History in the Making: Russian Invasion

stroker said:

Okay, so if you were the commander of Ukrainian forces (or Russia, if you swing that way...), what would you do to break the stalemate?  We're basically replaying WWI so we need to introduce something as revolutionary as the tank.

 

Something on the order of "Radio Free Russia" where un-altered news can be broadcast into every metropolitian area in Russia with out interfearence from the Russian State.

Likely?  No.

In reply to stroker :

Yeah, interesting question.   I would have to say, I don't have much to offer beyond what the Ukrainian general said.  They are in a situation where the enemy is entrenched and they cannot use a large amount of armor / vehicles, thus requiring a slow advance, which of course allows Russia to simply build more lines of defense as you penetrate them.

The only real short term ability to "win" at this point that I see, is to somehow get Russia to internally fall apart, but that is a huge hill to climb, and the results might even be worse.

A branch to that question would be: How would the US do it.  Well.. they would do what they do, get air superiority, and work from there.  Start by destroying the Russian air defense, which at this point, knowing what they know, would not likley be terribly difficult (the Ukrainians are doing a pretty good job at it now even with their limited resources).  This would make large vehicle movement far more practical, especially with close air support, and the potential to rapidly breach defenses lines and exploit the rear area (add teenage laugh here).

The only concern I would have with the US, would be how they deal with all the drones, which is a new thing and I am not sure the US currently has the EW assets to fully counter them, but I sure there are some counters.

Could Ukraine do what the US would do with enough support? I suspect, but it will take quite a long time to get to that point (e.g. they are saying F16 will likely not be in the sky in Ukraine until next summer) and by that time, who knows where the Russians will be with drones and artillery, both of which they are setting up to build large amounts of and have been the prime players so far in the battlefield.

stroker said:

Okay, so if you were the commander of Ukrainian forces (or Russia, if you swing that way...), what would you do to break the stalemate?  We're basically replaying WWI so we need to introduce something as revolutionary as the tank.

The tank wasn't really all that effective in WWI, certainly not in an operational sense, and German infiltration tactics were arguably more effective locally. Strategically, the real damage was done by the blockades (Royal Navy and U-boat) and shipping Lenin to Russia to start a revolution and knock the Czar out of the war.

Obviously, this is a very different situation, and the chances of anything truly war-winning appearing are extremely low. I don't know that Ukraine has much to work with; they've had some success developing useful weapons, but they are largely dependent on the West for theater-level hardware, and the West is reluctant to send them anything too capable for fear of escalation. While it might have potential, there's really not much opportunity for an Inchon-style end-around on either side. Short of gaining complete air superiority, and equipping and training up an airmobile division or three, then dropping them in behind Russian lines, I can't think of anything that would materially alter the situation on the ground.

As for the Russians, they can play the waiting game almost indefinitely.

02Pilot said:

stroker said:

Okay, so if you were the commander of Ukrainian forces (or Russia, if you swing that way...), what would you do to break the stalemate?  We're basically replaying WWI so we need to introduce something as revolutionary as the tank.

The tank wasn't really all that effective in WWI, certainly not in an operational sense, and German infiltration tactics were arguably more effective locally. Strategically, the real damage was done by the blockades (Royal Navy and U-boat) and shipping Lenin to Russia to start a revolution and knock the Czar out of the war.

Obviously, this is a very different situation, and the chances of anything truly war-winning appearing are extremely low. I don't know that Ukraine has much to work with; they've had some success developing useful weapons, but they are largely dependent on the West for theater-level hardware, and the West is reluctant to send them anything too capable for fear of escalation. While it might have potential, there's really not much opportunity for an Inchon-style end-around on either side. Short of gaining complete air superiority, and equipping and training up an airmobile division or three, then dropping them in behind Russian lines, I can't think of anything that would materially alter the situation on the ground.

As for the Russians, they can play the waiting game almost indefinitely.

Sounds to me like the Ukes need to start looking really hard at (very unpleasant) asymmetrical stuff.  The sort of thing the Chechens did... 

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

Keep telling me I don't understand without ever explaining it or defining it.  Suppression of speech is censorship and repugnant to The Constitution.

Rights are innate, they are something we have by virtue of being people.  "life, liberty, property" is the classic set of three (note that "property" got turned into "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence, something to do with the debate about slavery at the time).  Since they are innate everyone has these rights and in order for that to be possible one person cannot have a right that tramples on the rights of another person.  Social media is property -- the servers, disk space, network bandwidth, etc are all private property.  One person's right to liberty (freedom of speech is a form of liberty) ends when it reaches another person's right to property (social media or this forum).

From a rights perspective, posting to social media is not really any different from putting up a message on a billboard.  The government isn't allowed to say what you can and cannot post, but you do need the permission of the owner of the property that you are using.  On the billboard you get that permission by renting it, on social media you get it by agreeing to and following the terms of service.

As for the Constitution, that document is not about granting rights.  Governments don't grant rights, people have those rights innately and governments PROTECT those rights (at least, proper governments do).  The Constitution is a document about setting up a government designed to accomplish that protection of rights.

codrus (Forum Supporter) said:

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

Keep telling me I don't understand without ever explaining it or defining it.  Suppression of speech is censorship and repugnant to The Constitution.

Rights are innate, they are something we have by virtue of being people.  "life, liberty, property" is the classic set of three (note that "property" got turned into "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence, something to do with the debate about slavery at the time).  Since they are innate everyone has these rights and in order for that to be possible one person cannot have a right that tramples on the rights of another person.  Social media is property -- the servers, disk space, network bandwidth, etc are all private property.  One person's right to liberty (freedom of speech is a form of liberty) ends when it reaches another person's right to property (social media or this forum).

From a rights perspective, posting to social media is not really any different from putting up a message on a billboard.  The government isn't allowed to say what you can and cannot post, but you do need the permission of the owner of the property that you are using.  On the billboard you get that permission by renting it, on social media you get it by agreeing to and following the terms of service.

As for the Constitution, that document is not about granting rights.  Governments don't grant rights, people have those rights innately and governments PROTECT those rights (at least, proper governments do).  The Constitution is a document about setting up a government designed to accomplish that protection of rights.

This is the prevailing interpretation under US law.

For the record, "repugnant to the Constitution" is taken from Marbury v. Madison (1803), and that case has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

....And everything to do with ambiguity.

Perhaps the Suddards should label it the "shut the berkeley up" button. 

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

volvoclearinghouse said:

z31maniac said:

volvoclearinghouse said:

z31maniac said:

I'm curious why Frenchy is banned and not captain "I don't understand the 1st Amendment."

That argument made sense prior to social media.  

I don't want to derail this thread too much, but I have no idea what you mean. Social media didn't really start until almost 20 years ago. If you're in the "I don't understand the 1st Amendment" camp, I don't know that I can help you. 

If you're in the "Free speech only applies to the government and not to private social media companies" camp, I don't know that I can help you.  

Keep telling me I don't understand without ever explaining it or defining it.  Suppression of speech is censorship and repugnant to The Constitution.  In case you are wondering "repugnant to The Constitution" is a direct quote from a very important decision on this very topic.  Just because something is en vogue, socially acceptable and even praised, doesn't make it right or even legal.  I know you love that it happens to me and not some of you.  I get that, but the fact you don't see that it will happen to you is quite baffling.  There is a history teacher in this thread.  Maybe he can explain it.  These things have a way of going out of control if left unchecked. 

So are we in another long drawn out war again?  Who could've seen that coming? 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I'm also curious about these laws Opti is mentioning, without citation, indicating that I can't control what happens on my property. 

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :

So I can use my private property to trample your innate rights?  Is that that your  contention? That's a pretty spicy take on things given certain types  of property in this country.  

Not at all.  I have no innate right to free speech on YOUR property, or anyone else's except my own and public property.  This forum, or Facebook, or [ insert social media platform of the year ] are not public property.

I can't infringe your right to say what you wish.  But I sure has hell can keep you off my soapbox if I don't like what you say.

Back on the actual topic, the Ukrainians are once again pushing hard in public statements for longer-range and more capable weapons, including the German Taurus ALCM and the longer-range variants of ATACMS. While this is to some degree understandable, the concern over escalation is quite real, as the fundamental fact is that the Russia has no absolute requirement to maintain bases on occupied territory. Certainly, doing so enables greater tactical flexibility and concentration of forces, but if those bases are under constant threat, forces can be relocated safely inside Russia indefinitely. Forcing them out of occupied Ukraine is not likely to be enough to enable major Ukrainian success, and all Russia has to do is more or less maintain the status quo.

This is very similar to the problem the US faced in both Korea and Vietnam, with enemy forces being supplied and based outside the country (Soviet pilots based in the USSR flew over Korea and engaged US aircraft repeatedly, and North Vietnamese forces relied on base areas in Cambodia and Laos). With those bases off-limits - violating the terms of agreement with Western governments not to use supplied weapons to strike into Russia proper would be the quickest way for Ukraine to lose the war, short of surrendering - the question has to be asked why to risk delivering longer-range weapons in the first place. I have yet to hear any cogent argument from Ukraine addressing this question. All their statements talk of "breaking the stalemate," but unless they intend to hit Russia directly, I don't know how longer-range capability is going to matter.

I am certain that, with the 2nd anniversary quickly coming up on the horizon, there are those in Ukraine that would like to lob a few hundred western specials at Moscow just to keep them "honest" 

I am not sure how this request is even viable. There's couldn't be any other reason than possibly attacking the front from Kyiv could there? 

In reply to 02Pilot :

It would have the potential to free up homebrewed weapons for use over the border into Russia.  I know they don't really have a ton, other than small drones, some old S200 rockets, and their Neptunes, but having sufficient weapons to fight in the "allowed" area would free their own (admittedly small) defense industry to focus more on cross border weapon manufacturing.

In reply to eastsideTim :

It's a fair point, but how much range do they really need? I mean, sure, if they want to mount a sustained effort to knock out the Kerch bridge they would benefit from the longer-range unitary warhead ATACMS (Taurus is good too, but there are only so many Fencers to hang them on, and conversion is anticipated to take up to six months if and when approval is given for export by Germany). Other than that, and maybe a few airfields that are outside the range of what they have now, I don't see the need, and certainly don't think they would be capable of breaking the stalemate in any case.

If their domestic industry can come up with something besides drones to hit Russia, I'm sure they'll be encouraged to build as many as they can. Aside from Neptune and some conversion work, however, I don't know of any other ongoing R&D. I haven't heard anything to suggest that they're working on any theater-level systems, but of course such info would be held close in any case.

It seems like things are settling into a stalemate right now. The Russian strategy of mining the heck out of everything seems to be pretty effective. So what's the next step?  

I blame the worthless West including my guy, the old fart in the White House for not giving Ukraine what they need to kick Putin's $##. We never wanted Ukraine to win. They all suck.

VolvoHeretic said:

In reply to Opti :

Trump is in bed with Vlad the Impaler, Biden is just afraid to make waves. I would threaten Putin with nuclear antihalation and call his bluff. You Russian apologists are just in-bed fascists.

Ummm, wow.