Whatever the technicalities it seems pretty obvious to me even as someone who couldn't tell his F16 from his Abram, that this is going to be stalemate or a long haul.
Hence my 'it'll all be over by Christmas' jibe.
I think I may have mentioned before that this has gone down in UK history at least as the overly optimistic prediction many were making in August 1914. Four years later...
Turns out the Abrams tank as a problem that could render them useless if the Ukrainian crews don't perform a critical maintenance task. The filters on the turbines have to be cleared every 12 hours. The turbines suck in a lot of air. If the dust and debris in the air gets into the turbines, they will seize up. Tank crews will have to blow back the filters every 12 hours to clear them. This can be done in the middle of a battle, but the question is will the Ukrainian crews remember to do that. Details here.
I am surprised no one mentioned this before now.
No one where? They aren't in use, so what's the problem?
I don't think it is obvious that it will be a stalemate or a long haul. One side could always collapse internally. In fact I feel that's the most likely way that the war will eventually end. A few months ago I had hoped that side would be Russia but I fear that the longer the war goes on the more likely it is that it will be Ukraine - not that the Ukrainian people will lack the will to fight but that the government and army may succumb to in-fighting and lose effectiveness. I hope I am proved wrong.
Why would that happen? How could it happen? Open questions. I agree it can't possibly happen to Russia. It didn't happen to Nazi Germany. Who has it ever happened to? C1st Judea?
I don't think it is obvious that it will be a stalemate or a long haul. One side could always collapse internally. In fact I feel that's the most likely way that the war will eventually end. A few months ago I had hoped that side would be Russia but I fear that the longer the war goes on the more likely it is that it will be Ukraine - not that the Ukrainian people will lack the will to fight but that the government and army may succumb to in-fighting and lose effectiveness. I hope I am proved wrong.
No doubt, there are factions with the Ukrainian Politics, but they are united against a common enemy at this moment. It is my argument the invading force is not as motivated as the defending force to win the battle,
Of note, whenever Russian forces have lost a war, their government collapses. When they pulled out of Afghanistan, the communist regime collapsed. There was a brief democratic moment, then the oligarchs and Putin took over. If they end up pulling out of Ukraine, Putin and company will also collapse.
Why would that happen? How could it happen? Open questions. I agree it can't possibly happen to Russia. It didn't happen to Nazi Germany. Who has it ever happened to? C1st Judea?
Why would that happen? How could it happen? Open questions. I agree it can't possibly happen to Russia. It didn't happen to Nazi Germany. Who has it ever happened to? C1st Judea?
Imperial Germany. Imperial Russia.
I thought of both. Imperial Germany was blockaded in to collapse. Not before it sent Lenin to start the Russian Revolution. Not analogous are they?
They could be analogous. They were under prolonged terrible strain, which they endured for several years but not indefinitely. The thing that produces the actual breaking strain could be one thing, it could be another, but perhaps is in a way irrelevant - it is the long strain that goes before that does the worse damage.
BTW I would argue that Imperial Germany did not collapse as such, but rather made bad strategic decisions under pressure that made military defeat inevitable. There was eventually a revolution as well but that was not really what led to the defeat IMO.
Turns out the Abrams tank as a problem that could render them useless if the Ukrainian crews don't perform a critical maintenance task. The filters on the turbines have to be cleared every 12 hours. The turbines suck in a lot of air. If the dust and debris in the air gets into the turbines, they will seize up. Tank crews will have to blow back the filters every 12 hours to clear them. This can be done in the middle of a battle, but the question is will the Ukrainian crews remember to do that. Details here.
I am surprised no one mentioned this before now.
All tanks have massive engines that suck in a lot of air, and hence filters that clog quite rapidly. The M-1 filters may clog more rapidly than for other tanks, but it's not going to be a totally unknown maintenance requirement for the tank crews. I still remember changing air filters on my car, one of the regular maintenance tasks needed for any internal combustion engine.
Of more importance is the question of the utility of main battle tanks in modern warfare. They're designed to operate in large mobile units, with support from and supporting infantry, along with artillery and air cover. A classic example of preparing to fight the last war ... there was a lot of Cold War dogma that if it got hot then there'd be Kursk-like massive tank battles in Poland and eastern Germany. The M-1 (and T-90, Challenger etc) were designed for that sort of battle, and of course that's basically how they were deployed in the shock and awe phase of the Gulf Wars. It's not the battle that Russia and Ukraine are fighting. The Ukrainians not only need to learn to operate the M-1, including filter clearing schedules, but also work out a sensible way to use them in the trench warfare of the front line. In Iraq, after the toppling of Saddam, the M-1 proved vulnerable in urban warfare against ISIS and other groups, anti-tank weapons fired at close range when fighters get close. In Afghanistan they were vulnerable to IEDs, and presumably mines would pose similar problems. Israel has a very advanced military, but a relatively small number of tanks because their expected use is in close contact in urban areas, exactly the conditions where tanks are most vulnerable and least value.
They could be held back from close contact with entrenched defenders and their associated land mines - but then they'll just be mobile artillery and probably dedicated mobile artillery units would be more effective. Unless there's a break through large enough to provide a mine-free corridor that tanks can move through to fill the mobile armour role they're designed for, Ukraine will need to do some improvisation to use them. The same would be true of Russian forces and their T-90s.
@TurquoiseTastic, they ran out of ammo. But I agree on the strain. That resolves itself in internal discipline, the militarization of society; a willing eusocial hive switch, as long as resources hold out. Unless society is just too decadent, corrupt, weak.
I grant that Ukraine likely will not use them until they establish air superiority--thus the F16.
They did prove their worth in open desert warfare. I would need to know more information about close in warfare.
Of note, the rate of destruction of the M1s in combat is quite low. Crew survivability is very good. There is a story of Iraqi militants hitting a Abrams in the weapons storage area which caused the Abrams weapons to explode, but the tank crew survived.
The Abrams has an anti mine system that can clear mines as they advance. The trick is not to get off the cleard track.
@TurquoiseTastic, they ran out of ammo. But I agree on the strain. That resolves itself in internal discipline, the militarization of society; a willing eusocial hive switch, as long as resources hold out. Unless society is just too decadent, corrupt, weak.
Strain. Including political vs. military division.
I hear the British Daily Telegraph is reporting the Abrams has been sent to the frontlines. Sadly, the Telegraph is behind a paywall; but, at least I can pull up the headline:
I hear the British Daily Telegraph is reporting the Abrams has been sent to the frontlines. Sadly, the Telegraph is behind a paywall; but, at least I can pull up the headline:
I hear the British Daily Telegraph is reporting the Abrams has been sent to the frontlines. Sadly, the Telegraph is behind a paywall; but, at least I can pull up the headline:
Yep. To defend. Not offend.
When you consider the Ukrainians are working to reclaim land that had been theirs from the beginning, yes to defend their land.
I hear the British Daily Telegraph is reporting the Abrams has been sent to the frontlines. Sadly, the Telegraph is behind a paywall; but, at least I can pull up the headline:
Yep. To defend. Not offend.
When you consider the Ukrainians are working to reclaim land that had been theirs from the beginning, yes to defend their land.
How about just since the borders of the nations of the former USSR were established after the collapse of the Soviet empire? Which, of course, basically follow the borders of the various republics in the USSR prior to then. Any attempt to change borders that have been established by mutual agreement based on ancient history is bound to create massive problems. Whether that's asking if Crimea is part of Ukraine based just on the decision in the 1950s to pass that land over to the Ukrainian Socialist Republic, or whether when Scotland votes for independence could we claim Berwick on historical precedent as well.
Why would that happen? How could it happen? Open questions. I agree it can't possibly happen to Russia. It didn't happen to Nazi Germany. Who has it ever happened to? C1st Judea?
I want to start with the observation I offer whenever I am asked (and being a Romanist, this happens frequently) ‘why did Rome fall?’ which is to note that in asking that question we are essentially asking the wrong question or at least a less interesting one. This will, I promise, come back to our core question about diversity and the fall of Rome but first we need to frame this issue correctly, because Rome fell for the same reason all empires fall: gravity.
An analogy, if you will. Imagine I were to build a bridge over a stream and for twenty years the bridge stays up and then one day, quite unexpectedly, the bridge collapses. We can ask why the bridge fell down, but the fundamental force of gravity which caused its collapse was always working on the bridge. As we all know from our physics classes, the force of gravity was always active on the bridge and so some other set of forces, channeled through structural elements was needed to be continually resisting that downward pressure. What we really want to know is ‘what force which was keeping the bridge up in such an unnaturally elevated position stopped?’ Perhaps some key support rotted away? Perhaps rain and weather shifted the ground so that what once was a stable position twenty years ago was no longer stable? Or perhaps the steady work of gravity itself slowly strained the materials, imperceptibly at first, until material fatigue finally collapse the bridge. Whatever the cause, we need to begin by conceding that, as normal as they may seem to us, bridges are not generally some natural construction, but rather a deeply unnatural one, which must be held up and maintained through continual effort; such a thing may fail even if no one actively destroys it, merely by lack of maintenance or changing conditions.
Large, prosperous and successful states are always and everywhere like that bridge: they are unnatural social organizations, elevated above the misery and fragmentation that is the natural state of humankind only by great effort; gravity ever tugs them downward. Of course when states collapse there are often many external factors that play a role, like external threats, climate shifts or economic changes, though in many cases these are pressures that the state in question has long endured. Consequently, the more useful question is not why they fall, but why they stay up at all.
I hear the British Daily Telegraph is reporting the Abrams has been sent to the frontlines. Sadly, the Telegraph is behind a paywall; but, at least I can pull up the headline:
Yep. To defend. Not offend.
When you consider the Ukrainians are working to reclaim land that had been theirs from the beginning, yes to defend their land.
Since the C9th? No.
I think you just contradicted yourself.
Regardless. You admit the Russian only hold 20% of Ukrainian land. Didn't Putin say he would have all of Ukraine within 30 days?
I know you are keeping tabs. How many days has it been now?
I hear the British Daily Telegraph is reporting the Abrams has been sent to the frontlines. Sadly, the Telegraph is behind a paywall; but, at least I can pull up the headline:
Yep. To defend. Not offend.
When you consider the Ukrainians are working to reclaim land that had been theirs from the beginning, yes to defend their land.
Since the C9th? No.
I think you just contradicted yourself.
Regardless. You admit the Russian only hold 20% of Ukrainian land. Didn't Putin say he would have all of Ukraine within 30 days?
I know you are keeping tabs. How many days has it been now?
How?
The Abrams are just being used defensively in the 80% of Ukraine occupied by Ukraine. They cannot be used defensively in the 20% occupied by Russia. They would have to be offensive first. And they would all be destroyed. Before they could defend the 20% they've lost and taken back.
Why would that happen? How could it happen? Open questions. I agree it can't possibly happen to Russia. It didn't happen to Nazi Germany. Who has it ever happened to? C1st Judea?
I want to start with the observation I offer whenever I am asked (and being a Romanist, this happens frequently) ‘why did Rome fall?’ which is to note that in asking that question we are essentially asking the wrong question or at least a less interesting one. This will, I promise, come back to our core question about diversity and the fall of Rome but first we need to frame this issue correctly, because Rome fell for the same reason all empires fall: gravity.
An analogy, if you will. Imagine I were to build a bridge over a stream and for twenty years the bridge stays up and then one day, quite unexpectedly, the bridge collapses. We can ask why the bridge fell down, but the fundamental force of gravity which caused its collapse was always working on the bridge. As we all know from our physics classes, the force of gravity was always active on the bridge and so some other set of forces, channeled through structural elements was needed to be continually resisting that downward pressure. What we really want to know is ‘what force which was keeping the bridge up in such an unnaturally elevated position stopped?’ Perhaps some key support rotted away? Perhaps rain and weather shifted the ground so that what once was a stable position twenty years ago was no longer stable? Or perhaps the steady work of gravity itself slowly strained the materials, imperceptibly at first, until material fatigue finally collapse the bridge. Whatever the cause, we need to begin by conceding that, as normal as they may seem to us, bridges are not generally some natural construction, but rather a deeply unnatural one, which must be held up and maintained through continual effort; such a thing may fail even if no one actively destroys it, merely by lack of maintenance or changing conditions.
Large, prosperous and successful states are always and everywhere like that bridge: they are unnatural social organizations, elevated above the misery and fragmentation that is the natural state of humankind only by great effort; gravity ever tugs them downward. Of course when states collapse there are often many external factors that play a role, like external threats, climate shifts or economic changes, though in many cases these are pressures that the state in question has long endured. Consequently, the more useful question is not why they fall, but why they stay up at all.
It's much more likely that that happens to the modern Romans. The US. And when it does, from less than 60 weeks, how will the world survive?
I hear the British Daily Telegraph is reporting the Abrams has been sent to the frontlines. Sadly, the Telegraph is behind a paywall; but, at least I can pull up the headline:
Yep. To defend. Not offend.
When you consider the Ukrainians are working to reclaim land that had been theirs from the beginning, yes to defend their land.
Since the C9th? No.
I think you just contradicted yourself.
Regardless. You admit the Russian only hold 20% of Ukrainian land. Didn't Putin say he would have all of Ukraine within 30 days?
I know you are keeping tabs. How many days has it been now?
How?
The Abrams are just being used defensively in the 80% of Ukraine occupied by Ukraine. They cannot be used defensively in the 20% occupied by Russia. They would have to be offensive first. And they would all be destroyed. Before they could defend the 20% they've lost and taken back.
You appear to claim that before the 9th Century Ukraine had no territory to defend (that can be debatible), Ergo, if Ukraine has any land under military control, it would be offensive in nature.
Regarding the 20% issue.
It is like a football game (soccer). Team A is running an offense if it takes the ball across midfield. Team B is playing in defense. But once B responds, taking the ball across midfield, it becomes the attacking--offensive--team and A becomes the defenders. The roles are constantly being reversed through the game.
Russia has crossed the midfield. Ukraine is trying to get the ball back to the midfield.
There have now been several sabotage events on Russian land--Siberian rail lines disrupted, a fire at a large military factory outside of Moscow. Now, those are offensive actions, but they have the goal of degrading the Russian actions in Ukraine.
The Russian economy is an order of magnitude greater than Ukraine's. It's population 4 x. And hard right Republicans. i.e. neo-fascists, would rather empower Russia if that keeps them in power. That's a year before you re-elect a vengeful neo-fascist.
The Russian economy is an order of magnitude greater than Ukraine's. It's population 4 x. And hard right Republicans. i.e. neo-fascists, would rather empower Russia if that keeps them in power. That's a year before you re-elect a vengeful neo-fascist.
I am not going to elect a vengeful neofascist. The country won't either, but this is a topic for another thread.
I'm not as confident as either @Martin54 or @Gramps49 in the outcome of the 2024 presidential election. I do, however, think that the missing element in considering the effect of Trump being elected is his narcissism and susceptibility to flattery. I would expect Zelenskyy has already gamed out the lobbying needed between election and inauguration to ensure his new day-glo best buddy is onside - lots of photo ops looking tough surrounded by military hardware; a trip to Ukraine somewhere pretty safe that looks risky to have Serious Talks. Zelenskyy has already demonstrated a willingness to provide political cover to useless leaders with weird hair so long as they come up with the goods.
Nice @Arethosemyfeet. Too nice : ) The trouble is, the neo-fascists in Congress are already prepared to destroy America by destroying Ukraine. It really could be over by Christmas. They would destroy America to save it from Guatemala. Trump could actually save Ukraine, but it won't be saveable by then. Because his Congress will have already lost it.
I wouldn't class Trump as a neo-fascist. That would require him to actually believe in the efficacy of a particular political position to reach a desired end for the nation. Trump just wants to be seen as the winner, and will take up whatever position he sees as being the one that leads to that, as well as not admitting when he's beaten. If in a years time Ukrainian forces have broken through the Russian lines and are making advances then Trump will align himself with Zelensky, to be seen to be with the winning side. And, I suspect the initial target of Trumps vengeance won't be Zelensky (for not supporting that Hunter Biden thing) but the various governors and others who refused to play along with the "voter fraud" story he concocted and declare the 2020 election for him, and various legal bodies who have taken him to court. So, even if Trump were to win the election next year, I don't think it's actually possible to predict how he will act, it depends on too many variables including an inherent unpredictability in how Trump behaves.
OK, with you I'd class him as an out and out opportunist and the lowest hanging fruit is fascism. Ukrainian forces cannot break through anywhere without US aid. And the fascists in Congress won't give it unless Biden seals the border. And no, Trump's targets will be mainly domestic, apart from NATO, including destroying the Justice Department and the rest of the civil service.
I wouldn't class Trump as a neo-fascist. That would require him to actually believe in the efficacy of a particular political position to reach a desired end for the nation. Trump just wants to be seen as the winner, and will take up whatever position he sees as being the one that leads to that, as well as not admitting when he's beaten.
I think that wanting to be seen as the winner is a major part of neo-fascism. It seems to me that there's a fundamental difference between the far left and the far right, which is that while Marxism is an intellectual school of thought, and anarchism has respectable thinkers, far right thought doesn't have any real equivalents. I think the closest is Carl Schmitt. Most major far right books I believe are just extended rants. Far right ideology is more of a set of emotional reactions than belief in the efficacy of an independent political system. That Trump has no stable ideology beyond seeing himself as a winner is quite compatible with being neo-fascist.
Please, Trump is the subject of a different thread, not this one.
What, Trump and the Congressional Trumpistas blocking aid to Ukraine that is saving America is not germane to a thread about Ukraine's failed counteroffensive?
Please, Trump is the subject of a different thread, not this one.
What, Trump and the Congressional Trumpistas blocking aid to Ukraine that is saving America is not germane to a thread about Ukraine's failed counteroffensive?
As far as Trump himself goes, yes, it's not germane because we're still 412 days away from Inauguration Day 2025. Trump himself has no official role and has done nothing to block aid to Ukraine. As far as his Congressional supporters go, they don't seem to need to wait until 2025 to be obstructive so casting their actions in terms of Trump's possible re-election is also highly misleading.
Please, Trump is the subject of a different thread, not this one.
What, Trump and the Congressional Trumpistas blocking aid to Ukraine that is saving America is not germane to a thread about Ukraine's failed counteroffensive?
As far as Trump himself goes, yes, it's not germane because we're still 412 days away from Inauguration Day 2025. Trump himself has no official role and has done nothing to block aid to Ukraine. As far as his Congressional supporters go, they don't seem to need to wait until 2025 to be obstructive so casting their actions in terms of Trump's possible re-election is also highly misleading.
I suspect a factor for many Republican voters and politicians is that Hunter (and, by association, Joe) Biden was allegedly involved in shady doings in Ukraine. Ukraine is thereore irredeemably corrupt in their eyes and unworthy of a cent of US support. And it is a long way away. No more foreign wars etc.
Some of the voters are that naive, but any of the politicians? Who know that they cannot make the argument for empowering America vs. Russia via Ukraine to the naive or are willing to gamble it for getting the border closed. Biden will have to do that and they will get the credit.
Something that naively occurred to me many moons ago now. If American 'libertarians' in Congress won't save America by saving Ukraine, can Ukraine raise the credit? Can Western governments through bonds, loans put $60bn a year on the slate? Mortgage Ukraine? It's nothing. 0.1% of Western GDP. What would it take diplomatically to achieve this? That would by-pass the Republican right?
At present the Ukrainian economy is being propped up by the EU - it's EU money that's paying pensions etc. So, to an extent that's already happening, as grants rather than loans (but, grants that will be repaid as an economically functional Ukraine coming out of the war and joining the EU - or, even if not joining EU immediately, experience has shown that economically disfunctional nations on the borders of the EU generate costs to the EU, to control smuggling and migration for example).
Arms supplies have two issues that need to be dealt with. One is simply money, and that's probably the easiest to solve - Ukraine receives a lot of arms paid for by (mostly) the US, but it does buy a lot of arms with it's own money (that's part of why it can't pay pensions, though having a large proportion of the workforce in the army, or dead, and not paying taxes is a massive factor). If Congress cuts funds to buy arms for Ukraine then there will be others who will step in to fill some of that gap.
The bigger problem is arms controls. The US government isn't going to allow just anyone to buy an Abrams or F-16. So, there's going to need to be legislation to allow Ukraine to buy these (assuming Ukraine can raise the cash), rather than the simpler solution of the US government buying them and then giving them to Ukraine - or buying new for the US military and giving the slightly older ones currently in use to Ukraine. Selling arms isn't just about exchanging cash for tank and job done, there's a massive infrastructure needed to maintain equipment - the reason why there were massive numbers of civilians who needed to be evacuated from Afganhistan or Vietnam was that there were so many civilian contractors there simply to keep military kit functional. At present for Ukraine the western arms suppliers have managed to avoid having large numbers of people in Ukraine for that because the infrastructure largely exists in Poland, and these contractors can largely be based there.
Brilliant as ever @Alan Cresswell . Reasons for cautious optimism. Europe will reap the benefit in the long term, as the bastion of civilization acting in it's own best interests. America obviously can't. What are the deadlines for Ukraine to be able to defend itself? Russia can't launch an offensive until May, apart from the continued one on Avdiivka. Can Ukraine hold that off until the credit, supplies and Polish rear echelon come on line? I fear not due to the Russian 4:1 manpower advantage. So Ukraine loses Avdiivka, 'by Xmas', or May. Then what?
Brilliant as ever @Alan Cresswell . Reasons for cautious optimism. Europe will reap the benefit in the long term, as the bastion of civilization acting in it's own best interests. America obviously can't. What are the deadlines for Ukraine to be able to defend itself? Russia can't launch an offensive until May, apart from the continued one on Avdiivka. Can Ukraine hold that off until the credit, supplies and Polish rear echelon come on line? I fear not due to the Russian 4:1 manpower advantage. So Ukraine loses Avdiivka, 'by Xmas', or May. Then what?
Is there a reason why Americans can't be trusted? He sarcastically asks.
Brilliant as ever @Alan Cresswell . Reasons for cautious optimism. Europe will reap the benefit in the long term, as the bastion of civilization acting in it's own best interests. America obviously can't. What are the deadlines for Ukraine to be able to defend itself? Russia can't launch an offensive until May, apart from the continued one on Avdiivka. Can Ukraine hold that off until the credit, supplies and Polish rear echelon come on line? I fear not due to the Russian 4:1 manpower advantage. So Ukraine loses Avdiivka, 'by Xmas', or May. Then what?
Is there a reason why Americans can't be trusted? He sarcastically asks.
At present the Ukrainian economy is being propped up by the EU - it's EU money that's paying pensions etc. So, to an extent that's already happening, as grants rather than loans (but, grants that will be repaid as an economically functional Ukraine coming out of the war and joining the EU - or, even if not joining EU immediately, experience has shown that economically disfunctional nations on the borders of the EU generate costs to the EU, to control smuggling and migration for example).
Arms supplies have two issues that need to be dealt with. One is simply money, and that's probably the easiest to solve - Ukraine receives a lot of arms paid for by (mostly) the US, but it does buy a lot of arms with it's own money (that's part of why it can't pay pensions, though having a large proportion of the workforce in the army, or dead, and not paying taxes is a massive factor). If Congress cuts funds to buy arms for Ukraine then there will be others who will step in to fill some of that gap.
The bigger problem is arms controls. The US government isn't going to allow just anyone to buy an Abrams or F-16. So, there's going to need to be legislation to allow Ukraine to buy these (assuming Ukraine can raise the cash), rather than the simpler solution of the US government buying them and then giving them to Ukraine - or buying new for the US military and giving the slightly older ones currently in use to Ukraine. Selling arms isn't just about exchanging cash for tank and job done, there's a massive infrastructure needed to maintain equipment - the reason why there were massive numbers of civilians who needed to be evacuated from Afganhistan or Vietnam was that there were so many civilian contractors there simply to keep military kit functional. At present for Ukraine the western arms suppliers have managed to avoid having large numbers of people in Ukraine for that because the infrastructure largely exists in Poland, and these contractors can largely be based there.
I fail to see that the arms control concern is an issue. It has already been asked and answered. There is an existing system to supply sovereign states with weapons if they have the cash. F-16's have gone to Oman, Egypt and Indonesia. I would have more concern about the Egyptian F-16's than Ukraine.
All Ukrainian military contracts would be done through the Foreign Military Sales programe wherein the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency purchases and transfers the desired materiel with US Defence and State Department support. No, the US isn't special in this case, Canada has the Canadian Commercial Corporation for tge same purpose.
The US has a standard set of arms controls for these sales. It's all a system.
The BBC's coverage and questions to Zelensky at a press conference today was far from optimistic about Ukraine's chances in 2024.
Nobody is denying their tenacity but with dwindling Western aid and increasing uncertainty the prospects aren't rosy unless the Kremlin implodes.
Why would it? Biden can't close the border, so that's that. The Russian economy is an order of magnitude bigger than Ukraine's, with 4 x the population. How can Putin possibly lose?
Comments
Whatever the technicalities it seems pretty obvious to me even as someone who couldn't tell his F16 from his Abram, that this is going to be stalemate or a long haul.
Hence my 'it'll all be over by Christmas' jibe.
I think I may have mentioned before that this has gone down in UK history at least as the overly optimistic prediction many were making in August 1914. Four years later...
No one where? They aren't in use, so what's the problem?
No doubt, there are factions with the Ukrainian Politics, but they are united against a common enemy at this moment. It is my argument the invading force is not as motivated as the defending force to win the battle,
Of note, whenever Russian forces have lost a war, their government collapses. When they pulled out of Afghanistan, the communist regime collapsed. There was a brief democratic moment, then the oligarchs and Putin took over. If they end up pulling out of Ukraine, Putin and company will also collapse.
Imperial Germany. Imperial Russia.
I thought of both. Imperial Germany was blockaded in to collapse. Not before it sent Lenin to start the Russian Revolution. Not analogous are they?
BTW I would argue that Imperial Germany did not collapse as such, but rather made bad strategic decisions under pressure that made military defeat inevitable. There was eventually a revolution as well but that was not really what led to the defeat IMO.
Of more importance is the question of the utility of main battle tanks in modern warfare. They're designed to operate in large mobile units, with support from and supporting infantry, along with artillery and air cover. A classic example of preparing to fight the last war ... there was a lot of Cold War dogma that if it got hot then there'd be Kursk-like massive tank battles in Poland and eastern Germany. The M-1 (and T-90, Challenger etc) were designed for that sort of battle, and of course that's basically how they were deployed in the shock and awe phase of the Gulf Wars. It's not the battle that Russia and Ukraine are fighting. The Ukrainians not only need to learn to operate the M-1, including filter clearing schedules, but also work out a sensible way to use them in the trench warfare of the front line. In Iraq, after the toppling of Saddam, the M-1 proved vulnerable in urban warfare against ISIS and other groups, anti-tank weapons fired at close range when fighters get close. In Afghanistan they were vulnerable to IEDs, and presumably mines would pose similar problems. Israel has a very advanced military, but a relatively small number of tanks because their expected use is in close contact in urban areas, exactly the conditions where tanks are most vulnerable and least value.
They could be held back from close contact with entrenched defenders and their associated land mines - but then they'll just be mobile artillery and probably dedicated mobile artillery units would be more effective. Unless there's a break through large enough to provide a mine-free corridor that tanks can move through to fill the mobile armour role they're designed for, Ukraine will need to do some improvisation to use them. The same would be true of Russian forces and their T-90s.
They did prove their worth in open desert warfare. I would need to know more information about close in warfare.
Of note, the rate of destruction of the M1s in combat is quite low. Crew survivability is very good. There is a story of Iraqi militants hitting a Abrams in the weapons storage area which caused the Abrams weapons to explode, but the tank crew survived.
The Abrams has an anti mine system that can clear mines as they advance. The trick is not to get off the cleard track.
If you mean having the ability to take the fight into Russia, they don't need it. All they need to do is protect their assets is Ukraine.
And never mind the 20% of Ukraine that is now Russian. Sure. I'm glad you agree.
Strain. Including political vs. military division.
Yep. To defend. Not offend.
When you consider the Ukrainians are working to reclaim land that had been theirs from the beginning, yes to defend their land.
Since the C9th? No.
A very generalized answer to this specific question:
I think you just contradicted yourself.
Regardless. You admit the Russian only hold 20% of Ukrainian land. Didn't Putin say he would have all of Ukraine within 30 days?
I know you are keeping tabs. How many days has it been now?
How?
The Abrams are just being used defensively in the 80% of Ukraine occupied by Ukraine. They cannot be used defensively in the 20% occupied by Russia. They would have to be offensive first. And they would all be destroyed. Before they could defend the 20% they've lost and taken back.
It's much more likely that that happens to the modern Romans. The US. And when it does, from less than 60 weeks, how will the world survive?
You appear to claim that before the 9th Century Ukraine had no territory to defend (that can be debatible), Ergo, if Ukraine has any land under military control, it would be offensive in nature.
Regarding the 20% issue.
It is like a football game (soccer). Team A is running an offense if it takes the ball across midfield. Team B is playing in defense. But once B responds, taking the ball across midfield, it becomes the attacking--offensive--team and A becomes the defenders. The roles are constantly being reversed through the game.
Russia has crossed the midfield. Ukraine is trying to get the ball back to the midfield.
There have now been several sabotage events on Russian land--Siberian rail lines disrupted, a fire at a large military factory outside of Moscow. Now, those are offensive actions, but they have the goal of degrading the Russian actions in Ukraine.
I am not going to elect a vengeful neofascist. The country won't either, but this is a topic for another thread.
Most of the play is in midfield and I haven't seen either of you take a decent shot at goal yet.
Unless Biden closes the border.
What, Trump and the Congressional Trumpistas blocking aid to Ukraine that is saving America is not germane to a thread about Ukraine's failed counteroffensive?
As far as Trump himself goes, yes, it's not germane because we're still 412 days away from Inauguration Day 2025. Trump himself has no official role and has done nothing to block aid to Ukraine. As far as his Congressional supporters go, they don't seem to need to wait until 2025 to be obstructive so casting their actions in terms of Trump's possible re-election is also highly misleading.
It would be yes.
Arms supplies have two issues that need to be dealt with. One is simply money, and that's probably the easiest to solve - Ukraine receives a lot of arms paid for by (mostly) the US, but it does buy a lot of arms with it's own money (that's part of why it can't pay pensions, though having a large proportion of the workforce in the army, or dead, and not paying taxes is a massive factor). If Congress cuts funds to buy arms for Ukraine then there will be others who will step in to fill some of that gap.
The bigger problem is arms controls. The US government isn't going to allow just anyone to buy an Abrams or F-16. So, there's going to need to be legislation to allow Ukraine to buy these (assuming Ukraine can raise the cash), rather than the simpler solution of the US government buying them and then giving them to Ukraine - or buying new for the US military and giving the slightly older ones currently in use to Ukraine. Selling arms isn't just about exchanging cash for tank and job done, there's a massive infrastructure needed to maintain equipment - the reason why there were massive numbers of civilians who needed to be evacuated from Afganhistan or Vietnam was that there were so many civilian contractors there simply to keep military kit functional. At present for Ukraine the western arms suppliers have managed to avoid having large numbers of people in Ukraine for that because the infrastructure largely exists in Poland, and these contractors can largely be based there.
Is there a reason why Americans can't be trusted? He sarcastically asks.
Not my flesh that's torn.
I fail to see that the arms control concern is an issue. It has already been asked and answered. There is an existing system to supply sovereign states with weapons if they have the cash. F-16's have gone to Oman, Egypt and Indonesia. I would have more concern about the Egyptian F-16's than Ukraine.
All Ukrainian military contracts would be done through the Foreign Military Sales programe wherein the US Defense Security Cooperation Agency purchases and transfers the desired materiel with US Defence and State Department support. No, the US isn't special in this case, Canada has the Canadian Commercial Corporation for tge same purpose.
The US has a standard set of arms controls for these sales. It's all a system.
Nobody is denying their tenacity but with dwindling Western aid and increasing uncertainty the prospects aren't rosy unless the Kremlin implodes.
Why would it? Biden can't close the border, so that's that. The Russian economy is an order of magnitude bigger than Ukraine's, with 4 x the population. How can Putin possibly lose?