We were at "Here we go" when you started this thread.
Breathe . . . it only ends one way.
We were at "Here we go" when you started this thread.
Oh come on I'm just having funWe were at "Here we go" when you started this thread.
Breathe . . . it only ends one way.
Of course they are.Flown by NATO/USA pilots?
Supported by Ukraine's "NATO trained 1 year student pilots''?
YEP - 100% a practical move - lots of new troops and training - especially in the use of tactical Nukes would be expected. The type of weapon system you don't want to mess up using.
I think it's more akin to the US art of war is dependent on full air dominance with the use of military aviation as a central part of ground operations. The ground tactics and weapons absent this this key element are found lacking.It is becoming clearer - to any objective viewer - that NATO (US) totally miscalculated how this war was going to go.
NATO (US) weapons and tactics developed over decades fighting goat herders in 3rd world nations did not prepare them for a conflict with a nation that not only had weapons as advanced or better than the West but could also outproduce them.
Good overview on this subject by Larry Johnson based on an excellent article The Attritional Art of War: Lessons from the Russian War on Ukraine
Colonel Alex Vershinin, writing for the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), is out with a stunner of a piece that confirms Russia is light years ahead of NATO’s military establishment.War of Attrition vs War of Manoeuvre
sonar21.com
"Attritional wars require their own ‘Art of War’ and are fought with a ‘force-centric’ approach, unlike wars of manoeuvre which are ‘terrain-focused’. They are rooted in massive industrial capacity to enable the replacement of losses, geographical depth to absorb a series of defeats, and technological conditions that prevent rapid ground movement. In attritional wars, military operations are shaped by a state’s ability to replace losses and generate new formations, not tactical and operational manoeuvres. The side that accepts the attritional nature of war and focuses on destroying enemy forces rather than gaining terrain is most likely to win."
"The West is not prepared for this kind of war. To most Western experts, attritional strategy is counterintuitive. Historically, the West preferred the short ‘winner takes all’ clash of professional armies. Recent war games such as CSIS’s war over Taiwan covered one month of fighting. The possibility that the war would go on never entered the discussion. This is a reflection of a common Western attitude."
"As conflict drags on, the war is won by economies, not armies. States that grasp this and fight such a war via an attritional strategy aimed at exhausting enemy resources while preserving their own are more likely to win. The fastest way to lose a war of attrition is to focus on manoeuvre, expending valuable resources on near-term territorial objectives. Recognising that wars of attrition have their own art is vital to winning them without sustaining crippling losses."
The bottomline is simple — the United States and NATO are not equipped, organized or trained to fight a peer force like Russia or China in a war of attrition. One of the biggest short-comings are the costly, fragile weapons that account for NATO’s supposedly premier means for pursuing a war.
I encourage you to dig into the RUSI report. It makes it very clear why Russia is poised to defeat, not only the Ukrainian military, but NATO as well.
The Attritional Art of War: Lessons from the Russian War on Ukraine
If the West is serious about the possibility of a great power conflict, it needs to take a hard look at its capacity to wage a protracted war and to pursue a strategy focused on attrition rather than manoeuvre.rusi.org
LOL - I know - that's why I pointed out the irony that the guy that started the thread 2 and a half years agoOh come on I'm just having fun
"It is becoming clearer - to any objective viewer - that NATO (US) totally miscalculated how this war was going to go."It is becoming clearer - to any objective viewer - that NATO (US) totally miscalculated how this war was going to go.
NATO (US) weapons and tactics developed over decades fighting goat herders in 3rd world nations did not prepare them for a conflict with a nation that not only had weapons as advanced or better than the West but could also outproduce them.
Good overview on this subject by Larry Johnson based on an excellent article The Attritional Art of War: Lessons from the Russian War on Ukraine
Colonel Alex Vershinin, writing for the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), is out with a stunner of a piece that confirms Russia is light years ahead of NATO’s military establishment.War of Attrition vs War of Manoeuvre
sonar21.com
"Attritional wars require their own ‘Art of War’ and are fought with a ‘force-centric’ approach, unlike wars of manoeuvre which are ‘terrain-focused’. They are rooted in massive industrial capacity to enable the replacement of losses, geographical depth to absorb a series of defeats, and technological conditions that prevent rapid ground movement. In attritional wars, military operations are shaped by a state’s ability to replace losses and generate new formations, not tactical and operational manoeuvres. The side that accepts the attritional nature of war and focuses on destroying enemy forces rather than gaining terrain is most likely to win."
"The West is not prepared for this kind of war. To most Western experts, attritional strategy is counterintuitive. Historically, the West preferred the short ‘winner takes all’ clash of professional armies. Recent war games such as CSIS’s war over Taiwan covered one month of fighting. The possibility that the war would go on never entered the discussion. This is a reflection of a common Western attitude."
"As conflict drags on, the war is won by economies, not armies. States that grasp this and fight such a war via an attritional strategy aimed at exhausting enemy resources while preserving their own are more likely to win. The fastest way to lose a war of attrition is to focus on manoeuvre, expending valuable resources on near-term territorial objectives. Recognising that wars of attrition have their own art is vital to winning them without sustaining crippling losses."
The bottomline is simple — the United States and NATO are not equipped, organized or trained to fight a peer force like Russia or China in a war of attrition. One of the biggest short-comings are the costly, fragile weapons that account for NATO’s supposedly premier means for pursuing a war.
I encourage you to dig into the RUSI report. It makes it very clear why Russia is poised to defeat, not only the Ukrainian military, but NATO as well.
The Attritional Art of War: Lessons from the Russian War on Ukraine
If the West is serious about the possibility of a great power conflict, it needs to take a hard look at its capacity to wage a protracted war and to pursue a strategy focused on attrition rather than manoeuvre.rusi.org
Sometimes the simplest of answers is overlooked. Air Dominance - 100% the foundation and key element in US / NATO ground operations.I think it's more akin to the US art of war is dependent on full air dominance with the use of military aviation as a central part of ground operations. The ground tactics and weapons absent this this key element are found lacking.
Add in new tech such as UAVs of all shapes and sizes and what the west trained for in the Cold War era and unleashed in 1991 and 2003 isn't transferable to the Ukrainian army.
Insider Paper
@TheInsiderPaper
18m
BREAKING: Macron welcomes Chinese ‘commitments’ not to sell any arms to Russia
READ: Macron welcomes Chinese 'commitments' not to sell any arms to Russia
Maybe that should have been - send ANY MORE.S p r i n t e r F a c t o r y
@Sprinterfactory
The French ambassador was summoned to the Russian Foreign Ministry building, and within just minutes of his departure, the French Foreign Ministry issued a statement confirming that France would not send any military forces to Ukraine.
View: https://twitter.com/Sprinterfactory/status/1787482463976989121
I know- or I should say I've been posting on their presence, and losses, for weeks now.Maybe that should have been - send ANY MORE.
New reports that some are already there and have lost 7 troops near / in the current battle for Chasov Yar
Sputnik report - FWIW
French Foreign Legion Possibly Racked Up 'First Losses in Ukraine' - Report
The French Foreign Legion dispatched to Ukraine has possibly sustained its first personnel losses, military correspondent Boris Rozhin stated on Telegram.sputnikglobe.com
Again a possible double edge sword - China could also - to be fair - stop selling drones to Ukraine (their main source)Insider Paper
@TheInsiderPaper
18m
BREAKING: Macron welcomes Chinese ‘commitments’ not to sell any arms to Russia
READ: Macron welcomes Chinese 'commitments' not to sell any arms to Russia
Sometimes the simplest of answers is overlooked. Air Dominance - 100% the foundation and key element in US / NATO ground operations.
What does Ukraine not have and Russia does - YEP Air Dominance.
As for drones - more of a subset of air power. They can help but are not a replacements for Fighters and Bombers.
Effectively at this point Ukraine's front line troops are nothing more than TARGETS for Glide Bombs. Zero way to protect themselves or counter the attacks.
Russia is executing the standard NATO / US playbook. Standoff and hit the opposing troops via Air Power - then send in ground troops to cleanup whatever remains. Nothing complex about this - just the SOP used by the US for decades - now being used on Ukraine - by Russia
Was not commenting on your statement - but France'sI know- or I should say I've been posting on their presence, and losses, for weeks now.
Short o' laying my own eyes on the situation I don't really "know" who's doing what where.
I seem to recall the Frenchies losing about 70 of their first deployed Legionnaires one night when the hotel in Kharkov in which they were billeted was destroyed by a couple of missiles. Maybe a couple weeks or so ago? The various channels were full of reports about ambulances rushing to the scene. More than a few of them were reportedly traveling slowly when leaving the scene, with lights off, indicating that they were probably removing corpses instead of wounded.I know- or I should say I've been posting on their presence, and losses, for weeks now.
Short o' laying my own eyes on the situation I don't really "know" who's doing what where.
Well - there goes Ukraine's #1 plan to defeat Russia
Media: Russia no longer using Crimean Bridge to supply front lines
Media: Russia no longer using Crimean Bridge to supply front lines
The bridge, also called the Kerch Bridge, connects the Russian mainland with the Russian-occupied Crimea peninsula, and has long been a crucial supply route for the Russian military in Ukraine.kyivindependent.com
Russia has stopped using the Crimean Bridge to transport military equipment to the front lines and is instead using overland routes in occupied parts of eastern Ukraine, The Independent and investigative group Molfar reported on May 6.
Well - there goes Ukraine's #1 plan to defeat Russia
Media: Russia no longer using Crimean Bridge to supply front lines
Media: Russia no longer using Crimean Bridge to supply front lines
The bridge, also called the Kerch Bridge, connects the Russian mainland with the Russian-occupied Crimea peninsula, and has long been a crucial supply route for the Russian military in Ukraine.kyivindependent.com
Russia has stopped using the Crimean Bridge to transport military equipment to the front lines and is instead using overland routes in occupied parts of eastern Ukraine, The Independent and investigative group Molfar reported on May 6.
Replacing a few feet of rail track is a LOT easier than replacing damaged road / rail bridge spans.Russian supply lines using their railroads are much easier to disrupt.
Same thing the US does with its NATO Nuke partners - SOP
Here's the translated version.Megatron
@Megatron_ron
Russia has officially warned UK and France that it will target their military bases.
The Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergey Lavrov yesterday summoned the ambassadors of Britain and France and officially informed them that if Ukraine fired long-range missiles, provided by these two countries, on Russian territory, Russia would consider this a declaration of war and targets British and French military bases around the world.
Previously, the UK Secretary of Foreign Affairs, David Cameron, said that Ukraine received permission from the UK for this type of attack.
Yesterday, according to the British media, China hacked their Ministry of Defense and all the downloaded information is already available to Russia.