Aaaaaaaaaany minute now....Really
The Russians are pocketing and destroying the Ukrainian Army in detail. This is over except for the screaming.
Aaaaaaaaaany minute now....Really
The Russians are pocketing and destroying the Ukrainian Army in detail. This is over except for the screaming.
Aaaaaaaaaany minute now....
When in doubt, oversupply your army and add a bit more, just in case.How long do you think reducing a pocket takes? How long have people here said it takes?
I've said if this is a short, victorious war for Russia it probably takes at least as long as the first Iraq War, so final combat operations wrap up in early to mid April.
If this has to be fought out to the Polish boarder, that most like takes some 8-9 months as they do 100 km ish pulses every month or so. If they don't have enough troops and two conscript call up periods don't add enough, which seems likely, it takes a couple years as they instead do two big offenses a year instead of one every month, maybe a summer and winter offensive, as the next round of conscripts get conscripted trained, and equipped and enough supplies get brought together for another offensive, but now Ukraine can do likewise.
So, that's my timeline: April is where we will see if this is a short war or a long war: I believe people have said Ukraine pre war had about a month of War Materials. I'm not sure Russia's reserves are that much deeper. So, late March/April we'll see if the Ukrainians have the resources to launch counter offensives that they've been keeping in reserves or if they really are an exhausted army and no long have the capacity to resist effectively, and if the Russians themselves still have the reserves to withstand a Ukrainian counterattack if they have the reserves for it, or the Russians have the reserves to exploit it.
If neither side wins by april, and there's not some negotiated end, then it settles into a long war, 9 months if its a relatively quick (rather than short) war, a couple of years if not.
But, if the cauldron thing is actually happening, well, in a siege your explicitly choosing to spend time rather than firepower: in a classical siege, the king decides that sitting outside the Walls for 6 months is cheaper than losing 5,000 troops or so that aggressively assaulting the walls takes.
Likewise, doing a cauldron means the commanders decided that encircling and letting the enemy tire themselves out over a period of time is cheaper than the number of casualties and material expenses necessary to reduce the enemy by firepower. This does however mean that the strategy takes, well, time. The WWII battle of Kiev encirclement lasted about 2 weeks from encirclement to surrender. My understanding is the encirclement hasn't actually happened yet.
I was responding to a person who thought this was going to be over in a week basically.How long do you think reducing a pocket takes? How long have people here said it takes?
I've said if this is a short, victorious war for Russia it probably takes at least as long as the first Iraq War, so final combat operations wrap up in early to mid April.
If this has to be fought out to the Polish boarder, that most like takes some 8-9 months as they do 100 km ish pulses every month or so. If they don't have enough troops and two conscript call up periods don't add enough, which seems likely, it takes a couple years as they instead do two big offenses a year instead of one every month, maybe a summer and winter offensive, as the next round of conscripts get conscripted trained, and equipped and enough supplies get brought together for another offensive, but now Ukraine can do likewise.
So, that's my timeline: April is where we will see if this is a short war or a long war: I believe people have said Ukraine pre war had about a month of War Materials. I'm not sure Russia's reserves are that much deeper. So, late March/April we'll see if the Ukrainians have the resources to launch counter offensives that they've been keeping in reserves or if they really are an exhausted army and no long have the capacity to resist effectively, and if the Russians themselves still have the reserves to withstand a Ukrainian counterattack if they have the reserves for it, or the Russians have the reserves to exploit it.
If neither side wins by april, and there's not some negotiated end, then it settles into a long war, 9 months if its a relatively quick (rather than short) war, a couple of years if not.
But, if the cauldron thing is actually happening, well, in a siege your explicitly choosing to spend time rather than firepower: in a classical siege, the king decides that sitting outside the Walls for 6 months is cheaper than losing 5,000 troops or so that aggressively assaulting the walls takes.
Likewise, doing a cauldron means the commanders decided that encircling and letting the enemy tire themselves out over a period of time is cheaper than the number of casualties and material expenses necessary to reduce the enemy by firepower. This does however mean that the strategy takes, well, time. The WWII battle of Kiev encirclement lasted about 2 weeks from encirclement to surrender. My understanding is the encirclement hasn't actually happened yet.
I was responding to a person who thought this was going to be over in a week basically.
When in doubt, oversupply your army and add a bit more, just in case.
It's how the US wages war and why this probably aprocyphal story might be true: In late-1942 a German Officer going over captured American supplies in Algeria? found fresh bread which was baked in upstate New York less than a week prior.
If the Ukranians are as prepared as J. Random American it won't be a two week seige. It'll be a several month long seige before the defenders surrender because they ran out of supplies.
Probably a long war.Well, yes, the infinite money strategy is nice when you can do it. Neither Ukraine nor Russia are in such a position of course. Two weeks does somewhat pre-suppose that they do manage to 1) complete the encirclement, and 2) keep up the pressure. J. Random American with a bit of warning can probably buy enough pasta to keep himself fed for several months without difficulty. If he still had to drive to work every day as well... stockpiling enough gas is much more challenging.
So, if they were encircled and left alone, probably hold out a while. If they're encircled and still subject to artillery and air attacks, requiring regular repositioning of forces and expending their own shells in counter battery fire, that burns through potentially thousands of tons of supplies with limited re-supply. On top of everything expended so far.
But, they could have enough resources to slug that out, and either prevent an encirclement or hold out long enough for an encirclement to be broken. Depends how much steam is left in the Russian forces and what the conditions of the Ukrainian mobile reserves are.
We'll probably get a relatively clear idea of those, and wheather the broader Russian encirclement strategy, if that is what their doing, as well as the state of the Ukrainian military, late march to early April. That will tell us most likely if this is a short or a long war.
Edgy? nah i just recognize an enemy when i see them. Western ''journalists'' are no friends of normal Americans, especially white ones.Oh look, another edgelord.
The part where he praised Georgia for surviving 11 days against the Russian invasion in 2008, framing it in a way that suggests he meant "as opposed to Ukraine".And where has he said that? His argument since the beginning has more or less pre-suposed this would take longer than a week. he seems to have argued that their opening moves in the first day basically secured victory by preventing the Ukrainians from being in a position to fully mobilize, but I don't think he's ever really suggested it would be over over in a week.
And they are much more resiliant than most American homes ...
Plastic siding, a 5/8" sheet of plywood, 4" (100mm) fiberglass insulation, 5/8" of drywall, and some paint ain't stopping either a bullet or a tornado.
50cm of insulation behind brick and concrete?Yeah, I've heard about the "versitility" of your plywood and plastic housing, the British love em, too, and the price is massive.
As to me, well I live in a brick and concrete new-ish apartment block with half a meter of rock wool insulation, I barely have to turn on the heating, even now when it is under -9C outside.
Not behind but in front of, it wraps around the apartment building.50cm of insulation behind brick and concrete?
That's much sturdier than my home and I don't live in the usual American BS. My home was built in 1941 and is uninsulated because there is cross bracing in the structure and asbestos in both the plaster and the tiles.
So, exposed to the weather and everyday wear and tear instead of shielded?Not behind but in front of, it wraps around the apartment building.
Most of Ukraine's forces were in the East with a lot probably guarding Kiev.
Russia is hitting the soft Underbelly and turning the whole of Eastern Ukraine into one, huge Cauldron.
You know they're in NATO, right?
That gigantic alliance that's already sent billions of dollars of weapons and supplies into Ukraine? Which includes the wealthiest country on Earth, who's President just specifically announced a multinational humanitarian aid effort?
So lemme get this straight. You're of the opinion that the three million refugees already created by this war are already threatening a NATO member states' ability to feed its people, and you think NATO would sit by quietly while the Russian Federation engaged in systematic mass murder guaranteed to generate millions more refugees?
Oh, they wouldn't sit by quietly. They'd be very noisy on TV, and on twitter. Maybe even on faceberg!So lemme get this straight. You're of the opinion that the three million refugees already created by this war are already threatening a NATO member states' ability to feed its people, and you think NATO would sit by quietly while the Russian Federation engaged in systematic mass murder guaranteed to generate millions more refugees?
Irrelevant to the fact the food and gas doesn't exist to make a difference.
Yes as the alternative is nuclear destruction. And at the end of the day, the US isn't going to trade US cities for European cities and European nations are not going to burn for the Ukraine or Eastern NATO nations.
Our red lines are next to worthless. America is shambling its way into a civil war thanks to a stolen election and medical tyranny, our ability to enforce anything is suspect, and everyone outside of our media bubble knows it.The United States is the world's top food exporter and the fourth-largest natural gas producer on the planet.
Ah, would you look at that. You didn't say "non-NATO nations," you said European nations. Put your finger right on it. Because if NATO lets Russia have Ukraine because they say "or else I'll nuke you!" there's not as much stopping them from doing it to Poland, next. And that's precisely why NATO is flooding Ukraine with billions of dollars of advanced weapons and feeding them constant intelligence collected by some of the most sophisticated ELINT and SIGINT platforms in the world. NATO is killing Russian soldiers right now with their actions - quite a few. Why would they risk that? To send a message.
"You are crossing our red lines."
The United States is the world's top food exporter and the fourth-largest natural gas producer on the planet.
Ah, would you look at that. You didn't say "non-NATO nations," you said European nations. Put your finger right on it. Because if NATO lets Russia have Ukraine because they say "or else I'll nuke you!" there's not as much stopping them from doing it to Poland, next. And that's precisely why NATO is flooding Ukraine with billions of dollars of advanced weapons and feeding them constant intelligence collected by some of the most sophisticated ELINT and SIGINT platforms in the world. NATO is killing Russian soldiers right now with their actions - quite a few. Why would they risk that? To send a message.
"You are crossing our red lines."