Armchair General's DonbAss Derailed Discussion Thread (Topics Include History, Traps, and the Ongoing Slavic Civil War plus much much more)

[Agent23]

Yes, particularly given a large portion of that spending has been on the air force and intelligence gathering systems, the latter of which would be extremely helpful at locating air defense installations.



What? Ukraine doesn't have patriot missiles.



Given the observed performance of the Russian military, yes.



Sebia was before the war on terror, not after.



As far as I known, most defense analysts have been shocked at the underperformance of russuan forces, including Russian ones. Remember that big, angry and disappointed speech Putin gave last week? That was not the speech of a man confident that everything was going according to plan.



It's ridiculous that the Ukrainian air force is even still functional at all after a month of fighting.



If older, obsolete radar was an easy counter to stealth aircraft, then everyone would have just built more of those systems and no one would have bothered investing in stealth tech.

That's obviously not the case.



It's not exactly unheard of for defense systems to end up costing more money and taking more time to deploy than expected. Nor is it an exclusively western issue, just look at the development history of the T-14, or more notably the SU-57.



It's seen actual combat, which is more than can be said for the 57 and most of Russia's new equipment. Which they've certainly spent a lot of money on, but the evidence available suggests that Russia isn't getting thier money's worth out of that spending (IE, brand new T-90s getting owned by javelin missiles).

Maybe thier air defense systems will defy the trend seen in every single other bit of Russia military hardware, but I wouldn't bet on it.

You spent 20+ years and north of 6 Trillion dollars on trying to pacify the Taliban and Iraq.
Iraq is now aligned with Iran and the Taliban are back and better than ever, in no small part thanks to the billion dollar arms gift you left for them.
But I will let Londo take it from here:


Don't take it as a personal insult, it is aimed more at the USA's so-called elite more than it is at anyone here, although the Murika Fuck yeah attitude is somehow still strong despite 22 years of folly.
The fact that you let SJW retards and tradcucks do whatever they want is another problem.

Russian's being forced to go to the Toyota-War doctrine, because their losses have been so bad.

Yeah, those are Kadirov's Chechens larping as ISIS.
A nice bit of psychological warfare, the Ukrainians already fear Chechens because of their fierce reputation, making them look more like ISIS probably makes them even more useful.

Also, all that constant Allah is great probably earns Russia extra brownie points in the middle east, and it is a nice way to troll the Saudis and other ISIS/AQ paymasters.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Sure, but as the article I linked to mentioned the air defenses were never nullified and a major chunk of those sorties were for SEAD rather than air support missions as they had intended. So despite the combination of the greatest air forces in the world they couldn't actually nullify Serbia's air defense system despite their best efforts to do so.

Reading the Wikipedia link suggests that NATO wasn't engaging in their "best efforts" if what your link alleges about air corridors and ROE's is true. And yes, Serbian Air Defenses were largely suppressed by the SEAD hence how only two planes were lost in eighty days of campaigning.

Edit:
There's your problem, you're quoting an 'independent Russian source' that is most likely an anti-Kremlin publication.
TASS only says air superiority:

Russian aviation gains air superiority over entire Ukraine — Defense Ministry

Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov underscored that "since the beginning of the operation, Russian Armed Forces hit 1,114 objects of Ukrainian military infrastructure

tass.com

Which would be entirely accurate. The UkAF is barely able to operate if at all with actual manned aircraft, while drones are their main form of action at this point.

https://tass.com/politics/1412963

"Russian aviation has gained air superiority over the entire territory of Ukraine,"

So like... Total... Air Superiority over Ukraine by Day Five?

Are they though other than drones? Or it is another 'Ghost of Kiev' scenario?

Well from what I posted literally this morning...

No worries. Looks like Russia shot down twenty five Ukrainian Aircraft yesterday.



At this rate the Ukrainian Air Force should be completely eliminated by Day Three or Four of the Invasion.

Hurr Durr is the Russian MoD claiming another 'Ghost of Kyiv' scenario? Do you still beat your kids? etc etc

 

[Chiron]

Russian's being forced to go to the Toyota-War doctrine, because their losses have been so bad.

Those Fords were captured from the UkA and handed over to DPR. UkA is primarily using technicals.

 

[Agent23]

Those Fords were captured from the UkA and handed over to DPR. UkA is primarily using technicals.

Um, I am pretty sure Kadirov had this huge convoy of Technicals rolling out of Grozny that were that very same color.


There was a pretty cool shot of them rolling out of Grozny IIRC ISIS style.

EDIT:


Found it!

 

[sillygoose]

Reading the Wikipedia link suggests that NATO wasn't engaging in their "best efforts" if what your link alleges about air corridors and ROE's is true. And yes, Serbian Air Defenses were largely suppressed by the SEAD hence how only two planes were lost in eighty days of campaigning.

By best efforts do you mean total aerial warfare without any humanitarian concerns? Sure, but then that shouldn't have made a substantial difference to NATO wiping out SERBIA's air defenses. One of the two air planes show down was an 'invulnerable' aircraft. Shot down by Serbia. And forced NATO to use the bulk of its air missions every day to suppress air defenses instead of doing literally anything else.

https://tass.com/politics/1412963

So like... Total... Air Superiority over Ukraine by Day Five?

Total air superiority and air superiority are different claims.

Well from what I posted literally this morning...

Hurr Durr is the Russian MoD claiming another 'Ghost of Kyiv' scenario? Do you still beat your kids? etc etc

It says 5 aircraft and 19 drones. But fair enough. No doubt the Russians are overclaiming too when it comes to losses, but then the Russians also never claimed to have achieved total air superiority, just that one english language 'russian' paper.

 

[Husky_Khan]

By best efforts do you mean total aerial warfare without any humanitarian concerns?

Umm no that is not what I mean? Look at what I said.

Reading the Wikipedia link suggests that NATO wasn't engaging in their "best efforts" if what your link alleges about air corridors and ROE's is true.

Yeah looks like I was totally advocating the Firebombing of Dresden.

Total air superiority and air superiority are different claims.

Yes one claims air superiority over the totality of Ukraine. The other merely claims total air superiority.

It says 5 aircraft and 19 drones. But fair enough. No doubt the Russians are overclaiming too when it comes to losses, but then the Russians also never claimed to have achieved total air superiority, just that one english language 'russian' paper.

OMG I said twenty five aircraft and your trying to dunk on me by pointing out it was twenty four in the tweet?

 

[Battlegrinder]

You spent 20+ years and north of 6 Trillion dollars on trying to pacify the Taliban and Iraq.
Iraq is now aligned with Iran and the Taliban are back and better than ever, in no small part thanks to the billion dollar arms gift you left for them.
....
although the Murika Fuck yeah attitude is somehow still strong despite 22 years of folly.

You're conflating military success with political success, something that pro-russian posters here seem to be consistently doing for some reason I cannot understand.

The US political leadership utterly botched the middle east, yes. Very few people will contest that. But that political failure does no negate the extremely effective and successful military operations conducted in support of it.

Don't take it as a personal insult

Don't worry, it's cool.

 

[sillygoose]

Umm no that is not what I mean? Look at what I said.

You said ROEs and air corridors. That's humanitarian concerns if you read what they refer to in the article.

Yeah looks like I was totally advocating the Firebombing of Dresden.

I see we're at that point in the argument then.

Yes one claims air superiority over the totality of Ukraine. The other merely claims total air superiority.

Which is a pretty big difference in terms Husky Karen.

OMG I said twenty five aircraft and your trying to dunk on me by pointing out it was twenty four in the tweet?

I think we're having an issue with definitions. I consider manned aircraft aircraft and drones as drones. You clearly lump them together.

 

[sillygoose]

You're conflating military success with political success, something that pro-russian posters here seem to be consistently doing for some reason I cannot understand.

The US political leadership utterly botched the middle east, yes. Very few people will contest that. But that political failure does no negate the extremely effective and successful military operations conducted in support of it.

If best military efforts don't result in the political outcome you're looking for then it is a military failure, as COIN involves the military in the political situation on the ground.

Notice the 1940 Marine manual talks about the role of the military in the government and elections:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Wars_Manual

 

[Agent23]

You're conflating military success with political success, something that pro-russian posters here seem to be consistently doing for some reason I cannot understand.

The US political leadership utterly botched the middle east, yes. Very few people will contest that. But that political failure does no negate the extremely effective and successful military operations conducted in support of it.

War is politics by other means.
Also, here we have a saying, a fish rots from the head down.

Don't worry, it's cool.

 

[Husky_Khan]

You said ROEs and air corridors. That's humanitarian concerns if you read what they refer to in the article.

I see we're at that point in the argument then.

I must've mistook what else "total aerial warfare without any humanitarian concerns" by the "combination of the Greatest Air Forces" could've meant when it was applied to me stating the air corridors and restrictive ROE's might've not been their 'best effort.'

Which is a pretty big difference in terms Husky Karen.

Much like how postulating less restrictive ROE's and air corridors then the 199 Air Campaign means "total aerial warfare without any humanitarian concerns?"

I think we're having an issue with definitions. I consider manned aircraft aircraft and drones as drones. You clearly lump them together.

Fair enough.

 

[sillygoose]

I must've mistook what else "total aerial warfare without any humanitarian concerns" by the "combination of the Greatest Air Forces" could've meant when it was applied to me stating the air corridors and restrictive ROE's might've not been their 'best effort.'

Given that the article did say the ROE was set up to avoid 'collateral damage', aka civilian casualties....
You're welcome to clarify what you meant if you think my characterization is totally off base.

Much like how postulating less restrictive ROE's and air corridors then the 199 Air Campaign means "total aerial warfare without any humanitarian concerns?"

You said best effort, which implies not worrying about ROE to avoid civilian losses. You're the one that strawmanned that into Dresden-ing civilians for shits and giggles.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Given that the article did say the ROE was set up to avoid 'collateral damage', aka civilian casualties....
You're welcome to clarify what you meant if you think my characterization is totally off base.

You said best effort, which implies not worrying about ROE to avoid civilian losses. You're the one that strawmanned that into Dresden-ing civilians for shits and giggles.

Actually you said 'best effort' first.

So despite the combination of the greatest air forces in the world they couldn't actually nullify Serbia's air defense system despite their best efforts to do so.

I even put air quotes around the term "best effort" in reference to your post.

Reading the Wikipedia link suggests that NATO wasn't engaging in their "best efforts" if what your link alleges about air corridors and ROE's is true. And yes, Serbian Air Defenses were largely suppressed by the SEAD hence how only two planes were lost in eighty days of campaigning.

And you responded with the Strawman "total aerial warfare without any humanitarian concerns."

So I'm not sure how I could strawman something as decisive as that statement. What else could "total aerial warfare without any humanitarian concerns" by the "combination of the Greatest Air Forces" reasonably mean when it comes to such scale?

 

[Agent23]

 

[Battlegrinder]

War is politics by other means.
Also, here we have a saying, a fish rots from the head down.

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. When Clausewitz said that, what he meant was that war is supposed to be a tool used by a country to carry out it's political objectives and in support of the objectives only. IE, that the point of war is not to defend your national honor or simple seize territory for the sake of having it, but to accomplish some goal set by political leadership and operating in support of that goal.

That definition or war has no connection to your bizarre claim that because a particular policy was not achieved, that means that military failed, regardless of how it actually performed in the field. You can win a battle that does nothing to advance your policy or even harms it, that policy failure does not mean you retroactively lost the battle.

 

[Agent23]

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. When Clausewitz said that, what he meant was that war is supposed to be a tool used by a country to carry out it's political objectives and in support of the objectives only. IE, that the point of war is not to defend your national honor or simple seize territory for the sake of having it, but to accomplish some goal set by political leadership and operating in support of that goal.

I know exactly what it means.
The USA's political objectives are dictated by the blob, the deep state, the Military-Industrial-Entertainment-Academic complex, take your pick.

That complex, while very coherent where coherent where staying in power and guarding the status quo is concern, is actually split into at least three main bits that splinter into a bunch of smaller ones.
One is the pragmatic, power for the sake of power type that tires to keep the USA the top dog, which means sabotaging any potential peer competitor.
The second one is the ideological one that believes in democracy kicking in, and that provides the ideological basis for the whole thing, aka Liberal Hegemony.
The third is just the war profiteering crowd, which wants to line their pockets and maybe score a few more high-paying jobs in strategic constituencies, that includes grifting politicians and career bureaucrats that want bigger offices, or just want to preserve their miserable, useless make-work jobs.
Below that in the pecking order, you have a bunch of smaller special interest groups, pushing gender ideology, socialism, neo-liberalism, various ethnic and religious special interest groups like Polish and Ukrainian and Turkish and Armenian "hyphenated" Americans, those people are merely being exploited by and occasionally provide personnel to the upper set of people.

And all of these people live in their bubbles, and listen to their echo chambers, and each drags your country in a slightly different direction.

 

[Battlegrinder]

I know exactly what it means.
The USA's political objectives are dictated by the blob, the deep state, the Military-Industrial-Entertainment-Academic complex, take your pick.

That complex, while very coherent where coherent where staying in power and guarding the status quo is concern, is actually split into at least three main bits that splinter into a bunch of smaller ones.
One is the pragmatic, power for the sake of power type that tires to keep the USA the top dog, which means sabotaging any potential peer competitor.
The second one is the ideological one that believes in democracy kicking in, and that provides the ideological basis for the whole thing, aka Liberal Hegemony.
The third is just the war profiteering crowd, which wants to line their pockets and maybe score a few more high-paying jobs in strategic constituencies, that includes grifting politicians and career bureaucrats that want bigger offices, or just want to preserve their miserable, useless make-work jobs.
Below that in the pecking order, you have a bunch of smaller special interest groups, pushing gender ideology, socialism, neo-liberalism, various ethnic and religious special interest groups like Polish and Ukrainian and Turkish and Armenian "hyphenated" Americans, those people are merely being exploited by and occasionally provide personnel to the upper set of people.

And all of these people live in their bubbles, and listen to their echo chambers, and each drags your country in a slightly different direction.

Ok, and....? Even if that's all true, which maybe it is, that doesn't translate to "therefore, the US actually lost afganistan and iraq".

 

[Floridaman]

Ok, and....? Even if that's all true, which maybe it is, that doesn't translate to "therefore, the US actually lost afganistan and iraq".

I mean that we lost there isn’t up for debate. You can say it was a political failure, but in the end it doesn’t matter whether the failure was from the generals, or the politicians a defeat is a defeat.

 

[Agent23]

Ok, and....? Even if that's all true, which maybe it is, that doesn't translate to "therefore, the US actually lost afganistan and iraq".

There was neither enough resolve to win, nor enough resources, Brandon's bro is an excellent example of where most of the resources went, nor any realism about the situation on the ground.
I think most people involved just wanted to grift, not win.
Also, you basically wanted into a medieval, clannish society and tried to force them to democratize and stick modern western feminazi gender norms on it.
What is worse, you learned nothing from the Soviet mess in Afghanistan.

So, what does that lead me to believe?
Maybe that your leadership is corrupt, and stupid, and it runs your military in a way where their profits, not its efficiency, are concerned.

 

[bintananth]

So, what does that lead me to believe?
Maybe that your leadership is corrupt, and stupid, and it runs your military in a way where their profits, not its efficiency, are concerned.

Or that we Americans are so used to having a budget of "yes" that when "no, we can't afford that" happens it's culture shock.