I really wish we would turn 'war fatigue' into a commitment to ending this war with a total defeat for Russia as soon as possible. The slow trickle of sanctions for Russia and slow trickle of...
I really wish we would turn 'war fatigue' into a commitment to ending this war with a total defeat for Russia as soon as possible. The slow trickle of sanctions for Russia and slow trickle of weapons for Ukraine is dragging this war on far longer than necessary. At this point I'm willing to bet that Russia doesn't have the balls to use nukes and just go all in.
We could deliver Ukraine 1,000 Abrams tomorrow and it wouldn't necessarily prompt a total defeat for Russia. Training, strategy, and the nature of offensive vs défensive operations all need to be...
We could deliver Ukraine 1,000 Abrams tomorrow and it wouldn't necessarily prompt a total defeat for Russia. Training, strategy, and the nature of offensive vs défensive operations all need to be factored in. The Ukrainian counteroffensive this summer didn't really change the battle lines, despite all the main battle tanks they'd received. And, of course, Russia didn't win at the beginning despite all of the main battle tanks they had.
(this is not an argument for reducing arms deliveries to Ukraine.)
Neither side has been able to use armor effectively. Drones are monitoring the front line and as soon as armour starts to amass it gets liquidated by precision munitions like artillery or rocket...
Neither side has been able to use armor effectively. Drones are monitoring the front line and as soon as armour starts to amass it gets liquidated by precision munitions like artillery or rocket fires. From what I've read, the absolute most important thing the West can do for Ukraine is make them flush with artillery rounds and platforms. US, Europe and allies need to enable industry to scale to wartime volumes by awarding longterm contracts to manufacturers.
Hard to say. I'm no military expert, but I think it's doubtful even the US could achieve the air superiority that it normally has? Seems like the US has only fought second-rate air defenses.
Hard to say. I'm no military expert, but I think it's doubtful even the US could achieve the air superiority that it normally has? Seems like the US has only fought second-rate air defenses.
You can read the report on the US' assessment of Iraqi air defense in 2003. The short of it is that Iraq possessed a competent integrated air-defense network, including several hundred combat...
Seems like the US has only fought second-rate air defenses
You can read the report on the US' assessment of Iraqi air defense in 2003.
The short of it is that Iraq possessed a competent integrated air-defense network, including several hundred combat aircraft. They launched well over a thousand surface-to-air missiles at coalition forces before the network was destroyed. Despite this, the Iraqis managed to down only 7 manned coalition aircraft.
It's difficult to draw comparisons in war, but the 2003 air war between the US and Iraq is kind of similar to the 2022 air war between Russia and Ukraine, in terms of comparative strength. Both involved a modern power fighting offensively against somewhat dated Russian equipment. The difference, of course, is the outcome: the US established air superiority almost instantaneously and Russia did not.
To @kjw 's comment, I can't agree that jets would make a huge difference. I hearken back to the exact example above: even with superior technology, Russia couldn't establish air superiority. That suggests that america doesn't dominate because of their planes1, it dominates because of the pilot and the whole system of air war that the pilot lives in. Ukraine doesn't have either.
1 This is changing with the F35. It does in fact appear to be that good.
Just wanted to add on to this- At the end of the day, troops on the ground are required. A lot of people think you can just "bomb them away" and basically no war has ever worked that way. While I...
Just wanted to add on to this-
At the end of the day, troops on the ground are required. A lot of people think you can just "bomb them away" and basically no war has ever worked that way. While I absolutely think the US, should it mobilize it's aircraft carriers and full forces, could establish air superiority over the areas they'd like, it wouldn't change the fact that you still have miles and miles of extremely defended hellish terrain. You'd have an easier time dealing with large emplacements, but I don't think people understand just how extremely grueling it would still be, and how Russia could adapt its tactics to deal with this.
And that's BEFORE you get into the weather which essentially gets to cause a rain delay every winter while conditions become too awful to even attempt to take ground, where of course Russia just beefs everything up even more.
These conflicts are immensely complicated logistical nightmares and there's really no "quick" way to end it barring going nuclear (which I would strongly recommend against given the whole, everyone could die, outcome)
Jets can be used to fire longer-range missles to Russia's deeper hidden military infrastructure. It can't be reached using artillery,.however jets.could make a difference here.
Jets can be used to fire longer-range missles to Russia's deeper hidden military infrastructure. It can't be reached using artillery,.however jets.could make a difference here.
The summer offensive didn't achieve its goals because it was pushed back to the summer due to shortages in armor and a lack of air support. If we'd committed tanks and jets early in the war, the...
The summer offensive didn't achieve its goals because it was pushed back to the summer due to shortages in armor and a lack of air support. If we'd committed tanks and jets early in the war, the offensive would have launched much earlier in the year, and Russia wouldn't have had time to build its extensive fortifications and mine fields that are now causing problems.
We're now in a situation where a thousand tanks wouldn't turn the tide immediately because we didn't commit a thousand tanks a year and a half ago. That's why I think we should just commit to doing whatever it takes to win as quickly as possible.
Despite tentative signs that the West is reacting to try and frustrate Russia’s workarounds, the authorities in Greece argue they are powerless to prevent these clandestine shipping activities taking place just off the nation’s coast. They happen in international waters that begin six miles from its shoreline in the Laconian Gulf, the stretch of water where the Turba and Simba came together.
Spain, another EU member state, was able to stamp out similar activity earlier this year, leaving Greece — the world's single largest oil tanker-owning nation — as a crucial outlier. Operating under the price cap, Greek-owned vessels handled more of Moscow’s oil this year than rivals from any other individual country except Russia itself.
The Greek owners were able to stay in the trade — without breaking EU rules — after the country’s diplomats successfully lobbied other member states to water down measures that would have otherwise restricted the shippers’ ability to trade with Russia. Greek vessels have carried 20% of all Russia’s oil shipments so far in 2023 and almost a third of its exports of the flagship grade Urals crude, according to shipping data.
How long that will continue is uncertain. The International Maritime Organization, the watchdog that oversees shipping, said on Wednesday that the illegal activities of the shadow fleet of oil tankers present a “grave concern” for environmental safety, and called for a global clampdown. It asked member states to promote actions to prevent illegal operations in the maritime sector by the shadow fleet. Without mentioning Russia by name, the IMO noted that the ships “pose a real and high risk of incident, particularly when engaging in ship-to-ship transfers.”
...
Official Indian customs data show that the price paid for Russian oil averaged $72 a barrel this year by the time it reached the Asian country. That is $12 higher than prices declared at the point of export in Russia, according to data compiled by the KSE Institute, part of the Kyiv School of Economics and a supporter of tough sanctions on Moscow. Argus Media data, used to inform G-7 policy, show a similar gap since March. Given that Russia has exported close to 3.5 million barrels of oil a day this year, it means that about $11 billion is going into what might be called a delivery spread. Some of that will represent legitimate shipping costs, but almost all of it goes through anonymous traders or unknown shipping companies.
...
This has not gone unnoticed. Since Oct. 12 the US Treasury has sanctioned eight oil tankers for breaching the price cap, six were owned by Russia’s Sovcomflot, the state-backed oil tanker company. US authorities have also written to operators of about 100 ships asking for information about potential price-cap violations. The EU is exploring the introduction of a notification system that would require its authorization to sell or export tankers and second-hand carriers. That could make it harder for member states such as Greece to sell tankers into the shadow fleet. The UK has also sanctioned a Dubai-based oil trader over its opaque ownership structure.
...
The ultimate question is whether the US and its allies really want to curtail Russian oil flows, something that would potentially drive up global fuel prices — in an election year for Biden. If they don’t, and that’s the belief among many oil traders and analysts, then Moscow has workarounds it can employ: from its shadow fleet to encouraging Western service providers to turn a blind eye to potentially false attestations from traders about the price at which they are buying oil.
I really wish we would turn 'war fatigue' into a commitment to ending this war with a total defeat for Russia as soon as possible. The slow trickle of sanctions for Russia and slow trickle of weapons for Ukraine is dragging this war on far longer than necessary. At this point I'm willing to bet that Russia doesn't have the balls to use nukes and just go all in.
We could deliver Ukraine 1,000 Abrams tomorrow and it wouldn't necessarily prompt a total defeat for Russia. Training, strategy, and the nature of offensive vs défensive operations all need to be factored in. The Ukrainian counteroffensive this summer didn't really change the battle lines, despite all the main battle tanks they'd received. And, of course, Russia didn't win at the beginning despite all of the main battle tanks they had.
(this is not an argument for reducing arms deliveries to Ukraine.)
Neither side has been able to use armor effectively. Drones are monitoring the front line and as soon as armour starts to amass it gets liquidated by precision munitions like artillery or rocket fires. From what I've read, the absolute most important thing the West can do for Ukraine is make them flush with artillery rounds and platforms. US, Europe and allies need to enable industry to scale to wartime volumes by awarding longterm contracts to manufacturers.
But if we delivered them jets, that would make huge difference.
Hard to say. I'm no military expert, but I think it's doubtful even the US could achieve the air superiority that it normally has? Seems like the US has only fought second-rate air defenses.
You can read the report on the US' assessment of Iraqi air defense in 2003.
The short of it is that Iraq possessed a competent integrated air-defense network, including several hundred combat aircraft. They launched well over a thousand surface-to-air missiles at coalition forces before the network was destroyed. Despite this, the Iraqis managed to down only 7 manned coalition aircraft.
It's difficult to draw comparisons in war, but the 2003 air war between the US and Iraq is kind of similar to the 2022 air war between Russia and Ukraine, in terms of comparative strength. Both involved a modern power fighting offensively against somewhat dated Russian equipment. The difference, of course, is the outcome: the US established air superiority almost instantaneously and Russia did not.
To @kjw 's comment, I can't agree that jets would make a huge difference. I hearken back to the exact example above: even with superior technology, Russia couldn't establish air superiority. That suggests that america doesn't dominate because of their planes1, it dominates because of the pilot and the whole system of air war that the pilot lives in. Ukraine doesn't have either.
1 This is changing with the F35. It does in fact appear to be that good.
Just wanted to add on to this-
At the end of the day, troops on the ground are required. A lot of people think you can just "bomb them away" and basically no war has ever worked that way. While I absolutely think the US, should it mobilize it's aircraft carriers and full forces, could establish air superiority over the areas they'd like, it wouldn't change the fact that you still have miles and miles of extremely defended hellish terrain. You'd have an easier time dealing with large emplacements, but I don't think people understand just how extremely grueling it would still be, and how Russia could adapt its tactics to deal with this.
And that's BEFORE you get into the weather which essentially gets to cause a rain delay every winter while conditions become too awful to even attempt to take ground, where of course Russia just beefs everything up even more.
These conflicts are immensely complicated logistical nightmares and there's really no "quick" way to end it barring going nuclear (which I would strongly recommend against given the whole, everyone could die, outcome)
Jets can be used to fire longer-range missles to Russia's deeper hidden military infrastructure. It can't be reached using artillery,.however jets.could make a difference here.
The summer offensive didn't achieve its goals because it was pushed back to the summer due to shortages in armor and a lack of air support. If we'd committed tanks and jets early in the war, the offensive would have launched much earlier in the year, and Russia wouldn't have had time to build its extensive fortifications and mine fields that are now causing problems.
We're now in a situation where a thousand tanks wouldn't turn the tide immediately because we didn't commit a thousand tanks a year and a half ago. That's why I think we should just commit to doing whatever it takes to win as quickly as possible.
From the article:
...
...
...