Interactive Map - Ukraine: https://liveuamap.com/
It looks like the Ukrainians are only 20 miles outside of Kherson. The map looks to me like they will have complete control of the right bank except for Kherson city center shortly after starting their offensive.
The red dot in the center is the Antonivka Bridge and the one on the right is the Nova Kakhovka dam.
I also read that the Ukrainians have destroyed the pontoon crossing again.
So, historically, one of the best ways to revamp your nation has been to lose a war with the USA. Ask Germany and Japan for details, cause I don't fully understand.
Putin is a lot of things, but not an idiot, maybe he is following down this road?
In reply to NOHOME :
Cheap and willing labor, and an interest to keep them busy instead of getting angry and starting another war. But I don't really see that for russia- much more for Ukraine.
But vlad should have taken that choice 20 years ago, and made sure US investment was used properly. It wasn't as if there were not companies trying- I know Ford had a plant in russia.
I'm no cartographer, but I thought it would be helpful to show the Kherson region with scale distance contour markers. The red line is the Dnipro river right bank, the green lines are 1 mile contours and the blue lines are 5 mile contours. No guarantees as to my accuracy. The M777 155mm has a range out to 15 miles I think.
NOHOME said:So, historically, one of the best ways to revamp your nation has been to lose a war with the USA. Ask Germany and Japan for details, cause I don't fully understand.
Putin is a lot of things, but not an idiot, maybe he is following down this road?
Your post reminded me of the mid 50s book, The Mouse That Roared.
In reply to VolvoHeretic :
Range depends on the munitions. The GPS guided stuff is about 28 miles. Standard is around 15 miles.
alfadriver said:Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) said:As to the opposition to our current policy towards supporting Ukraine, my personal opinion is that this opposition is based on being contrary to everything.
I don't agree with that. For the last 6 years, we've gotten news and direction that Putin is a good guy and to ignore our intelligence system. This is just more of that. And that there have been allegations (which may be true- I have no idea) that Ukraine has been bad to the US. More direction to support what Putin and co are doing.
Maybe it was being contrarian 6 years ago... But not anymore.
Interesting. I do still see a lot of contrarianism out there. Some desire to be "in on it" or to believe one is above the fray.
Journalists have deserved their reputation, and politicans have deserved theirs, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the opposite of what they say is true.
tuna55 said:alfadriver said:Floating Doc (Forum Supporter) said:As to the opposition to our current policy towards supporting Ukraine, my personal opinion is that this opposition is based on being contrary to everything.
I don't agree with that. For the last 6 years, we've gotten news and direction that Putin is a good guy and to ignore our intelligence system. This is just more of that. And that there have been allegations (which may be true- I have no idea) that Ukraine has been bad to the US. More direction to support what Putin and co are doing.
Maybe it was being contrarian 6 years ago... But not anymore.
Interesting. I do still see a lot of contrarianism out there. Some desire to be "in on it" or to believe one is above the fray.
Journalists have deserved their reputation, and politicans have deserved theirs, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the opposite of what they say is true.
When it comes to journalism (and politics) we are like the crackheads criticizing the dealers. They are what they are because we lend them our eyeballs and ears. How many of us actively support alternatives? Let's say some nutcase shoots up a school. News organizations will jump right on it and there will be a lot of inaccuracies. If a weapon is designed to be used with two hands, they'll be calling it an assault weapon, until they find out that it's bolt-action, they'll attribute blame incorrectly, et cetera. This is to be expected. If you want something closer to the truth, wait a week.
Is MSNBC or Fox misrepresenting things? That's just what they do. Welcome to the 21st century. Just don't expect your internet source to be the paragon of virtue either.
As for Putin, if he was portrayed correctly as a good guy, I missed it. Anyone with an eye to history knows that he's a predator.
In reply to Kreb (Forum Supporter) :
Are you guys serious that you didn't notice when Putin was made to look like a good guy? I can't go further into that without being political, as it was a politician that lead that whole thing. An very important one.
Color me stunned.
This post has received too many downvotes to be displayed.
In reply to alfadriver :
I mean did you miss where the current MIC blindly nullified everything the previous MIC did on the first day in office because it was done by he previous MIC? How is that no the contrarian perspective? Or is it "ok" because it was "your guy?" The either/or divisiveness has gotten out of hand.
In reply to alfadriver :
You are right to not name names. We don't want to go down that avenue. I probably saw what you are referring to and went "yeaaaaaaah right" and topped it off with an eyeroll.
edit: What Bobzilla describes is SOP anymore.
Some early hints at who might end up in control of Russia if Putin isn't, his right-hand man and conductor of dirty deeds, Yevgeny Prigozhin:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/07/europe/yevgeny-prigozhin-russia-us-election-meddling-intl/index.html
In reply to GameboyRMH :
he seems nice.
bobzilla said:In reply to alfadriver :
I mean did you miss where the current MIC blindly nullified everything the previous MIC did on the first day in office because it was done by he previous MIC? How is that no the contrarian perspective? Or is it "ok" because it was "your guy?" The either/or divisiveness has gotten out of hand.
Tbf the guy before the current guy did it as well. Agreed that it is absolutely ridiculous that it has gotten to the point where if the other party is automatically bad.
bobzilla said:In reply to GameboyRMH :
he seems nice.
In regards to any domestic political shifts. I really don't expect any change in the current support situation. There will always be those who oppose it to some extent weather it be for reasons of isolationism, not supporting wars, or just economic / budget reasons. I think all of those arguments have reasonable and strong rebuttals that reducing aid would very likely make what they are trying to avoid worse (eventually).
I think the big decider really, will be any public opinion shift (as in Europe as O2 has mentioned many times). As in, why is money going there, when it's so bad here (if the looming economic turndown materializes). I would suspect most don't even realize how much is going over there now (same could clearly be said for Afghanistan for many many years). A static war situation will make that worse because as the Ukrainians capture Russian controlled areas, the Russians seem to be very good at providing reasons why we should be supporting the Ukrainians and that's what hits the news.
Update: It looks like the Russians will be backing off the nuke thing a bit... maybe.
The Kremlin’s rhetorical shift indicates that senior Russian military commanders and elements of the Kremlin are likely to some extent aware of the massive costs for little operational gain Russia would incur for the use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine or NATO.
Unsurprisingly, reports are now filtering in that the US is quietly beginning to shape a narrative with Ukraine that the end of this is going to be negotiated, regardless of how hard-nosed Zelensky wants to be. Here's one from the Guardian.
Edit: WSJ Weekend Edition had a piece on quiet high-level contacts between the US and Russia. While these are reported as focusing on risk management and deconfliction, the fact that they are occurring makes clear that the US does not view the end-game here as a purely battlefield decision. The fact that they are being reported (and acknowledged) publicly strongly suggests that the US wants to reinforce to Ukraine that they should be thinking about conflict resolution, not indefinite fighting to achieve every last objective, no matter how long it takes.
In reply to 02Pilot :
Care to guess what a negotiation between Russia and Ukraine would look like?
In reply to VolvoHeretic :
...is that not what we have been observing for the past eight-nine months?
In reply to VolvoHeretic :
Zelensky announced recently that his government would not negotiate with the current leadership of Russia, so it's a bit of an abstract question. That said, I also think this was an attempt to try to lock in US support in the event of a policy shift following the midterms; I do not think it will accomplish that, however. The US and some European countries are not at the point of openly pressing Ukraine to come up with an exit strategy other that total victory, but it's clear that Zelensky wants to try to rope Ukraine's benefactors into supporting his preferred policy, and he's trying to establish and maximize his position by using the press to push his narrative. This only works for as long as the West is unwilling to contradict him publicly; this will not last forever.
Sooner or later, negotiations will happen. Zelensky's high-risk approach is putting at risk his position at the table, though I'm sure there will be a large window of opportunity for him to come around and join the party. If he continues to hold the line, Ukraine will end up having to accept whatever the US and Russia end up agreeing on, like it or not.
In the event the Ukraine does decide to negotiate directly with Russia, it will take a lot to get the two sides to see anything like eye-to-eye on basically all of the major issues at hand. It may not be possible at all until one side or the other has achieved an insurmountable advantage, but I don't think the West will remain willing to wait for that in any case. As I've said before, I think the US and to a lesser extent NATO hold all the cards here, and should be the ones to negotiate with Russia, or at least shape the parameters of those negotiations. The biggest problem I see is reining in Ukraine's ambitions, not working out a deal with the Russians.
I have a hard time visualizing the current administration negotiating anything with Poopin the butcher.
In reply to VolvoHeretic :
US admin or Ukrainian? I would argue that, under the right circumstances, negotiations are always possible. That said, some situations are much more conducive to productive talks than others.
l am all pro Ukraine but why should the US be negotiating? If anything that only helps Putin shore up his "omgz teh West is united against us at every turn" narrative.
So, I've enjoyed listening to Perun's analysis of the Ukraine/Russia war.
One of the interesting points I'm seeing come up regularly that I think is going to have a major shift in how battles are fought in the future is the way drones are used and the ECONOMY of them.
Drone weapon systems are cheap.
They may not be super capable. They may be easily outmatched by a bunch of other existing high-tech weapon systems. But it seems like 8 times/10, they are *cheaper* than the munitions needed to shoot them down.
They may be *easy* to counter, but they're *expensive* to counter. And so it's sort of a case where, even if a drone attack is unsuccesful, it's still successful because you've depleted your enemy's ability to fight more than you've depleted your own.
You'll need to log in to post.
