the counter offensive was correct?
You are spouting russian propaganda, whether you know it or not. THere was no "coup" in Ukraine, ever. There was a power-sharing agreement in February 2014 that the EU brokered so that Yanukovych could stay in office until December. He agreed to it and then the next day he started running away, first to Kharkiv, then Crimea, then Rostov. As to the takeover of eastern Ukraine, it was started as a GRU operation under Igor "Strelkov" Ghirkin and Igor Bezler. Ghirkin had done similar sabotage work in Serbia during the Balkan War. You should read up on their "charm offensive" (offensive being the operative word) in the Donbas, especially the Horlivka area, in April 2014.
The people in the occupied territories in eastern Ukraine and Crimea never had an opportunity to partiipate in a legitimate vote to decide their fate. Unless you think voting under duress, with machine guns all around (not from Ukraine but from russia), and voting on unsecured xerox copies etc etc is "legitimate." A lot simply fled the occupied territories when they saw what was happening. Many of those who remained couldn't leave because of age, health, lack of finances, property they didn't want to lose, elderly parents they had to take care of, etc etc.
You actually don't know what you're talking about so you might consider stopping while you're ahead.
They shot people. They burned people alive. These things happened.
I'm not Russian an don't care about Russia. I don't think the Russians an Ukrainians are all that different. I don't think whoever wins will change life for people on the ground, which makes the entire war a tragedy.
"The people in the occupied territories in eastern Ukraine and Crimea."
90% of them voted for Yanukovych. Approximately 0% of the resisted liberation by Russia.
"You actually don't know what you're talking about so you might consider stopping while you're ahead."
You had two color revolutions in Ukraine. Both ended in dismal failure. I see zero evidence that the oligarchs in western Ukraine have a better future in mind than the oligarchs in eastern Ukraine. It's another third world shitshow we are being asked to get involved in so defense contractors can make a lot of money while everyone on the ground loses.
As I said... Let's start with your phony moniker. Troll city.
Next, your claim that "they" shot people. "They" burned people alive. Yes, Ghirkin & Co. not only shot Ukrainians, they tortured three Ukrainians in Horlivka in April 2014, "drew" the men's intestines in the classic Medieval manner, and threw their naked bodies into the river. One of them was a city councillor, Volodymyr Rybak, who took down the russian flag that the GRU operatives had raised over Horlivka and put back the Ukrainian one. The other two were Protestant missionaries, a father and his son.
Now maybe it's clear why "0% of the resisted liberation by Russia." You call that "liberation"? russian propaanda all the way. What ordinary people will even say boo after a popular local official is executed in a very public, gruesome manner? And the executioners weren't Ukrainins. They were seasoned russian operatives.
Next, "they" burned them alive. The Odesa Union building, where some guys on the roof were shooting at the pro-Ukrainian demonstrators on the ground, while their buddies inside tried to toss a Molotov cocktail through a second story window onto the people below, but the window didn't break and instead the entire interior went up in flames (old soviet synthetics everywhere and cheap lacquered particleboard furniture... not the place for throwing molotovs). Meanwhile, the people in the street did not run away or cheer (plenty of videos of this entire incident) but brought up a ladder to try to rescue those in the burning central wing of the building (it was four stories high and had two side wings that weren't on fire but for some reason nobody tried to get out that way...?). By the way, this all happened on the May 1st four-day holiday weekend, which meant no one was at work, so the only people in the building were those who broke into it in the first place. There's a lot more that can be said about that incident, but I think this suffices to clarify who burned whom.
Next, "I'm not Russian an don't care about Russia" which raises the obvious question, what are you doing here? You seem to "care" an awful lot—if repeating russian propaanda and disinformation, and dissing people who actually do care is an indication of "caring." Especially calling the situation where one country invades a neighboring European country 1/30 of its size for no good reason "liberation" and a "third world shitshow."
The rest of your comments are simply reguritation of lies and half-truths. By the way, Yanukovych got barely 35% in the first round of the election in 2010 and it went into a run-off.
Given that russia has managed to destroy most of the industry in occupied Donbas, between carting off about a dozen factories lock, stock and barrel, bombing the biggest (eg Azovstal, the Avdiivka Coke Plant), and flooding many of the remaining mines, life in eastern Ukraine is obviously a disaster at this point. And of course, the war has made a mess of a country that was doing quite well without russian interference, and would have been independent for natural gas if Crimea hadn't been stolen. For russia, this is a war for resource control. For Ukraine, it's a war for survival. I don't expect you to understand any of this, of course. But in case other people might be interested.
In the meantime, honor your word that you "don't care" and stop harrassing those of us who know and who do.
The Ukrainians this, the Ukrainians that. That bothers me. Maybe it is just a language difference. Ukrainian troops this, Ukrainian troops that would have been easier for my western language filter to handle.
Beyond my filter, the video was very informative, well presented, and hopefully accurate. Any film by either side, in a time of war, should be considered as potential propaganda.
Putin has his casus belli and we have a flock of cowards hiding behind "fear of escalation." I wouldn't care less if they had to face the music of not stopping the bully where they could fairly easily, except that that would mean that Ukraine was wiped odf the map.
Thanks for sharing this. Something you would expect from them. On the other hand, Zelensky can continue to be delusional but will cannot over come raw power from a much larger nation with huge resources while the West is running critically low on resources that will take years to resupply.
This entire sorry war is reminiscent of an ant climbing an elephant's hind leg with rape on his mind. The Pentagon and the DoD have other concerns, like figuring how to rig standards so women can qualify for SPECOPs, but our NATO pals ought to be able to recall Russian military ability.
The next year will be interesting. We committed to support with the Budapest Agreement and are dealing with a recalcitrant EU, a corrupt Ukrainian government that has been throughly penetrated by Russian intelligence, an impotent UN, and a NATO Chief who says Ukraine can join NATO after the war.
There is no incentive for Putin to sue for an end to the war unless something drastically changes Ukraines warfighting abilities or it becomes politically inexpedient at home for him.
"America can be a fickle friend." Just ask the South Vietnamese, the Afghans, the Kurds, the Kosovo Albanians, the Kurds again, the Syrian people, the Kurds again, again, and the Afghans again...
It seems to me that both sides are stuck...meaning that diplomacy should be used. Neither side will get 100% of what it wants. Let's review the bidding....
Russian war goals:
1. Acquire the Crimea and Donbas, including formal cession of that territory.
2. Gain control of Ukrainian foreign policy. Domestic policy if possible, but the keys are to keep them out of NATO, out of the EU, and in particular no American forces.
3. Get access to the Nikolyev shipyards, the only former Soviet yards capable of replacing the worn-out capital ships of the Russian Navy.
Ukrainian war goals:
1. Maintain independence, especially in foreign policy.
2. Kick the Russians out.
3. Wring a hefty war reparation, with Putin's head on top.
Most likely compromise axis: Either territorial concessions or independence of foreign policy. Were I Putin, I'd trade land for Ukrainian neutrality.
Sneaky move: Cut a deal to ship Second World War captured arms to Ukraine...for resale on the American collector market.
Currently the Russian minimalist position, the one you have to accept to even open negotiations, is that Ukraine has to accept permanent Russian control of all the territory they claim. Which is far larger than the territory they actually control or have any likelihood of gaining control any time soon.
If he west wants to push the Ukrainians into some negotiated settlement that the Russians will break come June the Ukrainians would be fools to not insist on NATO peacekeepers in Eastern and Southern Ukraine. Several heavy brigades, a Patriot AD Brigade and an Artillery brigade might be sufficient.
I love people who blithely decide the fate of a country of 40 million while watching youtube. Very impressive, HMSLion. By the way, there's no such city as "Nikolyev" in Ukraine. You may have meant Mykolayiv, but hard to know. The city has four major shipyards, none of which are oprational at this time and all of which are privately owned.
Of course your assumptions are that russia will honor any treaty. lol Its signature on any paper has been meaningless for more than three centuries. It's usually busy violating any treaty, convention, agreement, etc etc while the ink on the signatures is still wet. That's why Ukraine is not interested in negotiations with russia and probably never will until its security is guaranteed.
A great assessment of the current situation in Ukraine and further emphasizes that the war will be won or lost in the capital cities of Europe and Washington.
We, the West, need to decide if want to fight the Russians now, via Ukraine or send our children in 10 years time to defend Poland and the Baltic states.
Our history over the last hundred years or so has been not just fickle, but openly untrustworthy. Ever since we sent troops into Russia during WWI we’ve abandoned not only our Allie’s, but our own troops to political expediency. It is shameful how many of our allies and own citizens we’ve left to fend for themselves. Honestly, all of our treaties should come with a warning label.
Lest We Forget...
https://www.nytimes.com/1975/03/21/archives/senate-move-on-to-end-saigon-aid-bipartisan-bill-would-cut-off-all.html
Defense Secretary James R. Schlesinger after a closed‐door meeting with the Senate Armed. Services Committee on military sales to Saudi Arabia, said that the “niggardly” approach of Congress toward military aid, to the Saigon Government was the “approximate cause” for withdrawal of South Vietnamese forces from provinces in the Central Highlands.
Sure, we should have stayed there another decade. Sorry Schlesinger, but 50,000 dead Americans was too much.
If...
A. Johnson (a Democrat BTW) had not straight up lied about the supposed -and entirely fictitious- second attack on the Turner Joy, then there would not have been a hot war in 1965...
B). Johnson (a Democrat BTW) had not hobbled the USAF/USN air campaign in 1965 and 1966, then its
entirely likely the North Vietnamese would have come to the table like they did after ...finally... being pummeled by Linebacker II in 1972.
So, it was the same style feckless half measure foreign policy style that Biden is reprising toay that dug that never ending hole.
So, your deflection is right empty one.
Also, the North Vitnamese themselves said that they were emboldened by the slow shut down of American support from Congress from 1973 on.
Line backer I was the destruction of the PAVN Conventional attack in Easter of 1972 Line backer II was bombing the PAVN back to the negotiation table so they could accept our surrender.
Correct...
What did happen with Linebacker II ...forcing the North Vietnamese to seriously negotiate via an unrestricted air campaign...could have happened six years earlier.
However, the then resident 'Smartest Guy In The Room' McNamara, convinced the timorous LBJ to hold back on properly applying the combat power that was available...
https://media.defense.gov/2010/May/26/2001330292/-1/-1/0/GradualFailure.pdf
GRADUAL FAILURE
THE AIR WAR OVER NORTH VIETNAM
1965–1966
Every President from Eisenhower thru Ford had skin in the game of our ill-advised SEA adventure. Johnson ramped up the war but he was not the one that got us to take over from the French. Eisenhower (a Republican BTW) got us into Vietnam.
More of your revisionist history Ron...
It was actually Truman - a Democratic- who took the first steps down that slippery slope...
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/truman-doctrine
https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/remembering-vietnam-online-exhibit-episodes-1-4
It was Johnson - a Democrat- who used a wide open lie to start the hot war.
The Korean end came to show that a DMZ much like South Koreas, running from the Tonkin gulf, to Laos, Cambodia through terrible terrain to the Mekong river, we would have been fighting there forever.
Shouldn't have been there in the first place. Not our circus, not our monkeys. Just like Iraq several decades later, and just like WWI many decades earlier.
But, but, but the DOMINO THEORY!! If we lose Vietnam, the commies would invade Australia! Just like if we lose in Ukraine the commies (oops, it's the Russkies now) will invade France!
One of our less attractive inheritances from mom (Great Britain).
true, but are we really any different from any other large nation during that time period - especially those with (ostensibly) representative forms of government?
as with the wokists, it is easy in reviewing our foreign policy to find faults.
IMHO, the correct response is to learn and improve, but also to acknowledge that we probably still do better than everywhere else...
In the old days (late 70s thru 91, yes, I'm that old) we used to talk about the "threat". Threat was simplistically defined as Threat = Capability times intent. A strong force with no desire or perceived desire by the adversary that it would be used was low threat.
Russia was a perceived / declared huge threat, and obviously had the will to use their force. Apparently the capability of the Russian armed forces was poorly assessed, or the UKR forces exceeded all expectations on the upside.
We don't know, because the lack of actual accurate information is glaring.
America has proven to be an unreliable ally since 91 (arguably before that, yes, we can argue).
In the old bipolar world, threat estimation was easy, if not accurate.
Today, in a truly multipolar world, threat estimation is very hard, and also likely not accurate.
Why? When we have so much information, is it so hard? To steal (and mangle a quote), it's not what we don't know, it's what we think we know that just isn't so.
Information / influence operations have become the new critical component in the shaping of national public opinion. By definition public support for national participation in UKR, the middle east, Pacific theater are now largely driven by social media. AI use, misinformation, disinformation, propaganda are shaping things in ways we don't realize, or understand if we do realize they are being used.
I'd view this video as possibly honest and true, or a tiny piece of a larger influence campaign.
Couldn't tell you which one it is.
"Apparently the capability of the Russian armed forces was poorly assessed, or the UKR forces exceeded all expectations on the upside."
Embrace the power of "and." The thing is, the somewhat parlous state of the Russian military has been something of a byword for decades for those who were paying attention. They had a rough time beating the Chechens in the early oughts, the quick defeat of Georgia in 2008 was a matter of overwhelming force against a weak opponent, and the rapid takeover of Donetsk, Luhansk, and the Crimea in 2014 were facilitated by the fact that Ukraine was in utter chaos. Lots of people, however, were still thinking in terms of the Red Army of WWII and its capabilities, rather than the corruption-riddled and ramshackle force that remains to Russia now.
As to the Ukrainian military, while it performed very badly against the Russian "volunteers" in 2014, to quote Samuel Johnson, "Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully." Kiev figured Moscow was going to come take another bite at the apple and that their options were get good or get wrecked, and they decided to get good. However, most of the best and the brightest didn't think they would be able to get good enough fast enough. Turned out the smartest guys in the room were less right than they thought they were.
"also likely not accurate."
Because, as you say, one of the components of Threat is Intent and , to paraphrase, "Who knows what Intent lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!". The rest of us can only guess.
The problem here, for Russia, as near as I can tell, is that they didn't plan on a war at all. In other words, some asshole(s) at FSB or GRU (or both) told Putin what he probably wanted to hear, namely, that the Ukrainians wouldn't fight. Nothing else accounts for the lack of logistic preparedness, the small numbers, or the exceptionally restrained ROE in the first few weeks of the war.
It's clear nobody is prepared for a real war. Russia was prepared for a decapitation strike over in a weak.
Ukraine was prepared for Western sanctions and support to cause a Russian collapse within a year.
But we are beyond cabinet wars and wonder weapons. All we have is attritional peoples war in the trenches. Everyone losses.
Yes, to the first part, but seriously doubt the second. A decapitation strike would not have had such restraint as to ROE.
You might mean "coup de main" rather than "decapitation strike," but the forces committed weren't enough for that, either.
Well done, Cdr. A comprehensive, succinct analysis. Absolutely worth the 27:22 minutes.
Colonel Reisner's briefings are always clear and to the point.
Mechanized Warfare 101: you will not succeed in your objective unless you control the airspace. History is replete with such examples. Perhaps you get lucky and your adversary has few or effective air assets. As it currently stands, Ukraine cannot establish air superiority and, thus, it is madness to take the offensive and they should have been persuaded otherwise. We are all surely aware that combined arms is a deadly, violent dance that requires training, leadership, comms, intel and logistics. In what measure do the Ukrainians possess any of this? I truly admire their fighting spirit but they were not ready to take the offensive against an entrenched enemy who will not quit the battlefield.
I think Ukraine has those qualities you mention, but there's never been the necessary air support. The skies could have and should have been closed prior to Day 1. The US and UK were patroling constantly and then walked away just before Feb. 24.
Certainly the Ukrainians possess the requisite leadership and intelligence to successfully resist the Russians. My point was that they have not properly trained nor provisioned themselves to initiate a combined arms offensive....which only succeeds if one can establish air superiority. I get it, they want to seize the initiative with their newfound armor, but the results in this case are telling, and I believe, predictable.
"The US and UK were patroling constantly..." The US/UK were not flying CAP in Ukrainian airspace at any time. Had we been insanely committed to that course of action the Russian invasion of Ukraine would be effectively over in 72 hours.
The second paragraph was my point precisely. Ukraine had no real airforce to talk about and the russians tried to wipe out what little they had on Day One. The West STILL isn't committed to an outcome here. Just shillly-shallying right now. Sad and scary.
The Ukes earned what they got by wasting their 30 years of independence bin the most corrupt country in Europe. The Ukes should have been more like Finland.
True enough, they were remarkably corrupt before this war began and had a stunning lack of priorities.
Ron: Ukraine just carried on being a former Soviet republic, because the region formerly known as "the Ukraine" has never really been a single, unified county. Rather, the region has been home to a number of ethnically and culturally different people: Russians, Poles, Cossaks, Tatars, etc.
I understand that. The inhabitants call it Ukraine so I humor them. It will soon be under Russian control again.
Lots of russian trolls here today. Must be feeling hungry. Well if someone thinks Ukraine's problem is lots of ethnicities and not a rapacious neighbor that is 33 times its size, then how do you explain russia with its entire hinterland from just outside Moscow to Vladivostok, mostly not even European, never mind Slavic?
Yep. Two or three hundred years of Russian and Soviet influence has some effect.
And, by extension, my point, as well. Ukraine did not and does not have a capable air force. Your feasible options with anything mechanized are quite limited against a capable, determined enemy if you don't decide what flies and what dies. A naval example that comes to mind is HMS Prince of Wales; somebody thought it was a good idea to sally forth without air cover. Ignore the intel and risks and the "HMS Unsinkable" becomes an easy target that now rusts away on the sea floor.
I want the Ukrainians to prevail for many reasons but the West is simply unwilling to do much more that would become a true casus belli for Putin. The dearth of Western leadership is the prime mover here.
Interestingly enough, deep ocean enviroments tends towards being oxygen-poor. Galvanic and stray current corrosion modalities start to dominate in that environment. The HMS Prince of Wales is likely dissolving away faster than rusting away.
That is interesting. Although not ignorant of naval matters, I am not a proper Navalist like many of you! My knowledge/experience lies in a different lane (all such lanes inevitably merging at some level).
I assume this is why the PRC is plundering the wreckage...before it quickly dissolves. Bastards.
"The West STILL isn't committed..."
And if they retain their sanity they won't be. Sorry, but your border squabbles are not our fight.
"border squabble"? Which did you fail to develop: your brains or your morals?
Starting WWIII by shooting at Russian jets is the worst idea ever.
Really? Ukrainians are shooting down russian jets, sometimes 3-4 a day. Hmmm... maybe we missed your memo.
NAtO aircraft. Let's start WW3. Yeah, that's the ticket. And Ukraine isn't shooting down enough of anything to change this situation.
The enemy was not entrenched in fall of 22. It was the delays of the West that allowed that. Biden with his 'I've got 3000 extra M1 tanks, how about I send you 31 in a year and a half?' And why don't the Ukrainians have an effective air force? Remember that Joe "Minor Incursion" Biden wouldn't let the Poles transfer Mig 29s to Ukraine in March of 2022?
I completely agree. The time for taking the initiative has passed. The Ukrainians wanted to deploy that trickle of AFVs before the training was complete. Had they done that out of desperation it would be understandable. It appears they thought a full scale offensive, rather, was in order. If I'm a senior Russian commander I'd be preparing a defense in depth once aware of the Western armor on its way.
They launched the offensive because they will lose an attritional artillery war.
Of course if they had been willing to have more sensible war aims they wouldn't have ended up in an attritional artillery war.
Whose "war aims" are you talking about? Perhaps you have confused who is the attacker and who the defender since 2014...
If you overthrow your government in a violent coup then the people who voted 90%+ for the guy you overthrow should have the right to leave the country.
Instead the Ukrainian military cracked down on them.
You do know where all the fighting is taking place right now and what the purpose of the counter offensive was correct?
You are spouting russian propaganda, whether you know it or not. THere was no "coup" in Ukraine, ever. There was a power-sharing agreement in February 2014 that the EU brokered so that Yanukovych could stay in office until December. He agreed to it and then the next day he started running away, first to Kharkiv, then Crimea, then Rostov. As to the takeover of eastern Ukraine, it was started as a GRU operation under Igor "Strelkov" Ghirkin and Igor Bezler. Ghirkin had done similar sabotage work in Serbia during the Balkan War. You should read up on their "charm offensive" (offensive being the operative word) in the Donbas, especially the Horlivka area, in April 2014.
The people in the occupied territories in eastern Ukraine and Crimea never had an opportunity to partiipate in a legitimate vote to decide their fate. Unless you think voting under duress, with machine guns all around (not from Ukraine but from russia), and voting on unsecured xerox copies etc etc is "legitimate." A lot simply fled the occupied territories when they saw what was happening. Many of those who remained couldn't leave because of age, health, lack of finances, property they didn't want to lose, elderly parents they had to take care of, etc etc.
You actually don't know what you're talking about so you might consider stopping while you're ahead.
"You are spouting russian propaganda"
They shot people. They burned people alive. These things happened.
I'm not Russian an don't care about Russia. I don't think the Russians an Ukrainians are all that different. I don't think whoever wins will change life for people on the ground, which makes the entire war a tragedy.
"The people in the occupied territories in eastern Ukraine and Crimea."
90% of them voted for Yanukovych. Approximately 0% of the resisted liberation by Russia.
"You actually don't know what you're talking about so you might consider stopping while you're ahead."
You had two color revolutions in Ukraine. Both ended in dismal failure. I see zero evidence that the oligarchs in western Ukraine have a better future in mind than the oligarchs in eastern Ukraine. It's another third world shitshow we are being asked to get involved in so defense contractors can make a lot of money while everyone on the ground loses.
As I said... Let's start with your phony moniker. Troll city.
Next, your claim that "they" shot people. "They" burned people alive. Yes, Ghirkin & Co. not only shot Ukrainians, they tortured three Ukrainians in Horlivka in April 2014, "drew" the men's intestines in the classic Medieval manner, and threw their naked bodies into the river. One of them was a city councillor, Volodymyr Rybak, who took down the russian flag that the GRU operatives had raised over Horlivka and put back the Ukrainian one. The other two were Protestant missionaries, a father and his son.
Now maybe it's clear why "0% of the resisted liberation by Russia." You call that "liberation"? russian propaanda all the way. What ordinary people will even say boo after a popular local official is executed in a very public, gruesome manner? And the executioners weren't Ukrainins. They were seasoned russian operatives.
Next, "they" burned them alive. The Odesa Union building, where some guys on the roof were shooting at the pro-Ukrainian demonstrators on the ground, while their buddies inside tried to toss a Molotov cocktail through a second story window onto the people below, but the window didn't break and instead the entire interior went up in flames (old soviet synthetics everywhere and cheap lacquered particleboard furniture... not the place for throwing molotovs). Meanwhile, the people in the street did not run away or cheer (plenty of videos of this entire incident) but brought up a ladder to try to rescue those in the burning central wing of the building (it was four stories high and had two side wings that weren't on fire but for some reason nobody tried to get out that way...?). By the way, this all happened on the May 1st four-day holiday weekend, which meant no one was at work, so the only people in the building were those who broke into it in the first place. There's a lot more that can be said about that incident, but I think this suffices to clarify who burned whom.
Next, "I'm not Russian an don't care about Russia" which raises the obvious question, what are you doing here? You seem to "care" an awful lot—if repeating russian propaanda and disinformation, and dissing people who actually do care is an indication of "caring." Especially calling the situation where one country invades a neighboring European country 1/30 of its size for no good reason "liberation" and a "third world shitshow."
The rest of your comments are simply reguritation of lies and half-truths. By the way, Yanukovych got barely 35% in the first round of the election in 2010 and it went into a run-off.
Given that russia has managed to destroy most of the industry in occupied Donbas, between carting off about a dozen factories lock, stock and barrel, bombing the biggest (eg Azovstal, the Avdiivka Coke Plant), and flooding many of the remaining mines, life in eastern Ukraine is obviously a disaster at this point. And of course, the war has made a mess of a country that was doing quite well without russian interference, and would have been independent for natural gas if Crimea hadn't been stolen. For russia, this is a war for resource control. For Ukraine, it's a war for survival. I don't expect you to understand any of this, of course. But in case other people might be interested.
In the meantime, honor your word that you "don't care" and stop harrassing those of us who know and who do.
It is also (generally) madness for a smaller country to wage a war of attrition against a larger country.
I always look forward to his posts on that channel. It is nice not having a political type telling me what to think.
The Ukrainians this, the Ukrainians that. That bothers me. Maybe it is just a language difference. Ukrainian troops this, Ukrainian troops that would have been easier for my western language filter to handle.
Beyond my filter, the video was very informative, well presented, and hopefully accurate. Any film by either side, in a time of war, should be considered as potential propaganda.
Putin has his casus belli and we have a flock of cowards hiding behind "fear of escalation." I wouldn't care less if they had to face the music of not stopping the bully where they could fairly easily, except that that would mean that Ukraine was wiped odf the map.
"a flock of cowards "
Phrases like "pound sand" and "where the sun don't shine" come to mind.
Thanks for sharing this. Something you would expect from them. On the other hand, Zelensky can continue to be delusional but will cannot over come raw power from a much larger nation with huge resources while the West is running critically low on resources that will take years to resupply.
The only critical resource the West is running short of is courage and leadership.
Hmmm. That went well, didn't it?
This entire sorry war is reminiscent of an ant climbing an elephant's hind leg with rape on his mind. The Pentagon and the DoD have other concerns, like figuring how to rig standards so women can qualify for SPECOPs, but our NATO pals ought to be able to recall Russian military ability.
The next year will be interesting. We committed to support with the Budapest Agreement and are dealing with a recalcitrant EU, a corrupt Ukrainian government that has been throughly penetrated by Russian intelligence, an impotent UN, and a NATO Chief who says Ukraine can join NATO after the war.
There is no incentive for Putin to sue for an end to the war unless something drastically changes Ukraines warfighting abilities or it becomes politically inexpedient at home for him.
"America can be a fickle friend." Just ask the South Vietnamese, the Afghans, the Kurds, the Kosovo Albanians, the Kurds again, the Syrian people, the Kurds again, again, and the Afghans again...
It seems to me that both sides are stuck...meaning that diplomacy should be used. Neither side will get 100% of what it wants. Let's review the bidding....
Russian war goals:
1. Acquire the Crimea and Donbas, including formal cession of that territory.
2. Gain control of Ukrainian foreign policy. Domestic policy if possible, but the keys are to keep them out of NATO, out of the EU, and in particular no American forces.
3. Get access to the Nikolyev shipyards, the only former Soviet yards capable of replacing the worn-out capital ships of the Russian Navy.
Ukrainian war goals:
1. Maintain independence, especially in foreign policy.
2. Kick the Russians out.
3. Wring a hefty war reparation, with Putin's head on top.
Most likely compromise axis: Either territorial concessions or independence of foreign policy. Were I Putin, I'd trade land for Ukrainian neutrality.
Sneaky move: Cut a deal to ship Second World War captured arms to Ukraine...for resale on the American collector market.
Currently the Russian minimalist position, the one you have to accept to even open negotiations, is that Ukraine has to accept permanent Russian control of all the territory they claim. Which is far larger than the territory they actually control or have any likelihood of gaining control any time soon.
If he west wants to push the Ukrainians into some negotiated settlement that the Russians will break come June the Ukrainians would be fools to not insist on NATO peacekeepers in Eastern and Southern Ukraine. Several heavy brigades, a Patriot AD Brigade and an Artillery brigade might be sufficient.
I love people who blithely decide the fate of a country of 40 million while watching youtube. Very impressive, HMSLion. By the way, there's no such city as "Nikolyev" in Ukraine. You may have meant Mykolayiv, but hard to know. The city has four major shipyards, none of which are oprational at this time and all of which are privately owned.
Of course your assumptions are that russia will honor any treaty. lol Its signature on any paper has been meaningless for more than three centuries. It's usually busy violating any treaty, convention, agreement, etc etc while the ink on the signatures is still wet. That's why Ukraine is not interested in negotiations with russia and probably never will until its security is guaranteed.
With all due respect, what's your realistic alternative to what HMSLion proposed?
A great assessment of the current situation in Ukraine and further emphasizes that the war will be won or lost in the capital cities of Europe and Washington.
We, the West, need to decide if want to fight the Russians now, via Ukraine or send our children in 10 years time to defend Poland and the Baltic states.
You choose!!
As everyone who studied war since the Korean police action 1951-1953 and beyond.
Who saw and participated in Vietnam, watched the Beirut massacre's and retreat, The Hostage's of Iran, and carters desert disaster.
The twenty year war that ended with a retreat much like Saigon 75.
We saw what was going to happen in Ukraine and only the generals, government and fanbois didn't see this coming.
It is over, stalemate until attrition wears down Ukraine he war is finished.
No doubt like the Palestinian vs Israel the shooting, rocket/missile terror attacks, drone bombings will go on intermittently forever.
Waste of lives and money.
The Lady in Black has arrived.
Linebacker I and II hit targets off limits up to then.
It was the devastating strike that should have happened in 1965 when the Marines landed.