Русский корабль - иди нахуй

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

the population of the town doesn't seem to be that relevant and we all say it all the time.  no more relevant than the population of verdun or midway or some village in normandy.  it's an odd metric.  

 

re: pretzels we twist ourselves in to to support Ukr.  i would wager you find more discussion of factual information here than on 99% of the message boards in the country.  we also all happen to support one side so you'll see people tossing out hopeful interpretations of fact and then ridding themselves of those beliefs if they turn out true.  it's not super hard to make your way through it.

[The Dog 44138]

 

[Deej 76903]

2 minutes ago, Mullet Free said:

I don’t think anyone is whipping ass. Looks like a deadly stalemate currently. Although Russia is closer to winning imo.
 

Today we found out Ukraine has less than a month’s fuel and needs more weapons to launch its counteroffensive that was supposed to give supporting countries confidence that the tide was turning. 
 

I’m going to head out now, so y’all can shake your pom poms without fear of any divergent thoughts. 

Thanks, comrade.

[The Dog 44138]

4 minutes ago, Mullet Free said:

I don’t think anyone is whipping ass. Looks like a deadly stalemate currently. Although Russia is closer to winning imo.
 

Today we found out Ukraine has less than a month’s fuel and needs more weapons to launch its counteroffensive that was supposed to give supporting countries confidence that the tide was turning. 
 

I’m going to head out now, so y’all can shake your pom poms without fear of any divergent thoughts. 

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

4 minutes ago, Mullet Free said:

Although Russia is closer to winning imo.

now that's pretzel twisting.  one side's offensive surge is over.  the other one's about to start.  i can't imagine what fact leads you to believe the side that couldn't get it done fully prepped will now succeed without any materiel.

[BamaATL 16593]

5 minutes ago, Mullet Free said:

I don’t think anyone is whipping ass. Looks like a deadly stalemate currently. Although Russia is closer to winning imo.
 

Today we found out Ukraine has less than a month’s fuel and needs more weapons to launch its counteroffensive that was supposed to give supporting countries confidence that the tide was turning. 
 

I’m going to head out now, so y’all can shake your pom poms without fear of any divergent thoughts. 

I got a feeling this won't age very well.   

[RDCanecutter 26468]

20 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This.  Imagine that we went to war with Mexico....and we couldn't manage to capture Linares (in Nuevo Leon).  Never heard of it?  EXACTLY.  IT'S A FUCKING NOTHING, AND AFTER MONTHS OF TRYING AND LOSING THOUSANDS OF SOLDIERS, RUSSIA STILL DOESN'T CONTROL IT.

We would have to fold as a nation state.  I'm actually serious, we wouldn't survive a military failure of that level.  Yet in Russia...it's just a shoulder shrug, because of course.

One does not simply WALK into Linares.

 

Me I took the bus.

[atomheartbevo 89788]

17 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

the population of the town doesn't seem to be that relevant and we all say it all the time.  no more relevant than the population of verdun or midway or some village in normandy.  it's an odd metric. 

It's relevant in that it's a small town that's only 145 miles from the Russian border.  The Russians should not still be trying to take it after over 9 1/2 months of trying to.  Russia should have the capability of driving hundreds of thousands of men 145 miles from the Russian border to Bakhmut in just a few days in just a few weeks or months (we'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say weeks or months to move a bunch of men 145 miles from a Russian city). 

It's not fucking rocket science, doesn't require big-ass cargo ships or aircraft traveling over thousands of miles.  You load men in cars and trucks and you drive the three hours or so it takes for their overloaded cars/trucks to get there, and then head back with wounded, and a couple of hours later, you're on the road again with more fresh soldiers.

This isn't Verdun of 1916 when armies were not nearly as mobile as they are now, and Midway, most of the villages in Normandy, were over in days.  Midway, arguably hours. 

On paper, Russia should have steamrolled through Bakhmut last year.  Then again, the Russians shouldn't have lost Kharkiv and Kherson.  Why Russia has chosen to literally fight and die on that hill will be interesting to read about in the years to come, because it's pretty clear to all involved that it's broken the back of a lot of their units, and reduced Wagner to a shadow of what it was. The fact that they feel they can't even spare a few weeks to train up freshly-mobilized soldiers is fucking insane.

Edited May 16, 2023 by atomheartbevo

[686 3451]

Also the Ukrainian army is superior to Iraqis then.

Your takes are extremely grating in one way because you present shit like this as unquestioned fact/obvious inference, when it it not.

The Iraqis and Ukrainians had about the same size army and about the same number of T-72 vintage tanks.

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/iraq-iraqs-prewar-military-capabilities

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1296573/russia-ukraine-military-comparison/


A big difference maker is that over the last ~50 years the NATO countries and western Defense companies have developed tech that is comically effective at destroying T-72s and all other Russian shit, while the Russian Army/defense industry funding has been diverted to palaces and mega yachts, where, admittedly, the Russians have shown to be a dominant international power.

[BehoId, The Underminer! 11669]

16 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

It's relevant in that it's a small town that's only 145 miles from the Russian border.  The Russians should not still be trying to take it after over 9 1/2 months of trying to.  Russia should have the capability of driving hundreds of thousands of men 145 miles from the Russian border to Bakhmut in just a few days in just a few weeks or months (we'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say weeks or months to move a bunch of men 145 miles from a Russian city). 

It's not fucking rocket science, doesn't require big-ass cargo ships or aircraft traveling over thousands of miles.  You load men in cars and trucks and you drive the three hours or so it takes for their overloaded cars/trucks to get there, and then head back with wounded, and a couple of hours later, you're on the road again with more fresh soldiers.

This isn't Verdun of 1916 when armies were not nearly as mobile as they are now, and Midway, most of the villages in Normandy, were over in days.  Midway, arguably hours. 

On paper, Russia should have steamrolled through Bakhmut last year.  Then again, the Russians shouldn't have lost Kharkiv and Kherson.  Why Russia has chosen to literally fight and die on that hill will be interesting to read about in the years to come, because it's pretty clear to all involved that it's broken the back of a lot of their units, and reduced Wagner to a shadow of what it was. The fact that they feel they can't even spare a few weeks to train up freshly-mobilized soldiers is fucking insane.

You’re talking distance.  I’m talking about the refrain we use of “ it’s the size of San Marcos” “66th biggest” etc. 

[atomheartbevo 89788]

1 hour ago, Mullet Free said:

Also the Ukrainian army is superior to Iraqis then. And has a lot of international weight behind it. 

I would point out something else here, and not necessarily directed at you, but for all of the moaning by the Russian state media on Russian state TV, while Ukraine has a lot of international support, it doesn't rise to the level of what the Russian talking heads claim when they say Russia is fighting NATO.

In 2003, when Iraq had been severely weakened by over a decade of sanctions, the occasional airstrike by the US, and the devastation of the 1991 Gulf War, the United States alone still fired over 725 cruise missiles into Iraq, (and we had lots of other precision/long-range weapons) and still used around 700 fighters and bombers that flew nearly 18,000 sorties, including state-of-the-art aircraft/weapons that had just come into service.

Russia did not have to face anything approaching any of that, and it's May of 2023 and Ukraine is just now getting some shorter-ranged cruise missiles from NATO countries, and we are still talking about them getting F-16s, which first flew 50 years ago.

[Rimbo 26071]

52 minutes ago, Mullet Free said:

I don’t think anyone is whipping ass. Looks like a deadly stalemate currently. Although Russia is closer to winning imo.
 

Today we found out Ukraine has less than a month’s fuel and needs more weapons to launch its counteroffensive that was supposed to give supporting countries confidence that the tide was turning. 
 

I’m going to head out now, so y’all can shake your pom poms without fear of any divergent thoughts. 

I mean, if I want divergent thoughts, I'll read dystopian fantasy fiction. Which is what your posts fucking are. The only question that remains from your idiotic gobbledygook is whether you're a tankie or a vatnik.

[686 3451]

You’re talking distance.  I’m talking about the refrain we use of “ it’s the size of San Marcos” “66th biggest” etc. 

I mean, taking Houston is going to require about an order of magnitude more troops/coordination that taking San Marcos. Big Cities are hard to subdue unless you incinerate them. The funniest part is that Bakmut isn’t big, AND the Russians have shelled it to smoldering ruins, and they still can’t fucking take it. I mean WTF.

The thought experiment I’m thinking about is: if you had transported 1-2 Corps of the 1812 Napoleonic Grande Armee to the Russian side 6-9 months ago, I feel like they might have accomplished more than the Russians have.

[atomheartbevo 89788]

7 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

You’re talking distance.  I’m talking about the refrain we use of “ it’s the size of San Marcos” “66th biggest” etc. 

I think it's important simply because this isn't some kind of massive urban sprawl like Kharkiv (well over a million folks before last year's invasion) and it's close to a Russian city that has been used as a staging area.

And the size is also relevant because this small city close to the Russian border has tied up to over a quarter of the active Russian and Wagner forces that are present in Ukraine, and it's been responsible for several tens of thousands of Russian casualties and deaths (possibly 50,000 - 80,000).  

We saw estimates a few months ago that Ukraine had around 30,000 troops in and around Bakhmut, which means Russia needed well over 90,000 to properly make a run at it.  Russia clearly didn't have the manpower to do that, and so it begs the question of why they kept throwing away troops, even if they were just mobilized with a few days training or convicts fresh out of Russians penile colonies. 

And if we believe Wagner that Ukraine had 80,000 soldiers there, then why didn't Russia use 240,000 soldiers to take it, or pick up their ball and move to another area with fewer (lesser) Ukrainian forces.

I get the sunk-cost fallacy - maybe after the 5,000th or 10,000th death, Russia felt some kind of fucked up obligation or maybe nobody wanted to tell Putin, or maybe Putin got it in his head and there's no way these fucking brothers from another mother should be able to defeat the mighty Russian Military.   Russia promised a winter offensive, and it never truly materialized because of Bakhmut.  Or Bakhmut was it.

It's just fucking bizarre that Russia was okay with throwing away several tens of thousands of dead and wounded on Bakhmut, but they were never okay with truly pumping in another 75,000 or 100,000 troops to properly take it (which would have actually reduced the amount of dead and wounded Russians, since taking it 6 months ago would have saved many lives).

 

[statsman 5478]

29 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I would point out something else here, and not necessarily directed at you, but for all of the moaning by the Russian state media on Russian state TV, while Ukraine has a lot of international support, it doesn't rise to the level of what the Russian talking heads claim when they say Russia is fighting NATO.

In 2003, when Iraq had been severely weakened by over a decade of sanctions, the occasional airstrike by the US, and the devastation of the 1991 Gulf War, the United States alone still fired over 725 cruise missiles into Iraq, (and we had lots of other precision/long-range weapons) and still used around 700 fighters and bombers that flew nearly 18,000 sorties, including state-of-the-art aircraft/weapons that had just come into service.

Russia did not have to face anything approaching any of that, and it's May of 2023 and Ukraine is just now getting some shorter-ranged cruise missiles from NATO countries, and we are still talking about them getting F-16s, which first flew 50 years ago.

(Actually, the F-16 flew first more like 45 years ago. That said, I wish we could give them F-15s, which did fly 50 years ago, and let them take down their AF in one weekend)

[Pato del Muerto 52588]

1 hour ago, Mullet Free said:

I don’t think anyone is whipping ass. Looks like a deadly stalemate currently. Although Russia is closer to winning imo.
 

Today we found out Ukraine has less than a month’s fuel and needs more weapons to launch its counteroffensive that was supposed to give supporting countries confidence that the tide was turning. 
 

I’m going to head out now, so y’all can shake your pom poms without fear of any divergent thoughts. 

I’m a naïve amateur at this, but my take from the fuel announcement was that they are using what they are given, so please keep it coming.  It said 30 days or fewer IF SUPPLY WERE TO STOP.  Is there any reason to believe supply will be stopping?

I’m pretty sure there are agreements in place to supply fuel for all of the mechanized systems that they are being given, as they otherwise would be useless. 

[drt 640]

1 hour ago, Mullet Free said:

Got it. This is next to the Grimes DM post in your library. 
 

There’s a few key differences. Obviously the Russian army can’t compare to ours in 2003. (Our current army would come up short as well.) Also the Ukrainian army is superior to Iraqis then. 

 

[statsman 5478]

On other message boards’ discussions, I see three types of no -supporters of Ukraine-

1. Those that are too invested in domestic politics and really dislike Joe Biden. He supports Ukraine independence, so they are against it. (I feel this is a really stupid way to come to an opinion. Hey, Joe Biden loves ice cream- are you giving it up?)

2. Those why have bought into the Putin propaganda of how the US forced Russia to attack, the U.S. drove a coup in Ukraine, Russia just wants a bipolar world to be free of western hegemony. This is a smaller segment, but much more vocal. They get their info from RT sources and they believe it, and not independent MSM (like you sheeple!)

3. Russian trolls trying to influence western opinion (and also put tracks in western social media that can be copied back home as proof that the enemy is splintered). They adopt US sounding names and pretend to be veterans (I have called some out, and they can’t get very basic stuff right.)

Here is an example of what they are doing with the Patriot damage-

 

[686 3451]

I’m sure this has already been posted but Prigozhin basically lays out the entire Russian political and military systemic issue here like he’s quoting One Soldier’s War, and there are some great translations:








Joint Chiefs of Stuff should be a reggae band.

He cracks off a bunch of one liners like the second one (colon just makes it better) likes he’s been taking pages from Girkin.

[686 3451]

Let slip the dogs of war

Prigzohin video link

[Rimbo 26071]

 

 

[Neonmoon 38130]

The US army couldn’t take Bakhmut? 
 

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

 

Some low key LGB bullshit.

[SydneyCarton 48167]

2 hours ago, Mullet Free said:

Got it. This is next to the Grimes DM post in your library. 
 

There’s a few key differences. Obviously the Russian army can’t compare to ours in 2003. (Our current army would come up short as well.) Also the Ukrainian army is superior to Iraqis then. And has a lot of international weight behind it. 
 

For whatever one thinks of the size or strategic importance of Bakhmut both sides thought it was necessary to throw massive resources into the battle. Zelensky was quoted on the importance of it more than once. And the Ukrainians are just about driven out. 
 

It’s a lot of cope. 

God you’re an asshole. Zelenskyy says it’s important…because it’s important to bleed the Russians. Also lol at your matter of fact assessment of the Iraqi and Ukraine armies. Just like your matter of fact insistence that Russia would win the war handily. And a dozen other shit takes you’ve pushed over the years. 

1 hour ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

the population of the town doesn't seem to be that relevant and we all say it all the time.  no more relevant than the population of verdun or midway or some village in normandy.  it's an odd metric.  

 

re: pretzels we twist ourselves in to to support Ukr.  i would wager you find more discussion of factual information here than on 99% of the message boards in the country.  we also all happen to support one side so you'll see people tossing out hopeful interpretations of fact and then ridding themselves of those beliefs if they turn out true.  it's not super hard to make your way through it.

I wouldn’t say EVERYONE here supports Ukraine, sir. 

21 minutes ago, statsman said:

On other message boards’ discussions, I see three types of no -supporters of Ukraine-

1. Those that are too invested in domestic politics and really dislike Joe Biden. He supports Ukraine independence, so they are against it. (I feel this is a really stupid way to come to an opinion. Hey, Joe Biden loves ice cream- are you giving it up?)

2. Those why have bought into the Putin propaganda of how the US forced Russia to attack, the U.S. drove a coup in Ukraine, Russia just wants a bipolar world to be free of western hegemony. This is a smaller segment, but much more vocal. They get their info from RT sources and they believe it, and not independent MSM (like you sheeple!)

3. Russian trolls trying to influence western opinion (and also put tracks in western social media that can be copied back home as proof that the enemy is splintered). They adopt US sounding names and pretend to be veterans (I have called some out, and they can’t get very basic stuff right.)

Here is an example of what they are doing with the Patriot damage-

 

I think he’s 2 and 3, honestly. A true believer.

[Dahobbs 17682]

2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

 

I think he’s 2 and 3, honestly. A true believer.

Correct. 

[The Dog 44138]

 

[B00M 6463]

5 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

In what sense has it turned? The last time Russia had any real positive momentum was last summer. 

It’s gone from relatively stagnant lines to Ukraine stuffing literally anything Russia throws at them and even hitting targets inside Russia. Even if it’s mostly symbolic, it’s big. There are also clear adversaries developing within Russia: Wagner vs Putin and militia groups vs Putin … Russia lost this special operation almost immediately but it’s now looking like Ukraine will actually WIN. 

[choripan 790]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

We saw estimates a few months ago that Ukraine had around 30,000 troops in and around Bakhmut, which means Russia needed well over 90,000 to properly make a run at it.  Russia clearly didn't have the manpower to do that, and so it begs the question of why they kept throwing away troops, even if they were just mobilized with a few days training or convicts fresh out of Russians penile colonies.

 

 

[SL Xpress 7518]

19 minutes ago, The Dog said:

 

That's not a correct take, but it's not a dumb one, either. Shame the people who don't think it's smart to send F-16s - for a variety of extremely valid reasons - into sending them so they're not painted as pro Russian in some sense. 

But that's not an accurate portrayal, and is a bit of rhetorical dirty pool. Which, all is fair in love and war, so have at it. 

[MissingInAction 25178]

2 hours ago, Mullet Free said:

I don’t think anyone is whipping ass. Looks like a deadly stalemate currently. Although Russia is closer to winning imo.
 

Today we found out Ukraine has less than a month’s fuel and needs more weapons to launch its counteroffensive that was supposed to give supporting countries confidence that the tide was turning. 
 

I’m going to head out now, so y’all can shake your pom poms without fear of any divergent thoughts. 

You show your ass repeatedly here, and it repeatedly gets whipped.

Over and over again.

"Divergent thoughts"? Is that the same as "alternative facts"?

[The Dog 44138]

3 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

That's not a correct take, but it's not a dumb one, either. Shame the people who don't think it's smart to send F-16s - for a variety of extremely valid reasons - into sending them so they're not painted as pro Russian in some sense. 

But that's not an accurate portrayal, and is a bit of rhetorical dirty pool. Which, all is fair in love and war, so have at it. 

I don’t think F-16s are the game changer that many think either but he’s right about the “de-escalation” faction.

[Scheiss Meister 8411]

While it is only a rough comparison, Bakhmut does somewhat compare to a battle with which we are all familiar: the Alamo.  There was no good reason for Travis to disobey orders and stay in the Alamo, just as it seems that there was no real strategic need for Ukraine to stay in Bakhmut.  Santa Anna could have left a small force to keep the Texians fixed in the Alamo, and Russia could have done the same with Bakhmut.  Taking the Alamo did not give Santa Anna any strategic gain other than the boast that he had taken it and slain all of the defenders, just as taking Bakhmut gives Russia no strategic gain other than taking it in a brutal fashion as an example of why to not resist Russia.  Santa Anna used his best troops to take the Alamo, taking high casualties and weakening his army materially, just as is happening to Russia's best troops in Bakhmut.  Finally, just as "Remember The Alamo!" became a battle cry and inspiration for the Texians at San Jacinto, Bakhmut is now an example of Ukrainian resistance and determination in the face of superior numbers.

[Dahobbs 17682]

9 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

That's not a correct take, but it's not a dumb one, either. Shame the people who don't think it's smart to send F-16s - for a variety of extremely valid reasons - into sending them so they're not painted as pro Russian in some sense. 

But that's not an accurate portrayal, and is a bit of rhetorical dirty pool. Which, all is fair in love and war, so have at it. 

It is a pretty non sense take. The comment on some damage to a patriot system doesn't mean unsuccessful intercepts. And frankly, my assumption is that the insinuation that a Patriot battery is out of service is almost certainly to goad Russia into wasting more high value assets. 

[atomheartbevo 89788]

17 minutes ago, choripan said:

 

Thank you.

I put the fewer/lesser thing is posts to mess with the English nerds, and then make a penis joke and *whoosh*.

Although, from what I've heard about Russian prisons, it's probably fairly accurate.

[Deej 76903]

12 minutes ago, MissingInAction said:

"Divergent thoughts"? Is that the same as "alternative facts"?

He's just asking questions.

[SydneyCarton 48167]

14 minutes ago, Deej said:

He's just a piece of shit. 

*FIFY

[B00M 6463]

2 hours ago, Mullet Free said:

I don’t think anyone is whipping ass. Looks like a deadly stalemate currently. Although Russia is closer to winning imo.
 

Today we found out Ukraine has less than a month’s fuel and needs more weapons to launch its counteroffensive that was supposed to give supporting countries confidence that the tide was turning. 
 

I’m going to head out now, so y’all can shake your pom poms without fear of any divergent thoughts. 

something tells me Ukraine will get fuel. 

what usually happens when invading armies get stalemated?

The only hope Russia has is if they can drag this on a few years and the west fatigues. the battle for crimea could drag on that long simply due to the geography, but the rest of Ukraine? nah
 

 

 

[SL Xpress 7518]

Just now, The Dog said:

I don’t think F-16s are the game changer that many think either but he’s right about the “de-escalation” faction.

There's certainly a de-escalation faction. There's a huge "the US shouldn't get involved" faction, too, that has little to do with Russia, and is entirely historical. There are a lot of factions.

There's also a faction that recognizes the F-16 isn't exactly the ideal aircraft for the kind of operations it will be undergoing in Ukraine. Doesn't mean it couldn't work.

I want to make it clear I'm all in on sending F-16s and ATACMs and my frustration over the fact we haven't yet is only mollified by my gratitude we're doing as much as we are. I followed this thing closely back in 2014 when it felt like we left the Ukrainians out to dry on any number of levels, and there was concern that would be the case on some level this time, too. If Biden hadn't won the election, I feel comfortable in saying the level of support and the rallying of the Europeans would be quite different. 

Heck, I'd love to see us send F-22s, even if that's unrealistic. 

All I know is that the reluctance to send F-16s is also rooted in other things other than wanting Russia to win. To say something different is a gross misrepresentation of the issue. Which doesn't make it wrong. It can be effective. But it's still incorrect. 

[atomheartbevo 89788]

3 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

There's also a faction that recognizes the F-16 isn't exactly the ideal aircraft for the kind of operations it will be undergoing in Ukraine. Doesn't mean it couldn't work.

The game changer for me in terms of the F-16 is not what it as an aircraft can do in terms of direct combat (whether that's air-to-air or air-to-ground), it's what weapons systems it can launch - right now the Ukrainians are having to jerry-rig  a lot of Western weapons to their MiGs.  An F-16 is arguably the cheapest and easiest way to easily launch Western air-launched weapons.

And the US has over a thousand of them sitting in storage (albeit older models).  And a lot of munitions for it in storage.

[B00M 6463]

3 minutes ago, SL Xpress said:

There's certainly a de-escalation faction. There's a huge "the US shouldn't get involved" faction, too, that has little to do with Russia, and is entirely historical. There are a lot of factions.

There's also a faction that recognizes the F-16 isn't exactly the ideal aircraft for the kind of operations it will be undergoing in Ukraine. Doesn't mean it couldn't work.

I want to make it clear I'm all in on sending F-16s and ATACMs and my frustration over the fact we haven't yet is only mollified by my gratitude we're doing as much as we are. I followed this thing closely back in 2014 when it felt like we left the Ukrainians out to dry on any number of levels, and there was concern that would be the case on some level this time, too. If Biden hadn't won the election, I feel comfortable in saying the level of support and the rallying of the Europeans would be quite different. 

Heck, I'd love to see us send F-22s, even if that's unrealistic. 

All I know is that the reluctance to send F-16s is also rooted in other things other than wanting Russia to win. To say something different is a gross misrepresentation of the issue. Which doesn't make it wrong. It can be effective. But it's still incorrect. 

We don’t need F16s getting shot down over Ukraine. They would and the negative reaction it would generate in the US would out weigh the tactical advantage they’d provide.

F22s are fun to imagine though 
 

[Neonmoon 38130]

Just now, B00M said:

We don’t need F16s getting shot down over Ukraine. They would and the negative reaction it would generate in the US would out weigh the tactical advantage they’d provide.

F22s are fun to imagine though 
 

I don’t think that’s an issue at all. We are the largest arms dealer in the world. We would just use it to upsell the newer models. 

[686 3451]

While it is only a rough comparison, Bakhmut does somewhat compare to a battle with which we are all familiar: the Alamo. 

Keeping the Russians in Bakhmut also is buying the Ukrainians a lot of invaluable time to train, equip, supply, organize, etc.; somewhat like Travis did for Houston.

I’m sure the Ukrainians wish more material would get there faster so they could get more troops trained up on it, but at some point you’re just going to have to go and rely on the late arriving gear (Abrams, F16s, etc.) to be your reinforcements/second wave. My gut feels they need to go in May/early June.

[SL Xpress 7518]

32 minutes ago, Scheiss Meister said:

While it is only a rough comparison, Bakhmut does somewhat compare to a battle with which we are all familiar: the Alamo.  There was no good reason for Travis to disobey orders and stay in the Alamo, just as it seems that there was no real strategic need for Ukraine to stay in Bakhmut.  Santa Anna could have left a small force to keep the Texians fixed in the Alamo, and Russia could have done the same with Bakhmut.  Taking the Alamo did not give Santa Anna any strategic gain other than the boast that he had taken it and slain all of the defenders, just as taking Bakhmut gives Russia no strategic gain other than taking it in a brutal fashion as an example of why to not resist Russia.  Santa Anna used his best troops to take the Alamo, taking high casualties and weakening his army materially, just as is happening to Russia's best troops in Bakhmut.  Finally, just as "Remember The Alamo!" became a battle cry and inspiration for the Texians at San Jacinto, Bakhmut is now an example of Ukrainian resistance and determination in the face of superior numbers.

Heck, and in Bakhmut now they're taking swaths of territory on the flanks. Russia is sending in troops completely and utterly unprepared to put up a defense. They're going to have to figure out some way to keep Ukraine from taking 20 kilometers at a whack or they're going to have to withdraw from the rubble of Bakhmut in short order. 

I'm also reminded of the island fortress battles against the Japanese in the Pacific. There are a lot of marines at the time that felt MacArthur the Army general was a little too fast and loose with their survival rate, when he could have pinned down Japanese forces on some of those islands without a full scale invasion.

And while that didn't work out well for the Japanese, their commitment to a wholesale loss of life on the main island is documented and legendary, if it hadn't been for the two atomic bombs dropped. 

There's also such an immeasurable aspect to defending territory. I don't know how anyone can hope to quantify a cost benefit analysis regarding the loss of life versus displaying a never give an inch demeanor. Those are hard decisions for any military leader to make. The hardest. As human beings we love to talk about some of these decisions in hindsight as obviously the right or wrong ones, but that's not really accurate. There's no way to go back and do a do over, so we're left with the decisions that were made. 

I do know Ukrainians look like tough sons of bitches, but there are a lot of men dead and wounded in Bakhmut who wish maybe they could have fallen back instead. I remember watching videos of the bunkers in the town, and many of the guys portrayed were scared out of their minds, and refused to report for duty. But what are you gonna do? I sit here typing on a computer not facing any of those daily decisions, from either a command or infantry man level. I just know this is a battle between good and evil, and I fervently want to see the good side prevail in as decisive a manner as possible. I think it's important for the near term future of the human race. 

[Schulz2.0 29011]

 

[SL Xpress 7518]

8 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

The game changer for me in terms of the F-16 is not what it as an aircraft can do in terms of direct combat (whether that's air-to-air or air-to-ground), it's what weapons systems it can launch - right now the Ukrainians are having to jerry-rig  a lot of Western weapons to their MiGs.  An F-16 is arguably the cheapest and easiest way to easily launch Western air-launched weapons.

And the US has over a thousand of them sitting in storage (albeit older models).  And a lot of munitions for it in storage.

Not to mention how many of them are in arsenals around the world. 

It's funny. It was originally designed as a quality over quantity air superiority fighter along with the F-15 but it turned into a quantity type of equation as one of the best cost effective means to establish an air force as existed in the world for several decades. 

But based on what I've read, the F/A-18 and the Swedish Gripen would be better fits for the battlefield environment. Much like the Leopard 2 is a better fit than the Abrams as a tank. But the support systems for the F-16 are so robust, and they're nearing the end of their vastly extended life cycle. I do think there's a certain inevitability to the F-16s being deployed. Unfortunately I think the hesitance is mostly based on political will, when I wish that wasn't a factor. 

But a lot of that lack of political will is composed of something other than wanting the Russians to win. Which is the issue I took with the tweet. 

[statsman 5478]

Admittedly dumb question- the Israelis put aux fuel tanks on F-16s and bomb Iran. Can the Ukrainians go deep into Russia with them? Maybe land in Finland? Or is that too provocative?

[Brisketexan 105316]

I’m a naïve amateur at this, but my take from the fuel announcement was that they are using what they are given, so please keep it coming.  It said 30 days or fewer IF SUPPLY WERE TO STOP.  Is there any reason to believe supply will be stopping?
I’m pretty sure there are agreements in place to supply fuel for all of the mechanized systems that they are being given, as they otherwise would be useless. 

Hey…just for shits and giggles…how many days’ supply of fuel does the United States - the standard setter - have on hand (that is, how long would it take to run out if we weren’t resupplied?

Yeah…it’s not a lot more than 30 days. Shit, we were down to 25 days worth of diesel on hand just this fall.

The messaging was “keep supplying us.” But vatniks play it as “see, they’re out of fuel!”

I think he’s 2 and 3, honestly. A true believer.

The correlation between takes like his and people who post Zerohedge pieces is pretty close to 100%. They subscribe to the Russian worldview because they consume information from the Russian information sphere.

A sphere that said this would be a 3 day operation. A sphere that says all HIMARS supplied have already been destroyed. These are people who consume lies because they think they taste good.

Yes, there is propaganda all over, sunshine pumping, all that shit. But the difference between the Russian information sphere and the western one is like saying “both John Wayne Gacy and a guy who ran a stop sign are criminals! You’re a sucker for believing the traffic violator!”….as they spew Gacy’s words as gospel truth.

[686 3451]

But a lot of that lack of political will is composed of something other than wanting the Russians to win.

Ive had to step back from the war for a little while so I’m not as dialed in on the F-16 issue currently. What is the lack of political will based on if it’s not actively wanting Putin to win or pure isolationism/not wanting to allocate the resources? I guess I could see door number three as being bad press if some get shot down, but there’s an equally plausible chance at this point that the Ukrainians use them to good effect, like they have with everything else we’ve sent them. And yeah some will get shot down, it’s war. Patriot batteries haven’t had this much press since 1991. It’s like a reunion tour.

[B00M 6463]

29 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

I don’t think that’s an issue at all. We are the largest arms dealer in the world. We would just use it to upsell the newer models. 

I’d love to be wrong!

 

 

[Scheiss Meister 8411]

If Ukrainian aircraft bombed Russia, then flew on to land in Finland, Russia would argue that Finland had become a combatant, with some truth.  If Finland impounded the Ukrainian air crew and aircraft until the end of hostilities, it could be argued that Finland was acting as a neutral party.  I believe that Finland has provided arms and material support to Ukraine, so Finnish neutrality would be a very hard sell.  I doubt that Finland or NATO would agree to such a mission.