Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[Admiral Yi]

Things don't sound good from the US. Ive heard it said in a few places the US doesn't even want the Ukraine to win, they're afraid of what happens if Russia collapses. They want to avoid Ukraine losing but not give them enough to actually push back the invaders.

Newsweek is maybe the most prominent starting on this line

https://www.newsweek.com/us-want-ukraine-defeat-russia-putin-biden-zelensky-peace-talks-1846772

Did you happen to notice that the guy pushing this line is the principle lobbyist for Ukraine in the US?

[Josquius]

Things don't sound good from the US. Ive heard it said in a few places the US doesn't even want the Ukraine to win, they're afraid of what happens if Russia collapses. They want to avoid Ukraine losing but not give them enough to actually push back the invaders.

Newsweek is maybe the most prominent starting on this line

https://www.newsweek.com/us-want-ukraine-defeat-russia-putin-biden-zelensky-peace-talks-1846772

Did you happen to notice that the guy pushing this line is the principle lobbyist for Ukraine in the US?

Things don't sound good from the US. Ive heard it said in a few places the US doesn't even want the Ukraine to win, they're afraid of what happens if Russia collapses. They want to avoid Ukraine losing but not give them enough to actually push back the invaders.

Newsweek is maybe the most prominent starting on this line

https://www.newsweek.com/us-want-ukraine-defeat-russia-putin-biden-zelensky-peace-talks-1846772

Did you happen to notice that the guy pushing this line is the principle lobbyist for Ukraine in the US?

He won't use lines that he doesn't think will work. And lines that don't have an element of truth won't work.

[Admiral Yi]

He won't use lines that he doesn't think will work. And lines that don't have an element of truth won't work.

That sound to me like anyone can pull what ever they want out of their ass, as long as you like it.

[Josquius]

He won't use lines that he doesn't think will work. And lines that don't have an element of truth won't work.

That sound to me like anyone can pull what ever they want out of their ass, as long as you like it.

No. Completely the opposite.
If your goal is to get more US support for Ukraine then why would you pull random shit out of your ass, knowing you have opponents ready and waiting to attack your arguments?
Rather you'd look for some facts in the current situation that could be highlighted to support your case.

[Admiral Yi]

No. Completely the opposite.
If your goal is to get more US support for Ukraine then why would you pull random shit out of your ass, knowing you have opponents ready and waiting to attack your arguments?
Rather you'd look for some facts in the current situation that could be highlighted to support your case.

He's not highlighting any facts.  He doesn't show us any survey results, he doesn't talk about briefings he's received from unnamed administration sources or members of Congress.  No man on the street interviews.  There is no indication whatsoever this US preference that Russia not lose exists anywhere outside the lobbyists head.

If you're trying to increase aid to Ukraine you spin this kind of narrative because it makes everyone involved look bad if they don't increase aid.

[Josquius]

No. Completely the opposite.
If your goal is to get more US support for Ukraine then why would you pull random shit out of your ass, knowing you have opponents ready and waiting to attack your arguments?
Rather you'd look for some facts in the current situation that could be highlighted to support your case.

He's not highlighting any facts.  He doesn't show us any survey results, he doesn't talk about briefings he's received from unnamed administration sources or members of Congress.  No man on the street interviews.  There is no indication whatsoever this US preference that Russia not lose exists anywhere outside the lobbyists head.

If you're trying to increase aid to Ukraine you spin this kind of narrative because it makes everyone involved look bad if they don't increase aid.

The fact is the US did dither in delivering aid. Only very slowly building up to allow what they currently allow.
The fact is the front line is stuck in a bit of a stalemate at the moment. It does seem like both sides have enough to hold but not enough to get a complete victory.
That this is therefore a desirable situation for the US is therefore a logical conclusion- if they disagree with this then they should either increase aid or cut their losses and recognise Russia will win. Its obvious which of those makes them look worse.

[Grey Fox]

Why are we surprised? The US is following the playbook drawn by Biden right after the battle for Kiyv.

[Tamas]

I find the stalemate fascinating in the sense of it'd be good to know if it is "just" a matter of air superiority. I think it is safe to assume that Russian numerical superiority on land (to the extent that's a thing) is more than counter-balanced by better Ukrainian quality and above all morale.

However if we say it is impossible to do WW2-style breakthroughs on the modern battlefield without air superiority, what does that mean for the war? I have little doubt that eventually Ukraine will get enough F16s etc to gain superiority in an air vs air sense. But, as I understand Russian (well, Soviet era but still) SAMs are pretty good and they have a ton of them, so will chasing Russian fighters away enable the necessary CAS without excessive losses to jets nobody can really afford to lose by the dozens? Is there a hope to equip Ukraine with enough number and type of planes for SEAD at scale?

EDIT: I guess what I am asking: did we run into the same issue as many pre-WW1 strategists? Expecting modern technology to deliver swift decisive wars (in part due to our wars with inferior third world forces the same way they machine gunned down natives), whereas in fact with parity forces that technology results in the very opposite.

[The Brain]

No. Completely the opposite.
If your goal is to get more US support for Ukraine then why would you pull random shit out of your ass, knowing you have opponents ready and waiting to attack your arguments?
Rather you'd look for some facts in the current situation that could be highlighted to support your case.

He's not highlighting any facts.  He doesn't show us any survey results, he doesn't talk about briefings he's received from unnamed administration sources or members of Congress.  No man on the street interviews.  There is no indication whatsoever this US preference that Russia not lose exists anywhere outside the lobbyists head.

If you're trying to increase aid to Ukraine you spin this kind of narrative because it makes everyone involved look bad if they don't increase aid.

The fact is the US did dither in delivering aid. Only very slowly building up to allow what they currently allow.
The fact is the front line is stuck in a bit of a stalemate at the moment. It does seem like both sides have enough to hold but not enough to get a complete victory.
That this is therefore a desirable situation for the US is therefore a logical conclusion- if they disagree with this then they should either increase aid or cut their losses and recognise Russia will win. Its obvious which of those makes them look worse.

Other possible reasons:
Many GOP politicians want their hero Putin to win, making gathering support for massive aid harder to secure.
Initial uncertainty about Ukrainian resilience; you don't want to effectively give military hardware to Russia.
Lukewarm interest in foreign wars.
Etc.

[The Brain]

I find the stalemate fascinating in the sense of it'd be good to know if it is "just" a matter of air superiority. I think it is safe to assume that Russian numerical superiority on land (to the extent that's a thing) is more than counter-balanced by better Ukrainian quality and above all morale.

However if we say it is impossible to do WW2-style breakthroughs on the modern battlefield without air superiority, what does that mean for the war? I have little doubt that eventually Ukraine will get enough F16s etc to gain superiority in an air vs air sense. But, as I understand Russian (well, Soviet era but still) SAMs are pretty good and they have a ton of them, so will chasing Russian fighters away enable the necessary CAS without excessive losses to jets nobody can really afford to lose by the dozens? Is there a hope to equip Ukraine with enough number and type of planes for SEAD at scale?

EDIT: I guess what I am asking: did we run into the same issue as many pre-WW1 strategists? Expecting modern technology to deliver swift decisive wars (in part due to our wars with inferior third world forces the same way they machine gunned down natives), whereas in fact with parity forces that technology results in the very opposite.

It also has bearing on 40k. Is a Death Korps of Krieg style battle in a SF-esque setting not completely unrealistic?

[jimmy olsen]

There's parity because the west hasn't equipped Ukraine as well as it could have. If the US had shipped over a couple of hundred F16s, five hundred M1 tanks and ATACMS last summer, the war would be in a very different place now.

[Sheilbh]

EDIT: I guess what I am asking: did we run into the same issue as many pre-WW1 strategists? Expecting modern technology to deliver swift decisive wars (in part due to our wars with inferior third world forces the same way they machine gunned down natives), whereas in fact with parity forces that technology results in the very opposite.

Yeah so this is something I wonder about as well. I should caveat all of this by flagging that I know nothing about the military and don't read military history or books about it.

It just seems like it is at this point easier to fight defensively and that there's swings over time between times (and technology) that favours attack v defence. I wonder if we're in a defensive period - and I wonder what they're thinking in the PLA. There are still those real (western front) WW1 parallels of trenches, defensive positions, artillery - with the addition of, like the plane in WW1, the new aerial presence of drones. I regularly think of that clip of Ukrainian soldiers going through a forest and then spotting a drone just hovering in the middle of the woods.

I know I bang on about drones but I wonder if that is part of the factors here - that it is possible for everyone to be watching everything all along front lines at once? Is that part of why things are favouring defence? Also how does that interact with AI - where, given their IT sectors, I wouldn't be surprised if Russia and Ukraine are pretty solid? You think of part of the rationale of Australia moving to nukes is the fear that Chinese AI analysis of satellite imagery of the Pacific would enable them to track/spot diesel subs, I wonder if with drone imagery of the front lines you've got both sides doing the same.

To what extent is it that the Ukrainians don't have air supremacy? On the other side to what extent have Russia's failures been unique to them or just reflect the challenges of a major military power fighting a war against someone other than a very poor, probably sanctioned state or non-state force (like Iraq, Afghanistan etc)? I'm confident there was Russian hubris - I'm unsure how much whether it's contributing to or helpfully undermining Western (or Chinese) hubris?

[Tamas]

There's parity because the west hasn't equipped Ukraine as well as it could have. If the US had shipped over a couple of hundred F16s, five hundred M1 tanks and ATACMS last summer, the war would be in a very different place now.

Probably but my point is we (as in, the world) have never ever tried that.

Can "couple of hundred of F16s" overcome dozens/hundreds of SAMs sufficiently to provide efficient CAS? If not, can "five hundred M1 tanks" be able to overcome entrenched infantry armed with a comparable number of anti-tank missiles?

If either/both of the above ARE possible, at what cost? What if it takes dozens of F16s lost (vs a negligible cost of SAM missiles) to achieve one local breakthrough, or if actually even Abrams tanks would fall like their WW1 counterparts to achieve that local breakthrough?

[Jacob]

I'm seeing claims that the Ukrainian Secret Service blew up a tunnel on the main (only?) rail line connecting Russia and China.

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/11/30/7431023/

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I'm seeing claims that the Ukrainian Secret Service blew up a tunnel on the main (only?) rail line connecting Russia and China.

https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/11/30/7431023/

saw it too. pretty interesting if the UA can strike so deep.