Jump to content

ex2cav

Members
  • Posts

    418
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

ex2cav's Achievements

Crew

Crew (2/3)

0

Reputation

  1. LOL, that is what I was alluding to in my post below. Our little brothers in Poland and the Baltics have been prone to lots of tough talk. That is primarily due to the bigger brothers behind them. The western capitals should have them tone down the rhetoric....
  2. I know, my fear is as war progress escalation almost seems certain. I am sure there are parties inside the kremlin that want to destroy Ukraine, whatever that means. My thought would be that the Russians might still try and absorb Kharkov. My impulse would be to drive along the coast and landlock the country. From the Ukrainian point of view, I don't know where they go. You can argue they were successful in the north, but everywhere else else not so much. I still think the Ukrainian government's main objective is direct western intervention. That is the only way they can recover lost territory in significant amounts at this stage. Most of the west is not interested in direct escalation at this point. Looking at the increasing sale of equipment, it comes at an odd time. It is almost an Iran-Iraq thing, they don't want either side to win. With all the tough talk of a free an independent Ukraine, neither side wants a strong country like that on its border. If the Ukrainians were to win outright, the far right in the country would want to keep needling the east. The Ukrainian government couldn't seem to rein in the far right before the latest escalation, I don't know how they would control them after a perceived victory. As the Ukrainians slowly lose, the west will make good some material losses and provide verbal support to keep them fighting. I think the current goal in western capitals is to keep the Ukrainians supplied enough to keep them from collapsing. The Russians seem to be okay with playing along and are happy with very incremental winning. I think that is dangerous, as the lack of dramatic action and the seemingly constant over the top western media playing to the Ukrainian side places popular pressure for the west to do more. Public perception would be that more intervention would be at little cost.
  3. Not unable to crush Ukraine, just going about it with one hand tied behind their back. They have committed a limited amount of their forces and air forces. The Russian plan b seems to primarily be a frontal assault of the most heavily defended area of the front, namely Donbass. They began the war with around 130-150k troops, and indications are they have substantially increased personnel flow. The Ukrainians had around 220k in the regular army and 300k in the territorial defense at the star; and since been supported by complete western intelligence as well as increasing material support. I agree, "the how" the Russians are conducting their war has me scratching my head and it appears weak and misguided. The Ukrainians also appear inept and unorganized. With that, you hit on a point. I would argue the main reason the Ruskies were able to defeat the Nazis was due to virtually unlimited allied material support. It also appears the USSR threat was also sheer numbers. I don't think it was ever expected the Red Army would be able to out maneuver Nato. It was expected that the Red Army would be able to make good losses quicker. With all that, the destruction or removal of "Russia's ambitions" has not occurred as of yet. The war appears far from over. Russian leadership is stating they are still in the game. I would argue the risk increases the longer the war drags on.
  4. It seems safer when there are no dissenting voices and everyone is doing it. It reeks of fun in the Euro Capitals.
  5. I agree, the javelin thing seemed really overblown here. Though it goes all the way back the panzerfaust. "Are tanks obsolete? Every infantryman will be able to kill a tank!" Reality doesn't work like that. The Russians have reverted to the mean and are blowing everything up with artillery before moving in.
  6. Give it time, we might be heading that way. Though it likely would go nuclear, at least on Ukrainian territory.
  7. Regarding your last paragraph, both sides seemed weak around Kiev. The Russians appeared generally weaker in the north. The Russians needed, and need, more forces. They had too many goals with too little.
  8. 1. Infantry, Infantry, Infantry....The Russians stalled for lack of infantry. Armor takes ground, infantry holds it. There is enough open source info out there showing that most BTG's were woefully short infantry in their IFV vehicles. As the Russians advanced, they should have been dropping off infantry companies along the way. They didn't. Large areas were initially un-held. Infantry. 2. Military intelligence isn't. See Afghanistan and see early Russian assumptions on Ukrainian army and government. Count tanks and masses of forces, but intent and motivation is harder to discern. 3. Armies shouldn't have multiple axis of advance. Combat power is immediately degraded and different axis can't support each other. 4. Weather. See point one. If you attack in winter, realize you will be limited to roads, maneuver will be extremely limited. Relatively small blocking forces can stall an advance of a much larger force confined to roads. 5. Drones are important, but a wealthier military can mitigate the threat. Drones can be critical for recon. Recon drones should be incorporated to at least battalion level, perhaps even company as personnel allows. Incorporate targeting drones for all artillery units.
  9. I don't have BDS. Watch him and cringe. I have simply pointed what he and his administration have said and look at the results. I don't know what this "Putin world leader" thing is. It is The Biden admin that elevated him by blaming the economy and gas prices on him.
  10. I don't know what kind of argument that is. My point is the world is at a tipping point. The war in Ukraine threatens to spread. Beginning another war in the ME with no clear out is foolhardy. Further threatening global shipments of oil will not aid anyone. The goal now should be to contain the war in Ukraine and provide stability across the rest of the globe. I am not saying that is what will happen. Like on this board, there are many who are wishing for this to blow up. I am sort of expecting the Israelis to bomb or missile something in Iran, and to increase targeting in Syria. The Taiwan talk is a red herring. Bejing does not have the sea lift capacity to do that sort of thing, right now. The Chinese will play the long game. They do not think like westerners.
  11. Massive spending with no discernable results and dollar creation resulting in climbing inflation. Appearance as a weak leader on the world stage inviting Russian aggression. Denying there is a problem, then when it can no longer be denied his response is "deal with it". Surrounded himself with poor leaders and ideologues 9see Afghanistan). His policy intention is to bleed Russia white, that seems to be back firing. He has no answers except to blame Putin. I don't think anyone realize that Putin controls the world. The number 2 in the White House would be a greater disaster.
  12. You can't ban all oil producing countries. Well, you can but the price of oil will go through the roof. Gas prices are climbing like mad in the USA, a war that impacts the flow from the gulf will cause it to further skyrocket. The ban on Russian oil is not absolute, it mainly affects the US and Some European countries. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. I watched an interview with the Indian energy minister and it seems they are buying Russian oil at a massive discount. They might have to pay in Rubles. A gulf war would figuratively pour gas on a fire that is a bad situation. I too used to be afraid of a nuclear Iran. That problem seems to have receded somewhat in my mind with all the goings on. It should recede globally as a problem. There is no way to quickly and certainly wage a war with Iran in the short term. The Russian oil ban was a passive-aggressive response to the Russian invasion to be seen as "doing something". The powers that be did not consider the consequences long or short term. As I wrote, they shot themselves in the foot. My thought the western sanctions would cripple the Russians economy. I was wrong, as were the powers that be. The Russian Ruble is at a four year high now, and the Russians are awash in oil and gold money. The middle east problem should be dealt with gingerly.
  13. You are right. To "win" would need to be a desert storm 3. There is no where for them to stage and build up for months. Iraq? I don't know if that would work politically. The best they could hope for a is bombing and missile campaign. The Iranians would be given whatever support they need by the Russians. The Iranians would grin and bear it. If the Israelis strike on their own, they should hope to have perfect intelligence.
  14. Iran should get a pass right now. As you point out, another war is nit what the world needs right now.
×
×
  • Create New...