KaiBear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

I don't know what that was all about. I don't like China personally. Not everyone is a rich western Caucasian. Again, leave Corisicana some time.

---

sigh....buddy I don't even know where to begin with you.

1. While there may be some people who like living under a modern totalitarian surveillance state...there is no evidence that most people like it. The constant protests against Chi-Com rule by the Tibetans, Hong Kong residents, and Uyghurs would be evidence that millions and millions of people in China don't like living under that political-cultural system.

2. You get your panties in a bunch about putins authoritarian-kleptocratic state in Russia...and shill for a more aggressive and totalitarian system in China.

3. I don't live in Corsicana ... lol you also spelled it wrong.

---

"While there may be some people who like living under a modern totalitarian surveillance state."

thanks. That wasn't so hard was it

---

they really don't though. They just tell people that so they don't have to watch their wife or child get shot in the back of the head for disobedience.

Or they're the ones in power getting to milk the rest of the paupers for all they have.

---

Welcome to adulthood. This is how every country works.

---

What other countries have you been to for over a week ?

And no, staying in an all inclusive resort doesn't count as being in Mexico .

---

Besides the military I've spent half my adult life in SK as I worked for Samsung for ~20 years.

---

Where were you stationed ? What branch ? Did you earn a CIB or just another glorified clerk ?

---

Pretty sure if you are going to interrogate him, ya gotta read him his rights first, and offer to have a lawyer present ...

Oldbear83 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

ron.reagan said:

---

I don't know what that was all about. I don't like China personally. Not everyone is a rich western Caucasian. Again, leave Corisicana some time.

---

sigh....buddy I don't even know where to begin with you.

1. While there may be some people who like living under a modern totalitarian surveillance state...there is no evidence that most people like it. The constant protests against Chi-Com rule by the Tibetans, Hong Kong residents, and Uyghurs would be evidence that millions and millions of people in China don't like living under that political-cultural system.

2. You get your panties in a bunch about putins authoritarian-kleptocratic state in Russia...and shill for a more aggressive and totalitarian system in China.

3. I don't live in Corsicana ... lol you also spelled it wrong.

---

"While there may be some people who like living under a modern totalitarian surveillance state."

thanks. That wasn't so hard was it

---

they really don't though. They just tell people that so they don't have to watch their wife or child get shot in the back of the head for disobedience.

Or they're the ones in power getting to milk the rest of the paupers for all they have.

---

Welcome to adulthood. This is how every country works.

---

What other countries have you been to for over a week ?

And no, staying in an all inclusive resort doesn't count as being in Mexico .

---

Besides the military I've spent half my adult life in SK as I worked for Samsung for ~20 years.

---

Where were you stationed ? What branch ? Did you earn a CIB or just another glorified clerk ?

---

Pretty sure if you are going to interrogate him, ya gotta read him his rights first, and offer to have a lawyer present ...

---

LOL

That's one point of view.

Of course no one is forced to divulge anything . Nor is there a way to ascertain if the information provided is truthful.

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Some Facts:
-- pre-war population of the Donbas was approx 3.6m.
-- About 60% identified as Ukrainian; 40% as Russian.
--Roughly 1-in-4 of those "Ukrainians" spoke Russian as primary language.

A 6-digit number of the Ukrainians have fled for refugee status. A six-digit number of Ukrainians were hauled off to distant parts of Russia. And some Russians have moved in. So the numbers have probably flipped.

The post-war scenario will involve international support for return of all Ukrainian residents to the Donbas, to include cash incentives. I'm sure Ukraine will offer amnesty to Ukrainian citizens, but not Russian citizens. Further, we can expect life for Russian nationals in Donbas to be pretty tough in the post-war, due to social ostracization. Knowing what they are likely to face, a great number of them will voluntarily repatriate.

Donbas could end up, 10 years from the end of the war, 75-25 Ukrainian.

You can bet Ukranian and International policy will, below the surface, be working toward a goal like that pretty hard, with juicy carrots and very soft sticks, as it will make it far harder for Russia to repeat the "little green men" gambit they used to destabilize the Donbas. The whole "Donbas should be part of Russia anyway" argument was weak to start with, but it was seized by war opponent with such gusto, we have to drive a stake thru the heart of it if we are to avoid repeating the nightmare.

Interesting reading:
https://theconversation.com/most-people-in-separatist-held-areas-of-donbas-prefer-reintegration-with-ukraine-new-survey-124849

---

So you are in fact supporting the idea of forced demographic change in Donbas to make it a more pliant province of Kyiv.

At least you are not beating around the bush about it.

The ethnic russians have to go and the ethnic ukrainians have to be made the majority....by "cash incentives" or by means that are a little more brutal.

You would fit in well as a "security" advisor to the Likud party.

---

Ethnic Ukrainians already are the majority and were before Putin did his thing. Whiterock showed that earlier.

---

Slight majority...yes

At least if we are to go by the self declared census info.

[According to the 2001 census, ethnic Ukrainians form 57% of the population of Luhansk Oblast and 55.9% of Donetsk Oblast. Ethnic Russians form the largest minority, accounting for 39% and 38.2% of the two oblasts respectively.]

[According to the 2001 census, Russian is the main language of 74.9% of residents in Donetsk Oblast and 68.8% in Luhansk Oblast]

He also said the demographic situation has changed since that time.

Lets play that out and assume it is in fact true.

Are you willing to use force to change the demographic profile of Donbas back to what it was in 2001?

---

As for 2001 or whatever date. When Ukraine became sovereign and that territory was part of their Nation, it is Ukraine. You seem to be making up reasons to give that area to Russia. Why? I can't figure out, you seem to be a fan of Putins.

---

Why do you want to encourage a war that has been going on for 8+ years in the Donbas to go on even longer. I can't figure it out.

This area is a rusting out post-industrial ex-coal field with less value than our rust belt or West Virginia.

The populace has kept up a near decade long fight to break off from Kyiv...yet we are supposed to continue to pretend this movement has no legitimacy among the rank and file citizens.

Not to mention the leadership in D.C. has supported just about every secessionist movement you can image over the past 30 years (East Timor, South Sudan, Kosovo) but now we are supposed to pretend that this secessionist movement in Donbas is where we draw the line?

This war has of course now escalated to being nation wide....300,000+ casualties and rising...along with costing the U.S. tax payers more than 100 BILLION dollars!

In order to help Kyiv keep Donbas are we willing to turn this into general large scale European war (possibly world wide)

Why?

---

This has been explained to you. Your argument here is that if we just gave Hitler the Sudetentland, we will have "peace in our time."

The way to stop a general large scale war in Europe is NOT to appease Russia by giving it pieces of a sovereign country it invaded. The way to stop a general large scale war in Europe is to defeat Russia in Ukraine, to force Russia to keep Russian armies in Russia.



-

---

One might also ask is if its helpful to needlessly compare every geo-political situation in the world to 1938 and Czechoslovakia?

This might be appealing to certain boomers but its a myopic view at best.

Lets not even go down the rabbit hole of having to school you that Prime Minister Chamberlain was right not to got to war with Germany over the Sudetenland in '38....Britain was in no position to wage war at that date.

And comparing every dictator and strong man in history to Hitler is something for a classroom of activists at ut-austin to do....not something that is going to sway people who actual read history.

Waving the bloody red shirt of the sudenland after almost 90 years is foolish, a gross distortion of modern events, and one might even say propagandist.

Its always 1938 to some people...the enemy is always Hitler...and the only way to secure "peace" is preemptive war.

---

I'm not sure I've previously made that specific comparison, but it is nonetheless a perfectly appropriate historical comparison = appeasement never works. If we look deeper into the comparison, there is one incongruence between Sudetentland and Donbas which leaps off the page: There was no war going on in Sudententland, but there was a war going on in Ukraine. Czechoslovakia got rolled quickly and easily. Ukraine did not. And notably, we did not step up to help Ukraine until after it became patently apparent that Russia was not going to succeed in its effort to topple the regime.

We know exactly what Russia wants - to re-establish direct or de-facto control over the former USSR footprint. There are two problems with that:
1) that footprint involves current Nato territory. So conflict is inevitable, unless Russia changes its policy.
2) Russia does not have the wherewithal to actually achieve such. Russia cannot even control Ukraine.

So there is no need for appeasement at all here. It is insanity personified to appease a weak autocrat just to avoid the conflict. All you do is make them stronger, convince them that they are stronger and more powerful than they actually are. Such emboldens them, and guarantees you will have to face them later when they are stronger. The way to prevent that is to stop them in their tracks and send the scurrying home with their tail between their legs, hopefully to change their own regime.

We are witnessing a rare moment in history when an old adage leaps to life: Russia's alligator mouth has overloaded its hummingbird ass. Time to teach them a lesson in reality.

---

I am with you on this. Russia needs to know they can't just take. My bigger fear is that Biden will leave us exposed in China, I hope the professionals in the Military are ensuring that doesn't happen.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Some Facts:
-- pre-war population of the Donbas was approx 3.6m.
-- About 60% identified as Ukrainian; 40% as Russian.
--Roughly 1-in-4 of those "Ukrainians" spoke Russian as primary language.

A 6-digit number of the Ukrainians have fled for refugee status. A six-digit number of Ukrainians were hauled off to distant parts of Russia. And some Russians have moved in. So the numbers have probably flipped.

The post-war scenario will involve international support for return of all Ukrainian residents to the Donbas, to include cash incentives. I'm sure Ukraine will offer amnesty to Ukrainian citizens, but not Russian citizens. Further, we can expect life for Russian nationals in Donbas to be pretty tough in the post-war, due to social ostracization. Knowing what they are likely to face, a great number of them will voluntarily repatriate.

Donbas could end up, 10 years from the end of the war, 75-25 Ukrainian.

You can bet Ukranian and International policy will, below the surface, be working toward a goal like that pretty hard, with juicy carrots and very soft sticks, as it will make it far harder for Russia to repeat the "little green men" gambit they used to destabilize the Donbas. The whole "Donbas should be part of Russia anyway" argument was weak to start with, but it was seized by war opponent with such gusto, we have to drive a stake thru the heart of it if we are to avoid repeating the nightmare.

Interesting reading:
https://theconversation.com/most-people-in-separatist-held-areas-of-donbas-prefer-reintegration-with-ukraine-new-survey-124849

---

So you are in fact supporting the idea of forced demographic change in Donbas to make it a more pliant province of Kyiv.

At least you are not beating around the bush about it.

The ethnic russians have to go and the ethnic ukrainians have to be made the majority....by "cash incentives" or by means that are a little more brutal.

You would fit in well as a "security" advisor to the Likud party.

---

Ethnic Ukrainians already are the majority and were before Putin did his thing. Whiterock showed that earlier.

---

Slight majority...yes

At least if we are to go by the self declared census info.

[According to the 2001 census, ethnic Ukrainians form 57% of the population of Luhansk Oblast and 55.9% of Donetsk Oblast. Ethnic Russians form the largest minority, accounting for 39% and 38.2% of the two oblasts respectively.]

[According to the 2001 census, Russian is the main language of 74.9% of residents in Donetsk Oblast and 68.8% in Luhansk Oblast]

He also said the demographic situation has changed since that time.

Lets play that out and assume it is in fact true.

Are you willing to use force to change the demographic profile of Donbas back to what it was in 2001?

---

As for 2001 or whatever date. When Ukraine became sovereign and that territory was part of their Nation, it is Ukraine. You seem to be making up reasons to give that area to Russia. Why? I can't figure out, you seem to be a fan of Putins.

---

Why do you want to encourage a war that has been going on for 8+ years in the Donbas to go on even longer. I can't figure it out.

This area is a rusting out post-industrial ex-coal field with less value than our rust belt or West Virginia.

The populace has kept up a near decade long fight to break off from Kyiv...yet we are supposed to continue to pretend this movement has no legitimacy among the rank and file citizens.

Not to mention the leadership in D.C. has supported just about every secessionist movement you can image over the past 30 years (East Timor, South Sudan, Kosovo) but now we are supposed to pretend that this secessionist movement in Donbas is where we draw the line?

This war has of course now escalated to being nation wide....300,000+ casualties and rising...along with costing the U.S. tax payers more than 100 BILLION dollars!

In order to help Kyiv keep Donbas are we willing to turn this into general large scale European war (possibly world wide)

Why?

---

This has been explained to you. Your argument here is that if we just gave Hitler the Sudetentland, we will have "peace in our time."

The way to stop a general large scale war in Europe is NOT to appease Russia by giving it pieces of a sovereign country it invaded. The way to stop a general large scale war in Europe is to defeat Russia in Ukraine, to force Russia to keep Russian armies in Russia.



-

---

One might also ask is if its helpful to needlessly compare every geo-political situation in the world to 1938 and Czechoslovakia?

This might be appealing to certain boomers but its a myopic view at best.

Lets not even go down the rabbit hole of having to school you that Prime Minister Chamberlain was right not to got to war with Germany over the Sudetenland in '38....Britain was in no position to wage war at that date.

And comparing every dictator and strong man in history to Hitler is something for a classroom of activists at ut-austin to do....not something that is going to sway people who actual read history.

Waving the bloody red shirt of the sudenland after almost 90 years is foolish, a gross distortion of modern events, and one might even say propagandist.

Its always 1938 to some people...the enemy is always Hitler...and the only way to secure "peace" is preemptive war.

---

I'm not sure I've previously made that specific comparison, but it is nonetheless a perfectly appropriate historical comparison = appeasement never works. If we look deeper into the comparison, there is one incongruence between Sudetentland and Donbas which leaps off the page: There was no war going on in Sudententland, but there was a war going on in Ukraine. Czechoslovakia got rolled quickly and easily. Ukraine did not. And notably, we did not step up to help Ukraine until after it became patently apparent that Russia was not going to succeed in its effort to topple the regime.

We know exactly what Russia wants - to re-establish direct or de-facto control over the former USSR footprint. There are two problems with that:
1) that footprint involves current Nato territory. So conflict is inevitable, unless Russia changes its policy.
2) Russia does not have the wherewithal to actually achieve such. Russia cannot even control Ukraine.

So there is no need for appeasement at all here. It is insanity personified to appease a weak autocrat just to avoid the conflict. All you do is make them stronger, convince them that they are stronger and more powerful than they actually are. Such emboldens them, and guarantees you will have to face them later when they are stronger. The way to prevent that is to stop them in their tracks and send the scurrying home with their tail between their legs, hopefully to change their own regime.

We are witnessing a rare moment in history when an old adage leaps to life: Russia's alligator mouth has overloaded its hummingbird ass. Time to teach them a lesson in reality.

---

I am with you on this. Russia needs to know they can't just take. My bigger fear is that Biden will leave us exposed in China, I hope the professionals in the Military are ensuring that doesn't happen.

---

Unless China finds some decent allies (not likely) and can somehow figure out how to build (and pay for) 8 new nuclear powered $13+ billion dollar aircraft carriers…the U.S. is well insulated from the Chinese military

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Some Facts:
-- pre-war population of the Donbas was approx 3.6m.
-- About 60% identified as Ukrainian; 40% as Russian.
--Roughly 1-in-4 of those "Ukrainians" spoke Russian as primary language.

A 6-digit number of the Ukrainians have fled for refugee status. A six-digit number of Ukrainians were hauled off to distant parts of Russia. And some Russians have moved in. So the numbers have probably flipped.

The post-war scenario will involve international support for return of all Ukrainian residents to the Donbas, to include cash incentives. I'm sure Ukraine will offer amnesty to Ukrainian citizens, but not Russian citizens. Further, we can expect life for Russian nationals in Donbas to be pretty tough in the post-war, due to social ostracization. Knowing what they are likely to face, a great number of them will voluntarily repatriate.

Donbas could end up, 10 years from the end of the war, 75-25 Ukrainian.

You can bet Ukranian and International policy will, below the surface, be working toward a goal like that pretty hard, with juicy carrots and very soft sticks, as it will make it far harder for Russia to repeat the "little green men" gambit they used to destabilize the Donbas. The whole "Donbas should be part of Russia anyway" argument was weak to start with, but it was seized by war opponent with such gusto, we have to drive a stake thru the heart of it if we are to avoid repeating the nightmare.

Interesting reading:
https://theconversation.com/most-people-in-separatist-held-areas-of-donbas-prefer-reintegration-with-ukraine-new-survey-124849

---

So you are in fact supporting the idea of forced demographic change in Donbas to make it a more pliant province of Kyiv.

At least you are not beating around the bush about it.

The ethnic russians have to go and the ethnic ukrainians have to be made the majority....by "cash incentives" or by means that are a little more brutal.

You would fit in well as a "security" advisor to the Likud party.

---

Ethnic Ukrainians already are the majority and were before Putin did his thing. Whiterock showed that earlier.

---

Slight majority...yes

At least if we are to go by the self declared census info.

[According to the 2001 census, ethnic Ukrainians form 57% of the population of Luhansk Oblast and 55.9% of Donetsk Oblast. Ethnic Russians form the largest minority, accounting for 39% and 38.2% of the two oblasts respectively.]

[According to the 2001 census, Russian is the main language of 74.9% of residents in Donetsk Oblast and 68.8% in Luhansk Oblast]

He also said the demographic situation has changed since that time.

Lets play that out and assume it is in fact true.

Are you willing to use force to change the demographic profile of Donbas back to what it was in 2001?

---

As for 2001 or whatever date. When Ukraine became sovereign and that territory was part of their Nation, it is Ukraine. You seem to be making up reasons to give that area to Russia. Why? I can't figure out, you seem to be a fan of Putins.

---

Why do you want to encourage a war that has been going on for 8+ years in the Donbas to go on even longer. I can't figure it out.

This area is a rusting out post-industrial ex-coal field with less value than our rust belt or West Virginia.

The populace has kept up a near decade long fight to break off from Kyiv...yet we are supposed to continue to pretend this movement has no legitimacy among the rank and file citizens.

Not to mention the leadership in D.C. has supported just about every secessionist movement you can image over the past 30 years (East Timor, South Sudan, Kosovo) but now we are supposed to pretend that this secessionist movement in Donbas is where we draw the line?

This war has of course now escalated to being nation wide....300,000+ casualties and rising...along with costing the U.S. tax payers more than 100 BILLION dollars!

In order to help Kyiv keep Donbas are we willing to turn this into general large scale European war (possibly world wide)

Why?

---

This has been explained to you. Your argument here is that if we just gave Hitler the Sudetentland, we will have "peace in our time."

The way to stop a general large scale war in Europe is NOT to appease Russia by giving it pieces of a sovereign country it invaded. The way to stop a general large scale war in Europe is to defeat Russia in Ukraine, to force Russia to keep Russian armies in Russia.



-

---

One might also ask is if its helpful to needlessly compare every geo-political situation in the world to 1938 and Czechoslovakia?

This might be appealing to certain boomers but its a myopic view at best.

Lets not even go down the rabbit hole of having to school you that Prime Minister Chamberlain was right not to got to war with Germany over the Sudetenland in '38....Britain was in no position to wage war at that date.

And comparing every dictator and strong man in history to Hitler is something for a classroom of activists at ut-austin to do....not something that is going to sway people who actual read history.

Waving the bloody red shirt of the sudenland after almost 90 years is foolish, a gross distortion of modern events, and one might even say propagandist.

Its always 1938 to some people...the enemy is always Hitler...and the only way to secure "peace" is preemptive war.

---

I'm not sure I've previously made that specific comparison, but it is nonetheless a perfectly appropriate historical comparison = appeasement never works. If we look deeper into the comparison, there is one incongruence between Sudetentland and Donbas which leaps off the page: There was no war going on in Sudententland, but there was a war going on in Ukraine. Czechoslovakia got rolled quickly and easily. Ukraine did not. And notably, we did not step up to help Ukraine until after it became patently apparent that Russia was not going to succeed in its effort to topple the regime.

We know exactly what Russia wants - to re-establish direct or de-facto control over the former USSR footprint. There are two problems with that:
1) that footprint involves current Nato territory. So conflict is inevitable, unless Russia changes its policy.
2) Russia does not have the wherewithal to actually achieve such. Russia cannot even control Ukraine.

So there is no need for appeasement at all here. It is insanity personified to appease a weak autocrat just to avoid the conflict. All you do is make them stronger, convince them that they are stronger and more powerful than they actually are. Such emboldens them, and guarantees you will have to face them later when they are stronger. The way to prevent that is to stop them in their tracks and send the scurrying home with their tail between their legs, hopefully to change their own regime.

We are witnessing a rare moment in history when an old adage leaps to life: Russia's alligator mouth has overloaded its hummingbird ass. Time to teach them a lesson in reality.

---

I am with you on this. Russia needs to know they can't just take. My bigger fear is that Biden will leave us exposed in China, I hope the professionals in the Military are ensuring that doesn't happen.

---

Unless China finds some decent allies (not likely) and can somehow figure out how to build (and pay for) 8 new nuclear powered $13+ billion dollar aircraft carriers…the U.S. is well insulated from the Chinese military

---

So in your eyes the threat of invasion is the only concern? If we got that covered, we're good?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Some Facts:
-- pre-war population of the Donbas was approx 3.6m.
-- About 60% identified as Ukrainian; 40% as Russian.
--Roughly 1-in-4 of those "Ukrainians" spoke Russian as primary language.

A 6-digit number of the Ukrainians have fled for refugee status. A six-digit number of Ukrainians were hauled off to distant parts of Russia. And some Russians have moved in. So the numbers have probably flipped.

The post-war scenario will involve international support for return of all Ukrainian residents to the Donbas, to include cash incentives. I'm sure Ukraine will offer amnesty to Ukrainian citizens, but not Russian citizens. Further, we can expect life for Russian nationals in Donbas to be pretty tough in the post-war, due to social ostracization. Knowing what they are likely to face, a great number of them will voluntarily repatriate.

Donbas could end up, 10 years from the end of the war, 75-25 Ukrainian.

You can bet Ukranian and International policy will, below the surface, be working toward a goal like that pretty hard, with juicy carrots and very soft sticks, as it will make it far harder for Russia to repeat the "little green men" gambit they used to destabilize the Donbas. The whole "Donbas should be part of Russia anyway" argument was weak to start with, but it was seized by war opponent with such gusto, we have to drive a stake thru the heart of it if we are to avoid repeating the nightmare.

Interesting reading:
https://theconversation.com/most-people-in-separatist-held-areas-of-donbas-prefer-reintegration-with-ukraine-new-survey-124849

---

So you are in fact supporting the idea of forced demographic change in Donbas to make it a more pliant province of Kyiv.

At least you are not beating around the bush about it.

The ethnic russians have to go and the ethnic ukrainians have to be made the majority....by "cash incentives" or by means that are a little more brutal.

You would fit in well as a "security" advisor to the Likud party.

---

Ethnic Ukrainians already are the majority and were before Putin did his thing. Whiterock showed that earlier.

---

Slight majority...yes

At least if we are to go by the self declared census info.

[According to the 2001 census, ethnic Ukrainians form 57% of the population of Luhansk Oblast and 55.9% of Donetsk Oblast. Ethnic Russians form the largest minority, accounting for 39% and 38.2% of the two oblasts respectively.]

[According to the 2001 census, Russian is the main language of 74.9% of residents in Donetsk Oblast and 68.8% in Luhansk Oblast]

He also said the demographic situation has changed since that time.

Lets play that out and assume it is in fact true.

Are you willing to use force to change the demographic profile of Donbas back to what it was in 2001?

---

As for 2001 or whatever date. When Ukraine became sovereign and that territory was part of their Nation, it is Ukraine. You seem to be making up reasons to give that area to Russia. Why? I can't figure out, you seem to be a fan of Putins.

---

Why do you want to encourage a war that has been going on for 8+ years in the Donbas to go on even longer. I can't figure it out.

This area is a rusting out post-industrial ex-coal field with less value than our rust belt or West Virginia.

The populace has kept up a near decade long fight to break off from Kyiv...yet we are supposed to continue to pretend this movement has no legitimacy among the rank and file citizens.

Not to mention the leadership in D.C. has supported just about every secessionist movement you can image over the past 30 years (East Timor, South Sudan, Kosovo) but now we are supposed to pretend that this secessionist movement in Donbas is where we draw the line?

This war has of course now escalated to being nation wide....300,000+ casualties and rising...along with costing the U.S. tax payers more than 100 BILLION dollars!

In order to help Kyiv keep Donbas are we willing to turn this into general large scale European war (possibly world wide)

Why?

---

This has been explained to you. Your argument here is that if we just gave Hitler the Sudetentland, we will have "peace in our time."

The way to stop a general large scale war in Europe is NOT to appease Russia by giving it pieces of a sovereign country it invaded. The way to stop a general large scale war in Europe is to defeat Russia in Ukraine, to force Russia to keep Russian armies in Russia.



-

---

One might also ask is if its helpful to needlessly compare every geo-political situation in the world to 1938 and Czechoslovakia?

This might be appealing to certain boomers but its a myopic view at best.

Lets not even go down the rabbit hole of having to school you that Prime Minister Chamberlain was right not to got to war with Germany over the Sudetenland in '38....Britain was in no position to wage war at that date.

And comparing every dictator and strong man in history to Hitler is something for a classroom of activists at ut-austin to do....not something that is going to sway people who actual read history.

Waving the bloody red shirt of the sudenland after almost 90 years is foolish, a gross distortion of modern events, and one might even say propagandist.

Its always 1938 to some people...the enemy is always Hitler...and the only way to secure "peace" is preemptive war.

---

I'm not sure I've previously made that specific comparison, but it is nonetheless a perfectly appropriate historical comparison = appeasement never works. If we look deeper into the comparison, there is one incongruence between Sudetentland and Donbas which leaps off the page: There was no war going on in Sudententland, but there was a war going on in Ukraine. Czechoslovakia got rolled quickly and easily. Ukraine did not. And notably, we did not step up to help Ukraine until after it became patently apparent that Russia was not going to succeed in its effort to topple the regime.

We know exactly what Russia wants - to re-establish direct or de-facto control over the former USSR footprint. There are two problems with that:
1) that footprint involves current Nato territory. So conflict is inevitable, unless Russia changes its policy.
2) Russia does not have the wherewithal to actually achieve such. Russia cannot even control Ukraine.

So there is no need for appeasement at all here. It is insanity personified to appease a weak autocrat just to avoid the conflict. All you do is make them stronger, convince them that they are stronger and more powerful than they actually are. Such emboldens them, and guarantees you will have to face them later when they are stronger. The way to prevent that is to stop them in their tracks and send the scurrying home with their tail between their legs, hopefully to change their own regime.

We are witnessing a rare moment in history when an old adage leaps to life: Russia's alligator mouth has overloaded its hummingbird ass. Time to teach them a lesson in reality.

---

I am with you on this. Russia needs to know they can't just take. My bigger fear is that Biden will leave us exposed in China, I hope the professionals in the Military are ensuring that doesn't happen.

---

Unless China finds some decent allies (not likely) and can somehow figure out how to build (and pay for) 8 new nuclear powered $13+ billion dollar aircraft carriers…the U.S. is well insulated from the Chinese military

---

So in your eyes the threat of invasion is the only concern? If we got that covered, we're good?

---

For a country that is 7,200 miles away….yes not having a navy capable of the task of reaching us is a big part of it.

Also, being surrounded by US military bases and allied nations also puts them far behind the game in taking on the USA.

Never forget that China plans to use asymmetric warfare.

Expect attacks on cyber finance and our satellites if we get hot.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Some Facts:
-- pre-war population of the Donbas was approx 3.6m.
-- About 60% identified as Ukrainian; 40% as Russian.
--Roughly 1-in-4 of those "Ukrainians" spoke Russian as primary language.

A 6-digit number of the Ukrainians have fled for refugee status. A six-digit number of Ukrainians were hauled off to distant parts of Russia. And some Russians have moved in. So the numbers have probably flipped.

The post-war scenario will involve international support for return of all Ukrainian residents to the Donbas, to include cash incentives. I'm sure Ukraine will offer amnesty to Ukrainian citizens, but not Russian citizens. Further, we can expect life for Russian nationals in Donbas to be pretty tough in the post-war, due to social ostracization. Knowing what they are likely to face, a great number of them will voluntarily repatriate.

Donbas could end up, 10 years from the end of the war, 75-25 Ukrainian.

You can bet Ukranian and International policy will, below the surface, be working toward a goal like that pretty hard, with juicy carrots and very soft sticks, as it will make it far harder for Russia to repeat the "little green men" gambit they used to destabilize the Donbas. The whole "Donbas should be part of Russia anyway" argument was weak to start with, but it was seized by war opponent with such gusto, we have to drive a stake thru the heart of it if we are to avoid repeating the nightmare.

Interesting reading:
https://theconversation.com/most-people-in-separatist-held-areas-of-donbas-prefer-reintegration-with-ukraine-new-survey-124849

---

So you are in fact supporting the idea of forced demographic change in Donbas to make it a more pliant province of Kyiv.

At least you are not beating around the bush about it.

The ethnic russians have to go and the ethnic ukrainians have to be made the majority....by "cash incentives" or by means that are a little more brutal.

You would fit in well as a "security" advisor to the Likud party.

---

Ethnic Ukrainians already are the majority and were before Putin did his thing. Whiterock showed that earlier.

---

Slight majority...yes

At least if we are to go by the self declared census info.

[According to the 2001 census, ethnic Ukrainians form 57% of the population of Luhansk Oblast and 55.9% of Donetsk Oblast. Ethnic Russians form the largest minority, accounting for 39% and 38.2% of the two oblasts respectively.]

[According to the 2001 census, Russian is the main language of 74.9% of residents in Donetsk Oblast and 68.8% in Luhansk Oblast]

He also said the demographic situation has changed since that time.

Lets play that out and assume it is in fact true.

Are you willing to use force to change the demographic profile of Donbas back to what it was in 2001?

---

As for 2001 or whatever date. When Ukraine became sovereign and that territory was part of their Nation, it is Ukraine. You seem to be making up reasons to give that area to Russia. Why? I can't figure out, you seem to be a fan of Putins.

---

Why do you want to encourage a war that has been going on for 8+ years in the Donbas to go on even longer. I can't figure it out.

This area is a rusting out post-industrial ex-coal field with less value than our rust belt or West Virginia.

The populace has kept up a near decade long fight to break off from Kyiv...yet we are supposed to continue to pretend this movement has no legitimacy among the rank and file citizens.

Not to mention the leadership in D.C. has supported just about every secessionist movement you can image over the past 30 years (East Timor, South Sudan, Kosovo) but now we are supposed to pretend that this secessionist movement in Donbas is where we draw the line?

This war has of course now escalated to being nation wide....300,000+ casualties and rising...along with costing the U.S. tax payers more than 100 BILLION dollars!

In order to help Kyiv keep Donbas are we willing to turn this into general large scale European war (possibly world wide)

Why?

---

This has been explained to you. Your argument here is that if we just gave Hitler the Sudetentland, we will have "peace in our time."

The way to stop a general large scale war in Europe is NOT to appease Russia by giving it pieces of a sovereign country it invaded. The way to stop a general large scale war in Europe is to defeat Russia in Ukraine, to force Russia to keep Russian armies in Russia.



-

---

One might also ask is if its helpful to needlessly compare every geo-political situation in the world to 1938 and Czechoslovakia?

This might be appealing to certain boomers but its a myopic view at best.

Lets not even go down the rabbit hole of having to school you that Prime Minister Chamberlain was right not to got to war with Germany over the Sudetenland in '38....Britain was in no position to wage war at that date.

And comparing every dictator and strong man in history to Hitler is something for a classroom of activists at ut-austin to do....not something that is going to sway people who actual read history.

Waving the bloody red shirt of the sudenland after almost 90 years is foolish, a gross distortion of modern events, and one might even say propagandist.

Its always 1938 to some people...the enemy is always Hitler...and the only way to secure "peace" is preemptive war.

---

I'm not sure I've previously made that specific comparison, but it is nonetheless a perfectly appropriate historical comparison = appeasement never works. If we look deeper into the comparison, there is one incongruence between Sudetentland and Donbas which leaps off the page: There was no war going on in Sudententland, but there was a war going on in Ukraine. Czechoslovakia got rolled quickly and easily. Ukraine did not. And notably, we did not step up to help Ukraine until after it became patently apparent that Russia was not going to succeed in its effort to topple the regime.

We know exactly what Russia wants - to re-establish direct or de-facto control over the former USSR footprint. There are two problems with that:
1) that footprint involves current Nato territory. So conflict is inevitable, unless Russia changes its policy.
2) Russia does not have the wherewithal to actually achieve such. Russia cannot even control Ukraine.

So there is no need for appeasement at all here. It is insanity personified to appease a weak autocrat just to avoid the conflict. All you do is make them stronger, convince them that they are stronger and more powerful than they actually are. Such emboldens them, and guarantees you will have to face them later when they are stronger. The way to prevent that is to stop them in their tracks and send the scurrying home with their tail between their legs, hopefully to change their own regime.

We are witnessing a rare moment in history when an old adage leaps to life: Russia's alligator mouth has overloaded its hummingbird ass. Time to teach them a lesson in reality.

---

I am with you on this. Russia needs to know they can't just take. My bigger fear is that Biden will leave us exposed in China, I hope the professionals in the Military are ensuring that doesn't happen.

---

Unless China finds some decent allies (not likely) and can somehow figure out how to build (and pay for) 8 new nuclear powered $13+ billion dollar aircraft carriers…the U.S. is well insulated from the Chinese military

---

So in your eyes the threat of invasion is the only concern? If we got that covered, we're good?

---

For a country that is 7,200 miles away….yes not having a navy capable of the task of reaching us is a big part of it.

Also, being surrounded by US military bases and allied nations also puts them far behind the game in taking on the USA.

---

Singapore is a major US base? Did you look at the numbers of your major number of troops circling China?? You really need to get a perspective on scale. We have speed bumps in most of those places. Even the 2nd ID is a tripwire when compared to the numbers we are talking about in China and her allies. Also, China invested in missles not aircraft carriers. They have also invested in troop movement ships, which they have the resources but lack experience. We need more in the East and need to continue helping Japan, S Korea and Taiwan.

Ukraine plays "Light Brigade" with British advice
by David P. Goldman
June 10, 2023

American and European military observers in Ukraine described the Ukraine Army's efforts of the past two days as a "suicide mission" that violated the basic rules of military tactics. "If you want to conduct an offensive and you have a dozen brigades and a few dozen tanks, you concentrate them and try to break through. The Ukrainians have been running around in five different directions," complained a senior European officer.

"We tried to tell them to stop these piecemeal tactics, define a main thrust with proper infantry support and then do what they can," the officer added.

"They were trained by the British and they're playing Light Brigade," the officer added, referring to the 1854 disaster at the Battle of Balaclava when misreported orders sent British cavalry into massed cannon fire.

Ukraine's tanks charged directly into minefields without deploying mine-clearing vehicles first, contributing to the loss of 38 tanks during the night of June 8, including numerous of the newly delivered Leopard II tanks.

"A couple of Ukrainians tried to pull off a Guderian," another military source said, referring to German General Heinz Guderian's breakthrough at Sedan during the 1940 Battle of France. "But Guderian had 3,000 tanks, and these idiots have just gambled away the 30 they have."

"And without air superiority," the source added, "it's a suicide mission."

Russia's KA-50 and KA-52 attack helicopters each carry enough missiles to kill 20 tanks, and can do so at a standoff distance of 10 kilometers. Ukrainian air defenses have been degraded by repeated attacks with cheap drones that force the Ukrainians to expend their limited inventory of S-300 and Patriot missiles. Of the 14 Leopard tanks Germany has provided to Ukraine, 3 have been destroyed, along with several of the Leopards provided by Poland.

The Ukrainian high command's principle military advice has come from British officers embedded at headquarters in Kiev.

A Ukrainian concentration of forces remains possible as to date only three and possibly four Western-trained brigades have been used in Zaporoshye. That would require competent military decisions, not decisions motivated by political desperation.

https://asiatimes.com/2023/06/ukraine-plays-light-brigade-with-british-advice/

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Some Facts:
-- pre-war population of the Donbas was approx 3.6m.
-- About 60% identified as Ukrainian; 40% as Russian.
--Roughly 1-in-4 of those "Ukrainians" spoke Russian as primary language.

A 6-digit number of the Ukrainians have fled for refugee status. A six-digit number of Ukrainians were hauled off to distant parts of Russia. And some Russians have moved in. So the numbers have probably flipped.

The post-war scenario will involve international support for return of all Ukrainian residents to the Donbas, to include cash incentives. I'm sure Ukraine will offer amnesty to Ukrainian citizens, but not Russian citizens. Further, we can expect life for Russian nationals in Donbas to be pretty tough in the post-war, due to social ostracization. Knowing what they are likely to face, a great number of them will voluntarily repatriate.

Donbas could end up, 10 years from the end of the war, 75-25 Ukrainian.

You can bet Ukranian and International policy will, below the surface, be working toward a goal like that pretty hard, with juicy carrots and very soft sticks, as it will make it far harder for Russia to repeat the "little green men" gambit they used to destabilize the Donbas. The whole "Donbas should be part of Russia anyway" argument was weak to start with, but it was seized by war opponent with such gusto, we have to drive a stake thru the heart of it if we are to avoid repeating the nightmare.

Interesting reading:
https://theconversation.com/most-people-in-separatist-held-areas-of-donbas-prefer-reintegration-with-ukraine-new-survey-124849

---

So you are in fact supporting the idea of forced demographic change in Donbas to make it a more pliant province of Kyiv.

At least you are not beating around the bush about it.

The ethnic russians have to go and the ethnic ukrainians have to be made the majority....by "cash incentives" or by means that are a little more brutal.

You would fit in well as a "security" advisor to the Likud party.

---

Ethnic Ukrainians already are the majority and were before Putin did his thing. Whiterock showed that earlier.

---

Slight majority...yes

At least if we are to go by the self declared census info.

[According to the 2001 census, ethnic Ukrainians form 57% of the population of Luhansk Oblast and 55.9% of Donetsk Oblast. Ethnic Russians form the largest minority, accounting for 39% and 38.2% of the two oblasts respectively.]

[According to the 2001 census, Russian is the main language of 74.9% of residents in Donetsk Oblast and 68.8% in Luhansk Oblast]

He also said the demographic situation has changed since that time.

Lets play that out and assume it is in fact true.

Are you willing to use force to change the demographic profile of Donbas back to what it was in 2001?

---

As for 2001 or whatever date. When Ukraine became sovereign and that territory was part of their Nation, it is Ukraine. You seem to be making up reasons to give that area to Russia. Why? I can't figure out, you seem to be a fan of Putins.

---

Why do you want to encourage a war that has been going on for 8+ years in the Donbas to go on even longer. I can't figure it out.

This area is a rusting out post-industrial ex-coal field with less value than our rust belt or West Virginia.

The populace has kept up a near decade long fight to break off from Kyiv...yet we are supposed to continue to pretend this movement has no legitimacy among the rank and file citizens.

Not to mention the leadership in D.C. has supported just about every secessionist movement you can image over the past 30 years (East Timor, South Sudan, Kosovo) but now we are supposed to pretend that this secessionist movement in Donbas is where we draw the line?

This war has of course now escalated to being nation wide....300,000+ casualties and rising...along with costing the U.S. tax payers more than 100 BILLION dollars!

In order to help Kyiv keep Donbas are we willing to turn this into general large scale European war (possibly world wide)

Why?

---

This has been explained to you. Your argument here is that if we just gave Hitler the Sudetentland, we will have "peace in our time."

The way to stop a general large scale war in Europe is NOT to appease Russia by giving it pieces of a sovereign country it invaded. The way to stop a general large scale war in Europe is to defeat Russia in Ukraine, to force Russia to keep Russian armies in Russia.



-

---

One might also ask is if its helpful to needlessly compare every geo-political situation in the world to 1938 and Czechoslovakia?

This might be appealing to certain boomers but its a myopic view at best.

Lets not even go down the rabbit hole of having to school you that Prime Minister Chamberlain was right not to got to war with Germany over the Sudetenland in '38....Britain was in no position to wage war at that date.

And comparing every dictator and strong man in history to Hitler is something for a classroom of activists at ut-austin to do....not something that is going to sway people who actual read history.

Waving the bloody red shirt of the sudenland after almost 90 years is foolish, a gross distortion of modern events, and one might even say propagandist.

Its always 1938 to some people...the enemy is always Hitler...and the only way to secure "peace" is preemptive war.

---

I'm not sure I've previously made that specific comparison, but it is nonetheless a perfectly appropriate historical comparison = appeasement never works. If we look deeper into the comparison, there is one incongruence between Sudetentland and Donbas which leaps off the page: There was no war going on in Sudententland, but there was a war going on in Ukraine. Czechoslovakia got rolled quickly and easily. Ukraine did not. And notably, we did not step up to help Ukraine until after it became patently apparent that Russia was not going to succeed in its effort to topple the regime.

We know exactly what Russia wants - to re-establish direct or de-facto control over the former USSR footprint. There are two problems with that:
1) that footprint involves current Nato territory. So conflict is inevitable, unless Russia changes its policy.
2) Russia does not have the wherewithal to actually achieve such. Russia cannot even control Ukraine.

So there is no need for appeasement at all here. It is insanity personified to appease a weak autocrat just to avoid the conflict. All you do is make them stronger, convince them that they are stronger and more powerful than they actually are. Such emboldens them, and guarantees you will have to face them later when they are stronger. The way to prevent that is to stop them in their tracks and send the scurrying home with their tail between their legs, hopefully to change their own regime.

We are witnessing a rare moment in history when an old adage leaps to life: Russia's alligator mouth has overloaded its hummingbird ass. Time to teach them a lesson in reality.

---

I am with you on this. Russia needs to know they can't just take. My bigger fear is that Biden will leave us exposed in China, I hope the professionals in the Military are ensuring that doesn't happen.

---

Unless China finds some decent allies (not likely) and can somehow figure out how to build (and pay for) 8 new nuclear powered $13+ billion dollar aircraft carriers…the U.S. is well insulated from the Chinese military

---

So in your eyes the threat of invasion is the only concern? If we got that covered, we're good?

---

For a country that is 7,200 miles away….yes not having a navy capable of the task of reaching us is a big part of it.

Also, being surrounded by US military bases and allied nations also puts them far behind the game in taking on the USA.

---

Singapore is a major US base? .

---

Maybe not major but yes…it is an area that be US military is using as a base.

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Some Facts:
-- pre-war population of the Donbas was approx 3.6m.
-- About 60% identified as Ukrainian; 40% as Russian.
--Roughly 1-in-4 of those "Ukrainians" spoke Russian as primary language.

A 6-digit number of the Ukrainians have fled for refugee status. A six-digit number of Ukrainians were hauled off to distant parts of Russia. And some Russians have moved in. So the numbers have probably flipped.

The post-war scenario will involve international support for return of all Ukrainian residents to the Donbas, to include cash incentives. I'm sure Ukraine will offer amnesty to Ukrainian citizens, but not Russian citizens. Further, we can expect life for Russian nationals in Donbas to be pretty tough in the post-war, due to social ostracization. Knowing what they are likely to face, a great number of them will voluntarily repatriate.

Donbas could end up, 10 years from the end of the war, 75-25 Ukrainian.

You can bet Ukranian and International policy will, below the surface, be working toward a goal like that pretty hard, with juicy carrots and very soft sticks, as it will make it far harder for Russia to repeat the "little green men" gambit they used to destabilize the Donbas. The whole "Donbas should be part of Russia anyway" argument was weak to start with, but it was seized by war opponent with such gusto, we have to drive a stake thru the heart of it if we are to avoid repeating the nightmare.

Interesting reading:
https://theconversation.com/most-people-in-separatist-held-areas-of-donbas-prefer-reintegration-with-ukraine-new-survey-124849

---

So you are in fact supporting the idea of forced demographic change in Donbas to make it a more pliant province of Kyiv.

At least you are not beating around the bush about it.

The ethnic russians have to go and the ethnic ukrainians have to be made the majority....by "cash incentives" or by means that are a little more brutal.

You would fit in well as a "security" advisor to the Likud party.

---

Ethnic Ukrainians already are the majority and were before Putin did his thing. Whiterock showed that earlier.

---

Slight majority...yes

At least if we are to go by the self declared census info.

[According to the 2001 census, ethnic Ukrainians form 57% of the population of Luhansk Oblast and 55.9% of Donetsk Oblast. Ethnic Russians form the largest minority, accounting for 39% and 38.2% of the two oblasts respectively.]

[According to the 2001 census, Russian is the main language of 74.9% of residents in Donetsk Oblast and 68.8% in Luhansk Oblast]

He also said the demographic situation has changed since that time.

Lets play that out and assume it is in fact true.

Are you willing to use force to change the demographic profile of Donbas back to what it was in 2001?

---

As for 2001 or whatever date. When Ukraine became sovereign and that territory was part of their Nation, it is Ukraine. You seem to be making up reasons to give that area to Russia. Why? I can't figure out, you seem to be a fan of Putins.

---

Why do you want to encourage a war that has been going on for 8+ years in the Donbas to go on even longer. I can't figure it out.

This area is a rusting out post-industrial ex-coal field with less value than our rust belt or West Virginia.

The populace has kept up a near decade long fight to break off from Kyiv...yet we are supposed to continue to pretend this movement has no legitimacy among the rank and file citizens.

Not to mention the leadership in D.C. has supported just about every secessionist movement you can image over the past 30 years (East Timor, South Sudan, Kosovo) but now we are supposed to pretend that this secessionist movement in Donbas is where we draw the line?

This war has of course now escalated to being nation wide....300,000+ casualties and rising...along with costing the U.S. tax payers more than 100 BILLION dollars!

In order to help Kyiv keep Donbas are we willing to turn this into general large scale European war (possibly world wide)

Why?

---

This has been explained to you. Your argument here is that if we just gave Hitler the Sudetentland, we will have "peace in our time."

The way to stop a general large scale war in Europe is NOT to appease Russia by giving it pieces of a sovereign country it invaded. The way to stop a general large scale war in Europe is to defeat Russia in Ukraine, to force Russia to keep Russian armies in Russia.



-

---

One might also ask is if its helpful to needlessly compare every geo-political situation in the world to 1938 and Czechoslovakia?

This might be appealing to certain boomers but its a myopic view at best.

Lets not even go down the rabbit hole of having to school you that Prime Minister Chamberlain was right not to got to war with Germany over the Sudetenland in '38....Britain was in no position to wage war at that date.

And comparing every dictator and strong man in history to Hitler is something for a classroom of activists at ut-austin to do....not something that is going to sway people who actual read history.

Waving the bloody red shirt of the sudenland after almost 90 years is foolish, a gross distortion of modern events, and one might even say propagandist.

Its always 1938 to some people...the enemy is always Hitler...and the only way to secure "peace" is preemptive war.

---

I'm not sure I've previously made that specific comparison, but it is nonetheless a perfectly appropriate historical comparison = appeasement never works. If we look deeper into the comparison, there is one incongruence between Sudetentland and Donbas which leaps off the page: There was no war going on in Sudententland, but there was a war going on in Ukraine. Czechoslovakia got rolled quickly and easily. Ukraine did not. And notably, we did not step up to help Ukraine until after it became patently apparent that Russia was not going to succeed in its effort to topple the regime.

We know exactly what Russia wants - to re-establish direct or de-facto control over the former USSR footprint. There are two problems with that:
1) that footprint involves current Nato territory. So conflict is inevitable, unless Russia changes its policy.
2) Russia does not have the wherewithal to actually achieve such. Russia cannot even control Ukraine.

So there is no need for appeasement at all here. It is insanity personified to appease a weak autocrat just to avoid the conflict. All you do is make them stronger, convince them that they are stronger and more powerful than they actually are. Such emboldens them, and guarantees you will have to face them later when they are stronger. The way to prevent that is to stop them in their tracks and send the scurrying home with their tail between their legs, hopefully to change their own regime.

We are witnessing a rare moment in history when an old adage leaps to life: Russia's alligator mouth has overloaded its hummingbird ass. Time to teach them a lesson in reality.

---

I am with you on this. Russia needs to know they can't just take. My bigger fear is that Biden will leave us exposed in China, I hope the professionals in the Military are ensuring that doesn't happen.

---

Unless China finds some decent allies (not likely) and can somehow figure out how to build (and pay for) 8 new nuclear powered $13+ billion dollar aircraft carriers…the U.S. is well insulated from the Chinese military

---

That's not China's plan. They are in an area-denial strategy....to keep inching outwards and use land-based aircraft & missiles & submarines to overwhelm our carriers thousands of miles out to sea.

So the question is not "who has the most aircraft carriers" but rather "has the aircraft carrier already gone the way of the battleship but we just don't know it yet."

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Some Facts:
-- pre-war population of the Donbas was approx 3.6m.
-- About 60% identified as Ukrainian; 40% as Russian.
--Roughly 1-in-4 of those "Ukrainians" spoke Russian as primary language.

A 6-digit number of the Ukrainians have fled for refugee status. A six-digit number of Ukrainians were hauled off to distant parts of Russia. And some Russians have moved in. So the numbers have probably flipped.

The post-war scenario will involve international support for return of all Ukrainian residents to the Donbas, to include cash incentives. I'm sure Ukraine will offer amnesty to Ukrainian citizens, but not Russian citizens. Further, we can expect life for Russian nationals in Donbas to be pretty tough in the post-war, due to social ostracization. Knowing what they are likely to face, a great number of them will voluntarily repatriate.

Donbas could end up, 10 years from the end of the war, 75-25 Ukrainian.

You can bet Ukranian and International policy will, below the surface, be working toward a goal like that pretty hard, with juicy carrots and very soft sticks, as it will make it far harder for Russia to repeat the "little green men" gambit they used to destabilize the Donbas. The whole "Donbas should be part of Russia anyway" argument was weak to start with, but it was seized by war opponent with such gusto, we have to drive a stake thru the heart of it if we are to avoid repeating the nightmare.

Interesting reading:
https://theconversation.com/most-people-in-separatist-held-areas-of-donbas-prefer-reintegration-with-ukraine-new-survey-124849

---

So you are in fact supporting the idea of forced demographic change in Donbas to make it a more pliant province of Kyiv.

At least you are not beating around the bush about it.

The ethnic russians have to go and the ethnic ukrainians have to be made the majority....by "cash incentives" or by means that are a little more brutal.

You would fit in well as a "security" advisor to the Likud party.

---

Ethnic Ukrainians already are the majority and were before Putin did his thing. Whiterock showed that earlier.

---

Slight majority...yes

At least if we are to go by the self declared census info.

[According to the 2001 census, ethnic Ukrainians form 57% of the population of Luhansk Oblast and 55.9% of Donetsk Oblast. Ethnic Russians form the largest minority, accounting for 39% and 38.2% of the two oblasts respectively.]

[According to the 2001 census, Russian is the main language of 74.9% of residents in Donetsk Oblast and 68.8% in Luhansk Oblast]

He also said the demographic situation has changed since that time.

Lets play that out and assume it is in fact true.

Are you willing to use force to change the demographic profile of Donbas back to what it was in 2001?

---

As for 2001 or whatever date. When Ukraine became sovereign and that territory was part of their Nation, it is Ukraine. You seem to be making up reasons to give that area to Russia. Why? I can't figure out, you seem to be a fan of Putins.

---

Why do you want to encourage a war that has been going on for 8+ years in the Donbas to go on even longer. I can't figure it out.

This area is a rusting out post-industrial ex-coal field with less value than our rust belt or West Virginia.

The populace has kept up a near decade long fight to break off from Kyiv...yet we are supposed to continue to pretend this movement has no legitimacy among the rank and file citizens.

Not to mention the leadership in D.C. has supported just about every secessionist movement you can image over the past 30 years (East Timor, South Sudan, Kosovo) but now we are supposed to pretend that this secessionist movement in Donbas is where we draw the line?

This war has of course now escalated to being nation wide....300,000+ casualties and rising...along with costing the U.S. tax payers more than 100 BILLION dollars!

In order to help Kyiv keep Donbas are we willing to turn this into general large scale European war (possibly world wide)

Why?

---

This has been explained to you. Your argument here is that if we just gave Hitler the Sudetentland, we will have "peace in our time."

The way to stop a general large scale war in Europe is NOT to appease Russia by giving it pieces of a sovereign country it invaded. The way to stop a general large scale war in Europe is to defeat Russia in Ukraine, to force Russia to keep Russian armies in Russia.



-

---

One might also ask is if its helpful to needlessly compare every geo-political situation in the world to 1938 and Czechoslovakia?

This might be appealing to certain boomers but its a myopic view at best.

Lets not even go down the rabbit hole of having to school you that Prime Minister Chamberlain was right not to got to war with Germany over the Sudetenland in '38....Britain was in no position to wage war at that date.

And comparing every dictator and strong man in history to Hitler is something for a classroom of activists at ut-austin to do....not something that is going to sway people who actual read history.

Waving the bloody red shirt of the sudenland after almost 90 years is foolish, a gross distortion of modern events, and one might even say propagandist.

Its always 1938 to some people...the enemy is always Hitler...and the only way to secure "peace" is preemptive war.

---

I'm not sure I've previously made that specific comparison, but it is nonetheless a perfectly appropriate historical comparison = appeasement never works. If we look deeper into the comparison, there is one incongruence between Sudetentland and Donbas which leaps off the page: There was no war going on in Sudententland, but there was a war going on in Ukraine. Czechoslovakia got rolled quickly and easily. Ukraine did not. And notably, we did not step up to help Ukraine until after it became patently apparent that Russia was not going to succeed in its effort to topple the regime.

We know exactly what Russia wants - to re-establish direct or de-facto control over the former USSR footprint. There are two problems with that:
1) that footprint involves current Nato territory. So conflict is inevitable, unless Russia changes its policy.
2) Russia does not have the wherewithal to actually achieve such. Russia cannot even control Ukraine.

So there is no need for appeasement at all here. It is insanity personified to appease a weak autocrat just to avoid the conflict. All you do is make them stronger, convince them that they are stronger and more powerful than they actually are. Such emboldens them, and guarantees you will have to face them later when they are stronger. The way to prevent that is to stop them in their tracks and send the scurrying home with their tail between their legs, hopefully to change their own regime.

We are witnessing a rare moment in history when an old adage leaps to life: Russia's alligator mouth has overloaded its hummingbird ass. Time to teach them a lesson in reality.

---

I am with you on this. Russia needs to know they can't just take. My bigger fear is that Biden will leave us exposed in China, I hope the professionals in the Military are ensuring that doesn't happen.

---

Unless China finds some decent allies (not likely) and can somehow figure out how to build (and pay for) 8 new nuclear powered $13+ billion dollar aircraft carriers…the U.S. is well insulated from the Chinese military

---

So in your eyes the threat of invasion is the only concern? If we got that covered, we're good?

---

For a country that is 7,200 miles away….yes not having a navy capable of the task of reaching us is a big part of it.

Also, being surrounded by US military bases and allied nations also puts them far behind the game in taking on the USA.

---

Singapore is a major US base? Did you look at the numbers of your major number of troops circling China?? You really need to get a perspective on scale. We have speed bumps in most of those places. Even the 2nd ID is a tripwire when compared to the numbers we are talking about in China and her allies. Also, China invested in missles not aircraft carriers. They have also invested in troop movement ships, which they have the resources but lack experience. We need more in the East and need to continue helping Japan, S Korea and Taiwan.

---

"basing rights" is not the same as "base."

Singapore is a not a home-base for the US Navy. It is a Royal Navy base where we have rights to refuel and restock. The on-shore is a logistics unit.

Chinese navy actually has MORE ships than the US navy. The big difference is that most of the Chinese ships only have regional capability. So China cannot project naval power over great distances like the US Navy can. But, in its core areas contesting the 1st and 2nd island chains, China can inflict great harm on the US Navy and US naval bases, with the intention of denying our access to Korea, Japan, Philippines, Indonesia, etc.....

(from the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity):

On the Failure of the Ukrainian Counterattack
Written by Moon of Alabama
Saturday June 17, 2023

On June 4/5 the Ukrainian military launched its long announced counteroffensive in southeast Ukraine. Ten days later there is no significant progress.

This is not the outcome the war propagandists expected:

Quote:

---

[General Petraeus] spoke about the situation in Ukraine to BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

On the counteroffensive, he said:

'I think that this counteroffensive is going to be very impressive.

'My sense is that they will achieve combined arms effects in other words, they will successfully carry out combined arms operations where you have engineers that are breaching the obstacles and diffusing the minefields and so forth; armour following right on through protected by infantry against anti-tank missiles; air defence keeping the Russians aircraft off them; electronic warfare jamming their radio networks; logistics right up behind them; artillery and mortars right out in front of them.

And most important of all … is that as the lead elements inevitably culminate after 72-96 hours, physically that's about as far as you can go, and they'll have taken losses … you have follow-on units that will push right on through and capitalise on the progress and maintain the momentum and I think that can get the entire Russian defence in that area moving, then I think you have other opportunities that will open up on the flanks as well.'

---

Back in reality the lead elements of the Ukrainian attack got slaughtered. They 'culminated', i.e. lost their ability for further attacks, in less than a day:

Quote:

---

The men of Ukraine's 37th Brigade were freshly trained and armed with Western-supplied weapons, tasked with an initial push through Russian-occupied territory in the early days of a long-awaited counteroffensive.

They would pay a heavy price.

Within 20 minutes of their June 5 advance south of Velyka Novosilka, in the southeast Donetsk region, mortars exploded all around them, soldiers said. A 30-year-old soldier known as Lumberjack saw two of the men in his vehicle bleeding heavily; one lost an arm as he cried out for his family. Lumberjack crawled into a crater, but the shrapnel from a mortar went through the soil and pierced his shoulder.

"We were left there in the field, without tanks or heavy armor," said Lumberjack, who spoke to The Washington Post on the condition that he be identified only by his call sign because he was not authorized to discuss the battle. "We were shelled with mortars from three sides. We couldn't do anything."

There were fewer than 50 men in the unit, he said, and 30 did not return they were killed, wounded or captured by the enemy. Five of the unit's armored vehicles were destroyed within the first hour.

---

Whoever trained those units made grave mistakes:

Quote:

---

For the first hour and a half of the 37th's assault near Velyka Novosilka, the Russians bombarded the unit with nonstop shelling that penetrated their AMX-10 RC armored vehicles, according to Grey, another soldier in the battalion who spoke on the condition that he be identified only by his call sign. The armored vehicles, sometimes called "light tanks," were not heavy enough to protect the soldiers, Grey said, and had to be positioned behind them instead of in front.

---

The AMX-10 isn't a tank and can not be used as one. It is a wheeled light reconnaissance vehicle built by France 50 years ago to dominate insurgents in its former African colonies. One of its main features is to have a good speed when in reverse gear. This to bail out as soon as serious counter forces are detected.

The Ukrainian counterattack is now stuck in the Russian defense security zone, miles away from the real defense lines. This was predictable.

As the US Field Manual 100-2-1 described the Soviet army in defense (pg 93ff):

Quote:

---

When the defense is established before contact with the enemy, the Soviets establish a security echelon up to 15 kilometers forward of the main defensive area. The elements which make up the security echelon come from the division's second echelon. A security force of up to battalion size may be deployed in front of each first echelon regiment.

A detailed and coordinated fire plan is developed. Weapons are positioned so that the maximum amount of fire can be brought to bear directly in front of the [Forward Edge of the Battle Area]. Enemy penetrations are blunted by shifting artillery fire and by conducting counterattacks.

---

The Ukrainian army used at least four brigades for its attack. At least two of those were from the 12 brigade reserve that had been built up for the counterattack. With losses of some 30% those involved were seriously mauled for little to no gain:

The Russians are trying to inflict as many casualties and destroy as many vehicles as possible in a battle zone ahead of the main defensive line, depleting Ukrainian forces before they reach it. In effect, it turns the area in front of the main defense line into a kill zone.
...
If the Russian strategy proves effective, Ukraine could lose too many of its newly trained troops -- which number in the tens of thousands -- and too many tanks and infantry fighting vehicles to breach the main line.

Even if they get that far, the forces might be too weakened to stream south and help accomplish a major objective: severing the so-called land bridge that connects Russia to the occupied Crimean Peninsula. This would be done by reaching the Sea of Azov, about 60 miles away. The Ukrainian forces were obviously not trained for this. They also attacked in too many places. The map at the top shows attack arrows in 7 places and four main directions. One or two attack directions, with more concentrated forces, might have created better results.

The Russian President Putin recently described the Ukrainian casualties:

Quote:

---

I will not give the number of personnel losses. I will let the Defence Ministry do it after it runs the numbers, but the structure of losses is unfavourable for them as well. What I mean to say is that of all personnel losses -- and they are approaching a number that can be called catastrophic -- the structure of these losses is unfavourable for them. Because as we know, losses can be sanitary or irretrievable. Usually, I am afraid I may be off a little, but irretrievable losses are around 25 percent, maximum 30 percent while their losses are almost 50/50. This is my first point.

Second, if we look at irretrievable losses, clearly, the defending side suffers fewer losses, but this ratio of 1 to 10 is in our favour. Our losses are one-tenth of the losses of the Ukrainian forces.

---

Since the start of the counterattack the Russian daily report has listed a total of some 10,500 Ukrainian casualties.

A second large attempt to cross the Forward Edge of the Battle Area (FEBA) with the remaining Ukrainian forces is expected, but is unlikely to have a better outcome. The long promoted Ukrainian counterattack is likely to end with high Ukrainian losses and no gains.

This then will soon become a huge political problem:

Quote:

---

As he heads into next year's reelection campaign, Biden needs a major battlefield victory to show that his unqualified support for Ukraine has burnished US global leadership, reinvigorated a strong foreign policy with bipartisan support and demonstrated the prudent use of American military strength abroad.
...
A muddled outcome of limited gains in Ukraine would provide grist for all of those critiques and further cloud the already murky waters of NATO and European Union debate over future posture toward both Ukraine and Russia. A less than "overwhelming" success would probably also increase pressure in the West to push Kyiv to negotiate a territorial settlement that may not be to its liking.

---

There is little the Biden administration can do to change the grim picture. Congress will likely prevent it from openly using the US military in Ukraine. The European NATO allies have now seen what the Russian army can do to its enemies. They will not be eager to see the same done to their own troops.

That leaves negotiations as the only way out.

The question for Russia is when and with whom. Talks with only Ukraine, a mere US proxy with no real say, would be insufficient. It is the US government that must agree to a new security architecture in Europe. The Russian conditions for peace will be harsh and it will still take a lot of time, and many dead Ukrainians, until the US agrees to them.

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2023/june/17/on-the-failure-of-the-ukrainian-counterattack/

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-june-17-2023

Continuing actual analysis.

Bear8084 said:

---

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-june-17-2023

Continuing actual analysis.

---

2km per day by 2 light armored brigades is not bad, given the Russian defense in depth and that the remaining 7 UKR heavy brigades have still not been committed.

War policy critics are desperate for UKR failure.....

whiterock said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-june-17-2023

Continuing actual analysis.

---

2km per day by 2 light armored brigades is not bad

---

Unfortunately it's also not what the source said. Her statement was that they "gradually move forward...as of now, up to two kilometers in each direction." In fact it tends to confirm what I posted, i.e. the Ukrainians are stalled well short of Russian lines.

[Recent machinations in the world of international finance have given Francis ***uyama's thesis, or something resembling it, a short new lease on life. The political philosopher published The End of History and the Last Man in 1992. The book argued that history had decided that liberal democracy was the superior mode of government after the fall of the Soviet Union.

It appeared to logically follow that, moving into the future, the rest of the world would adopt this mode of government and, when the entire world had been converted, the historical process would come to a close. We would all be liberal democrats from here to eternity.

In retrospect, ***uyama's thesis looks both arrogant and naive. With the rise of alternative regimes in countries like Russia and China it has become clear that liberal democracy is not the logical end point of historical development. Moving into the 21st century it looks like political evolutionand perhaps, in some instances, devolutionwill continue on as it always has.

The historical process, at least insofar as it applies to governmental regimes, is cyclical rather than linear. In February of 2022, in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the United States government, together with the governments of its allies, froze Russian foreign exchange reserves. In doing so, the American government started a chain reaction of events that may ultimately result in the end of U.S. dollar dominance in the world economy.

By seizing Russian foreign exchange reserves, the United States signalled to the rest of the world that U.S. dollar reservesuntil then thought to be as good as goldwere only safe insofar as a country's foreign policy was not disapproved of by the United States. Countries around the world realized that holding U.S. dollar reserves and assets now came with serious risks and started to look for alternatives. Soon thereafter discussions started about the creation of a BRICS currency.

Talk of U.S. dollar decline is now so loud that it is impossible to ignore. U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has recognized these developments, saying that we should expect a gradual decline in the dollar's share of global reserves. The response from those who want to assume dollar dominance moving into the future has been a reversion to ***uyama. They portray the dollar as historically unique and the dollar-based global system as being a sort of "end of financial history."]


https://www.theamericanconservative.com/the-dollar-at-the-end-of-history/

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-june-17-2023

Continuing actual analysis.

---

2km per day by 2 light armored brigades is not bad

---

Unfortunately it's also not what the source said. Her statement was that they "gradually move forward...as of now, up to two kilometers in each direction." In fact it tends to confirm what I posted, i.e. the Ukrainians are stalled well short of Russian lines.

---

uh, no. You did not correctly interpret the statement "2km in multiple directions." It means 2km along more than one axis of attack.

It means Ukraine is making slow, steady progress, thru picket lines, advancing up to the main line of fortifications. And they are doing that in four separate sectors, across a sustainably broad front. They have done this with only 2 new brigades, light brigades. They additional 7-8 heavy brigades have not been committed.

What would be the interpretation of that? you might ask..... The Ukrainians are attempting to create dilemmas for the Russians. They are penetrating at points of their choosing, forcing Russians to reinforce both the front lines as well as the anticipated points of contact at fortified lines. This is called "fixing." The force Russia to commit reserve troops to a point of Ukrainian choosing. Those commitments force Russia to weaken other areas in either the line or in reserves, which creates a "dilemma." Good strategy does not create problems for your enemy; it creates dilemmas...forcing the enemy to chose between 1 or more bad situations, to select the "least bad" situation to defend. Russia is either choosing to weaken the areas NOT being attacked, or to commit reaction forces to the front lines which ARE being attacked. The dilemma there is that Russia risks leaving quiet sectors badly depleted, or giving up the defense in depth along their fortified lines. Either option leaves Russia exposed to penetration by heavy brigades, risking the big Ukrainian breakout.

That is exactly what forced Russia to withdraw from hundreds of sq miles last fall. It took some time and some shaping and some fixing to make it happen. I suspect Ukraine will succeed in slicing the Russian lateral lines of communication, making the entire western front dependent on overextended Crimean lines of supply, which are easily severable by collapsing the Kerch Bridge. Whether It would expect the Russian dilemma to be choosing where main Ukrainian assault will fall - at Adivka or Orkiv, or somewhere in between, when in fact, Ukraine is merely watching the Russians make their choices and then attacking at a point of their own choosing.

Looking at the ISW maps, I think the areas of Ukrainian insurgency are enticing hints.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-june-17-2023

Continuing actual analysis.

---

2km per day by 2 light armored brigades is not bad

---

Unfortunately it's also not what the source said. Her statement was that they "gradually move forward...as of now, up to two kilometers in each direction." In fact it tends to confirm what I posted, i.e. the Ukrainians are stalled well short of Russian lines.

---

uh, no. You did not correctly interpret the statement "2km in multiple directions." It means 2km along more than one axis of attack.

It means Ukraine is making slow, steady progress, thru picket lines, advancing up to the main line of fortifications. And they are doing that in four separate sectors, across a sustainably broad front. They have done this with only 2 new brigades, light brigades. They additional 7-8 heavy brigades have not been committed.

What would be the interpretation of that? you might ask..... The Ukrainians are attempting to create dilemmas for the Russians. They are penetrating at points of their choosing, forcing Russians to reinforce both the front lines as well as the anticipated points of contact at fortified lines. This is called "fixing." The force Russia to commit reserve troops to a point of Ukrainian choosing. Those commitments force Russia to weaken other areas in either the line or in reserves, which creates a "dilemma." Good strategy does not create problems for your enemy; it creates dilemmas...forcing the enemy to chose between 1 or more bad situations, to select the "least bad" situation to defend. Russia is either choosing to weaken the areas NOT being attacked, or to commit reaction forces to the front lines which ARE being attacked. The dilemma there is that Russia risks leaving quiet sectors badly depleted, or giving up the defense in depth along their fortified lines. Either option leaves Russia exposed to penetration by heavy brigades, risking the big Ukrainian breakout.

That is exactly what forced Russia to withdraw from hundreds of sq miles last fall. It took some time and some shaping and some fixing to make it happen. I suspect Ukraine will succeed in slicing the Russian lateral lines of communication, making the entire western front dependent on overextended Crimean lines of supply, which are easily severable by collapsing the Kerch Bridge. Whether It would expect the Russian dilemma to be choosing where main Ukrainian assault will fall - at Adivka or Orkiv, or somewhere in between, when in fact, Ukraine is merely watching the Russians make their choices and then attacking at a point of their own choosing.

Looking at the ISW maps, I think the areas of Ukrainian insurgency are enticing hints.

---

I'm quoting the source, who is the Ukrainian Deputy Defense Minister (see footnote 6 in the ISW link). At the time of her writing, Ukrainian forces had advanced a total of "up to" two kilometers along multiple axes in the whole course of the counteroffensive. Not two kilometers per day. This is why all the liberated settlements you've read about are strung along the outside of Russian lines, not behind them.

I understand the strategy you've been describing. What happened last fall was nearly the opposite. The Russians had raced headlong across the country without establishing any real defenses in the hope of capturing Kiev and toppling the government. When that didn't work, they retreated and pursued a completely different strategy, with layered lines of defense, minefields, etc. Ukraine isn't close to reaching their lines of communication, much less severing them. Otherwise there would hardly be talk of a pause in operations.

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-june-17-2023

Continuing actual analysis.

---

2km per day by 2 light armored brigades is not bad

---

Unfortunately it's also not what the source said. Her statement was that they "gradually move forward...as of now, up to two kilometers in each direction." In fact it tends to confirm what I posted, i.e. the Ukrainians are stalled well short of Russian lines.

---

uh, no. You did not correctly interpret the statement "2km in multiple directions." It means 2km along more than one axis of attack.

It means Ukraine is making slow, steady progress, thru picket lines, advancing up to the main line of fortifications. And they are doing that in four separate sectors, across a sustainably broad front. They have done this with only 2 new brigades, light brigades. They additional 7-8 heavy brigades have not been committed.

What would be the interpretation of that? you might ask..... The Ukrainians are attempting to create dilemmas for the Russians. They are penetrating at points of their choosing, forcing Russians to reinforce both the front lines as well as the anticipated points of contact at fortified lines. This is called "fixing." The force Russia to commit reserve troops to a point of Ukrainian choosing. Those commitments force Russia to weaken other areas in either the line or in reserves, which creates a "dilemma." Good strategy does not create problems for your enemy; it creates dilemmas...forcing the enemy to chose between 1 or more bad situations, to select the "least bad" situation to defend. Russia is either choosing to weaken the areas NOT being attacked, or to commit reaction forces to the front lines which ARE being attacked. The dilemma there is that Russia risks leaving quiet sectors badly depleted, or giving up the defense in depth along their fortified lines. Either option leaves Russia exposed to penetration by heavy brigades, risking the big Ukrainian breakout.

That is exactly what forced Russia to withdraw from hundreds of sq miles last fall. It took some time and some shaping and some fixing to make it happen. I suspect Ukraine will succeed in slicing the Russian lateral lines of communication, making the entire western front dependent on overextended Crimean lines of supply, which are easily severable by collapsing the Kerch Bridge. Whether It would expect the Russian dilemma to be choosing where main Ukrainian assault will fall - at Adivka or Orkiv, or somewhere in between, when in fact, Ukraine is merely watching the Russians make their choices and then attacking at a point of their own choosing.

Looking at the ISW maps, I think the areas of Ukrainian insurgency are enticing hints.

---

I'm quoting the source, who is the Ukrainian Deputy Defense Minister (see footnote 6 in the ISW link). At the time of her writing, Ukrainian forces had advanced a total of "up to" two kilometers along multiple axes in the whole course of the counteroffensive. Not two kilometers per day. This is why all the liberated settlements you've read about are strung along the outside of the Russian lines, not behind them.

I understand the strategy you've been describing. What happened last fall was nearly the opposite. The Russians had raced headlong across the country without establishing any real defenses in the hope of capturing Kiev and toppling the government. When that didn't work, they retreated and pursued a completely different strategy, with layered lines of defense, minefields, etc. Ukraine isn't close to reaching their lines of communication, much less severing them. Otherwise there would hardly be talk of a pause in operations.

---

You literally can't be helped.

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-june-17-2023

Continuing actual analysis.

---

2km per day by 2 light armored brigades is not bad

---

Unfortunately it's also not what the source said. Her statement was that they "gradually move forward...as of now, up to two kilometers in each direction." In fact it tends to confirm what I posted, i.e. the Ukrainians are stalled well short of Russian lines.

---

uh, no. You did not correctly interpret the statement "2km in multiple directions." It means 2km along more than one axis of attack.

It means Ukraine is making slow, steady progress, thru picket lines, advancing up to the main line of fortifications. And they are doing that in four separate sectors, across a sustainably broad front. They have done this with only 2 new brigades, light brigades. They additional 7-8 heavy brigades have not been committed.

What would be the interpretation of that? you might ask..... The Ukrainians are attempting to create dilemmas for the Russians. They are penetrating at points of their choosing, forcing Russians to reinforce both the front lines as well as the anticipated points of contact at fortified lines. This is called "fixing." The force Russia to commit reserve troops to a point of Ukrainian choosing. Those commitments force Russia to weaken other areas in either the line or in reserves, which creates a "dilemma." Good strategy does not create problems for your enemy; it creates dilemmas...forcing the enemy to chose between 1 or more bad situations, to select the "least bad" situation to defend. Russia is either choosing to weaken the areas NOT being attacked, or to commit reaction forces to the front lines which ARE being attacked. The dilemma there is that Russia risks leaving quiet sectors badly depleted, or giving up the defense in depth along their fortified lines. Either option leaves Russia exposed to penetration by heavy brigades, risking the big Ukrainian breakout.

That is exactly what forced Russia to withdraw from hundreds of sq miles last fall. It took some time and some shaping and some fixing to make it happen. I suspect Ukraine will succeed in slicing the Russian lateral lines of communication, making the entire western front dependent on overextended Crimean lines of supply, which are easily severable by collapsing the Kerch Bridge. Whether It would expect the Russian dilemma to be choosing where main Ukrainian assault will fall - at Adivka or Orkiv, or somewhere in between, when in fact, Ukraine is merely watching the Russians make their choices and then attacking at a point of their own choosing.

Looking at the ISW maps, I think the areas of Ukrainian insurgency are enticing hints.

---

I'm quoting the source, who is the Ukrainian Deputy Defense Minister (see footnote 6 in the ISW link). At the time of her writing, Ukrainian forces had advanced a total of "up to" two kilometers along multiple axes in the whole course of the counteroffensive. Not two kilometers per day. This is why all the liberated settlements you've read about are strung along the outside of the Russian lines, not behind them.

I understand the strategy you've been describing. What happened last fall was nearly the opposite. The Russians had raced headlong across the country without establishing any real defenses in the hope of capturing Kiev and toppling the government. When that didn't work, they retreated and pursued a completely different strategy, with layered lines of defense, minefields, etc. Ukraine isn't close to reaching their lines of communication, much less severing them. Otherwise there would hardly be talk of a pause in operations.

---

You literally can't be helped.

---

I know. I keep telling myself I'm not here to teach reading comprehension...but always...somehow...

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-june-17-2023

Continuing actual analysis.

---

2km per day by 2 light armored brigades is not bad

---

Unfortunately it's also not what the source said. Her statement was that they "gradually move forward...as of now, up to two kilometers in each direction." In fact it tends to confirm what I posted, i.e. the Ukrainians are stalled well short of Russian lines.

---

uh, no. You did not correctly interpret the statement "2km in multiple directions." It means 2km along more than one axis of attack.

It means Ukraine is making slow, steady progress, thru picket lines, advancing up to the main line of fortifications. And they are doing that in four separate sectors, across a sustainably broad front. They have done this with only 2 new brigades, light brigades. They additional 7-8 heavy brigades have not been committed.

What would be the interpretation of that? you might ask..... The Ukrainians are attempting to create dilemmas for the Russians. They are penetrating at points of their choosing, forcing Russians to reinforce both the front lines as well as the anticipated points of contact at fortified lines. This is called "fixing." The force Russia to commit reserve troops to a point of Ukrainian choosing. Those commitments force Russia to weaken other areas in either the line or in reserves, which creates a "dilemma." Good strategy does not create problems for your enemy; it creates dilemmas...forcing the enemy to chose between 1 or more bad situations, to select the "least bad" situation to defend. Russia is either choosing to weaken the areas NOT being attacked, or to commit reaction forces to the front lines which ARE being attacked. The dilemma there is that Russia risks leaving quiet sectors badly depleted, or giving up the defense in depth along their fortified lines. Either option leaves Russia exposed to penetration by heavy brigades, risking the big Ukrainian breakout.

That is exactly what forced Russia to withdraw from hundreds of sq miles last fall. It took some time and some shaping and some fixing to make it happen. I suspect Ukraine will succeed in slicing the Russian lateral lines of communication, making the entire western front dependent on overextended Crimean lines of supply, which are easily severable by collapsing the Kerch Bridge. Whether It would expect the Russian dilemma to be choosing where main Ukrainian assault will fall - at Adivka or Orkiv, or somewhere in between, when in fact, Ukraine is merely watching the Russians make their choices and then attacking at a point of their own choosing.

Looking at the ISW maps, I think the areas of Ukrainian insurgency are enticing hints.

---

I'm quoting the source, who is the Ukrainian Deputy Defense Minister (see footnote 6 in the ISW link). At the time of her writing, Ukrainian forces had advanced a total of "up to" two kilometers along multiple axes in the whole course of the counteroffensive. Not two kilometers per day. This is why all the liberated settlements you've read about are strung along the outside of Russian lines, not behind them.

I understand the strategy you've been describing. What happened last fall was nearly the opposite. The Russians had raced headlong across the country without establishing any real defenses in the hope of capturing Kiev and toppling the government. When that didn't work, they retreated and pursued a completely different strategy, with layered lines of defense, minefields, etc. Ukraine isn't close to reaching their lines of communication, much less severing them. Otherwise there would hardly be talk of a pause in operations.

---

LOL I did not say that UKR had advanced an average of 2km per day over a period of days. I noted a source that said they had made a 2km in a single day, and commented that was a good day.....a +1mi advance against an entrenched enemy is, in the overall context of things, not a bad day. Given that these were probing/fixing attacks, it's actually a positive indicator

For context, the big Russian offensive was averaging feet/yards per day.

---

That makes a bit more sense, though it's still not what your source said. At any rate she's decided to avoid further updates of this kind for now: "It is incorrect to evaluate the effectiveness of military actions solely by kilometers or the number of liberated settlements."

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-june-17-2023

Continuing actual analysis.

---

2km per day by 2 light armored brigades is not bad

---

Unfortunately it's also not what the source said. Her statement was that they "gradually move forward...as of now, up to two kilometers in each direction." In fact it tends to confirm what I posted, i.e. the Ukrainians are stalled well short of Russian lines.

---

uh, no. You did not correctly interpret the statement "2km in multiple directions." It means 2km along more than one axis of attack.

It means Ukraine is making slow, steady progress, thru picket lines, advancing up to the main line of fortifications. And they are doing that in four separate sectors, across a sustainably broad front. They have done this with only 2 new brigades, light brigades. They additional 7-8 heavy brigades have not been committed.

What would be the interpretation of that? you might ask..... The Ukrainians are attempting to create dilemmas for the Russians. They are penetrating at points of their choosing, forcing Russians to reinforce both the front lines as well as the anticipated points of contact at fortified lines. This is called "fixing." The force Russia to commit reserve troops to a point of Ukrainian choosing. Those commitments force Russia to weaken other areas in either the line or in reserves, which creates a "dilemma." Good strategy does not create problems for your enemy; it creates dilemmas...forcing the enemy to chose between 1 or more bad situations, to select the "least bad" situation to defend. Russia is either choosing to weaken the areas NOT being attacked, or to commit reaction forces to the front lines which ARE being attacked. The dilemma there is that Russia risks leaving quiet sectors badly depleted, or giving up the defense in depth along their fortified lines. Either option leaves Russia exposed to penetration by heavy brigades, risking the big Ukrainian breakout.

That is exactly what forced Russia to withdraw from hundreds of sq miles last fall. It took some time and some shaping and some fixing to make it happen. I suspect Ukraine will succeed in slicing the Russian lateral lines of communication, making the entire western front dependent on overextended Crimean lines of supply, which are easily severable by collapsing the Kerch Bridge. Whether It would expect the Russian dilemma to be choosing where main Ukrainian assault will fall - at Adivka or Orkiv, or somewhere in between, when in fact, Ukraine is merely watching the Russians make their choices and then attacking at a point of their own choosing.

Looking at the ISW maps, I think the areas of Ukrainian insurgency are enticing hints.

---

I'm quoting the source, who is the Ukrainian Deputy Defense Minister (see footnote 6 in the ISW link). At the time of her writing, Ukrainian forces had advanced a total of "up to" two kilometers along multiple axes in the whole course of the counteroffensive. Not two kilometers per day. This is why all the liberated settlements you've read about are strung along the outside of Russian lines, not behind them.

I understand the strategy you've been describing. What happened last fall was nearly the opposite. The Russians had raced headlong across the country without establishing any real defenses in the hope of capturing Kiev and toppling the government. When that didn't work, they retreated and pursued a completely different strategy, with layered lines of defense, minefields, etc. Ukraine isn't close to reaching their lines of communication, much less severing them. Otherwise there would hardly be talk of a pause in operations.

---

Its one thing to be clueless on strategy & tactics, but not being able to read a map is a pretty serious liability.

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-june-17-2023

Continuing actual analysis.

---

2km per day by 2 light armored brigades is not bad

---

Unfortunately it's also not what the source said. Her statement was that they "gradually move forward...as of now, up to two kilometers in each direction." In fact it tends to confirm what I posted, i.e. the Ukrainians are stalled well short of Russian lines.

---

uh, no. You did not correctly interpret the statement "2km in multiple directions." It means 2km along more than one axis of attack.

It means Ukraine is making slow, steady progress, thru picket lines, advancing up to the main line of fortifications. And they are doing that in four separate sectors, across a sustainably broad front. They have done this with only 2 new brigades, light brigades. They additional 7-8 heavy brigades have not been committed.

What would be the interpretation of that? you might ask..... The Ukrainians are attempting to create dilemmas for the Russians. They are penetrating at points of their choosing, forcing Russians to reinforce both the front lines as well as the anticipated points of contact at fortified lines. This is called "fixing." The force Russia to commit reserve troops to a point of Ukrainian choosing. Those commitments force Russia to weaken other areas in either the line or in reserves, which creates a "dilemma." Good strategy does not create problems for your enemy; it creates dilemmas...forcing the enemy to chose between 1 or more bad situations, to select the "least bad" situation to defend. Russia is either choosing to weaken the areas NOT being attacked, or to commit reaction forces to the front lines which ARE being attacked. The dilemma there is that Russia risks leaving quiet sectors badly depleted, or giving up the defense in depth along their fortified lines. Either option leaves Russia exposed to penetration by heavy brigades, risking the big Ukrainian breakout.

That is exactly what forced Russia to withdraw from hundreds of sq miles last fall. It took some time and some shaping and some fixing to make it happen. I suspect Ukraine will succeed in slicing the Russian lateral lines of communication, making the entire western front dependent on overextended Crimean lines of supply, which are easily severable by collapsing the Kerch Bridge. Whether It would expect the Russian dilemma to be choosing where main Ukrainian assault will fall - at Adivka or Orkiv, or somewhere in between, when in fact, Ukraine is merely watching the Russians make their choices and then attacking at a point of their own choosing.

Looking at the ISW maps, I think the areas of Ukrainian insurgency are enticing hints.

---

I'm quoting the source, who is the Ukrainian Deputy Defense Minister (see footnote 6 in the ISW link). At the time of her writing, Ukrainian forces had advanced a total of "up to" two kilometers along multiple axes in the whole course of the counteroffensive. Not two kilometers per day. This is why all the liberated settlements you've read about are strung along the outside of Russian lines, not behind them.

I understand the strategy you've been describing. What happened last fall was nearly the opposite. The Russians had raced headlong across the country without establishing any real defenses in the hope of capturing Kiev and toppling the government. When that didn't work, they retreated and pursued a completely different strategy, with layered lines of defense, minefields, etc. Ukraine isn't close to reaching their lines of communication, much less severing them. Otherwise there would hardly be talk of a pause in operations.

---

Its one thing to be clueless on strategy & tactics, but not being able to read a map is a pretty serious liability.

---

Then get someone to help you.

Something is happening in Russia, could be nothing but it's worth monitoring going forward.

Wow. Now Prigozhin says that the council of Wagner commanders have decided to deal with the military leadership of Russia adding that he will destroy everyone who appears n his way. "I ask everyone to stay calm at home, do not go outside." https://t.co/sX8O7OhSkE

— Pjotr Sauer (@PjotrSauer) June 23, 2023

It's official; this is from Russia's Prosecutor General:

“On June 23, 2023, the Investigation Department of the FSB initiated a criminal case against Prigozhin E.V. under Article 279 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on the fact of organizing an armed rebellion”

— Jimmy Rushton (@JimmySecUK) June 23, 2023

Reports that Wagner Group is headed into Rostov...Unconfirmed at this point..Could be a very interesting 24 hours ahead...

Very bad news for the all the tankies here

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-june-17-2023

Continuing actual analysis.

---

2km per day by 2 light armored brigades is not bad

---

Unfortunately it's also not what the source said. Her statement was that they "gradually move forward...as of now, up to two kilometers in each direction." In fact it tends to confirm what I posted, i.e. the Ukrainians are stalled well short of Russian lines.

---

uh, no. You did not correctly interpret the statement "2km in multiple directions." It means 2km along more than one axis of attack.

It means Ukraine is making slow, steady progress, thru picket lines, advancing up to the main line of fortifications. And they are doing that in four separate sectors, across a sustainably broad front. They have done this with only 2 new brigades, light brigades. They additional 7-8 heavy brigades have not been committed.

What would be the interpretation of that? you might ask..... The Ukrainians are attempting to create dilemmas for the Russians. They are penetrating at points of their choosing, forcing Russians to reinforce both the front lines as well as the anticipated points of contact at fortified lines. This is called "fixing." The force Russia to commit reserve troops to a point of Ukrainian choosing. Those commitments force Russia to weaken other areas in either the line or in reserves, which creates a "dilemma." Good strategy does not create problems for your enemy; it creates dilemmas...forcing the enemy to chose between 1 or more bad situations, to select the "least bad" situation to defend. Russia is either choosing to weaken the areas NOT being attacked, or to commit reaction forces to the front lines which ARE being attacked. The dilemma there is that Russia risks leaving quiet sectors badly depleted, or giving up the defense in depth along their fortified lines. Either option leaves Russia exposed to penetration by heavy brigades, risking the big Ukrainian breakout.

That is exactly what forced Russia to withdraw from hundreds of sq miles last fall. It took some time and some shaping and some fixing to make it happen. I suspect Ukraine will succeed in slicing the Russian lateral lines of communication, making the entire western front dependent on overextended Crimean lines of supply, which are easily severable by collapsing the Kerch Bridge. Whether It would expect the Russian dilemma to be choosing where main Ukrainian assault will fall - at Adivka or Orkiv, or somewhere in between, when in fact, Ukraine is merely watching the Russians make their choices and then attacking at a point of their own choosing.

Looking at the ISW maps, I think the areas of Ukrainian insurgency are enticing hints.

---

I'm quoting the source, who is the Ukrainian Deputy Defense Minister (see footnote 6 in the ISW link). At the time of her writing, Ukrainian forces had advanced a total of "up to" two kilometers along multiple axes in the whole course of the counteroffensive. Not two kilometers per day. This is why all the liberated settlements you've read about are strung along the outside of Russian lines, not behind them.

I understand the strategy you've been describing. What happened last fall was nearly the opposite. The Russians had raced headlong across the country without establishing any real defenses in the hope of capturing Kiev and toppling the government. When that didn't work, they retreated and pursued a completely different strategy, with layered lines of defense, minefields, etc. Ukraine isn't close to reaching their lines of communication, much less severing them. Otherwise there would hardly be talk of a pause in operations.

---

Its one thing to be clueless on strategy & tactics, but not being able to read a map is a pretty serious liability.

---

Then get someone to help you.

---

This is going to be a fun summer.

Early stages of Ukrainian counteroffensive 'not meeting expectations,' Western officials tell CNN
By Jim Sciutto, Chief National Security Correspondent
June 23, 2023

In its early phases, Ukraine's counteroffensive is having less success and Russian forces are showing more competence than western assessments expected, two western officials and a senior US military official tell CNN.

The counteroffensive is "not meeting expectations on any front," one of the officials said.

According to the Western assessments, Russian lines of defense have been proving well-fortified, making it difficult for Ukrainian forces to breach them. In addition, Russian forces have had success bogging down Ukrainian armor with missile attacks and mines and have been deploying air power more effectively.

Ukrainian forces are proving "vulnerable" to minefields and Russian forces "competent" in their defense, one of the Western officials said....

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky admitted Wednesday that progress had been "slower than desired."

"We would definitely like to make bigger steps," Zelensky acknowledged in a BBC interview. "But nevertheless, those who fight shall win and to those that knock, the door shall be opened."

Well in advance of the counteroffensive, Western officials cautioned that forces defending territory always maintain significant advantages, especially given the weeks Russian forces have had to dig in and fortify their defensive lines.

Several officials told CNN that adverse weather was proving an issue for Ukrainian forces.

"The weather has been playing havoc with the offensive schedule as vehicles have struggled with trafficability. Ukrainian casualties are heavy, though not as bad as the Russia's are trying to portray," one of the officials said.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/22/politics/ukraine-counteroffensive-western-assessment/index.html

Not mentioned in the article is that only a small percentage of new brigades have been committed. Why? Because the attacks thus far are probing/fixing attacks, testing the Russian defenses, forcing them to commit reserves to the front, exposing arms caches and lines of supply. News is indeed full of examples of Russian command and logistics hubs being destroyed, to include major bridges along lines of commo. Significance of that? Russia is rushing forward troops and ammunition but the supply chain is being interdicted....so the troops will soon be running out of ammo. That is what happened on the Kherson front last fall, and probably will will happen in several sectors of the current front lines.

Attrition takes time. And one it has occurred, Ukraine will commit the heavy brigades to a break out.

And. then there's this:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/23/europe/russia-mod-wagner-yevgeny-prigozhin-intl/index.html

Rostov is the key logistics hub for the entire Russian war effort. All supplies to Donbas and Crimean fronts flow thru Rostov. And Rostov is now under the control of a rebel commander with 25k troops. A popular and outspoken commander whose actions threaten the entire Russian war effort. It will not be easy for a Russian army fully engaged in the Ukrainian war to disengage and go do urban battle to retake a logistics hub under control of a renegade army.

I wonder how much Ukraine paid Prigozhin to do this.

Oldest trick in the books.
Pay one of your opponent's generals to switch sides on the battlefield.

whiterock said:

---

Not mentioned in the article is that only a small percentage of new brigades have been committed. Why? Because the attacks thus far are probing/fixing attacks, testing the Russian defenses, forcing them to commit reserves to the front, exposing arms caches and lines of supply.

---

Or at least that was the expectation.