Ukraine conflict
09-06-2023, 03:58 PM
#1271
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2020
Position: Enoch Powell Enthusiast
Posts: 2,283
Kenneth Branagh did a great adaptation of Henry V. Most focus on the "St. Crispin's Day" speech. (It's great, iconic even.).
The better scene, however, is where he mingles among the troops before the battle and discovers that they believed that whatever orders they executed, the responsibly was solely placed on the executive (in this case, King Henry). Little people don't decide national destinies. They're just pawns, and easily controlled ones at that.
Heavy is the head that wears the crown.
With rare exceptions, troops and civilians are exempt from the moral consequences, good or bad, their leaders implement. Including inflicting mass death of civilians, which the US is into it's up to it's g-damd neck for many, many decades.
--------
I will say that the length of US conflicts are concerning.
The Punic wars lasted 23 and 14 years, consecutively.
Afghanistan was what? 20 years?
There's nothing new under the sun. The Ukraine conflict will continue unabated unless something awful happens.
09-06-2023, 05:27 PM
#1272
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,047
The former tends to have the full attention of all participants. The latter involves one party (maybe two in a proxy conflict) which has the luxury of determining the nature, scope, and duration of their involvement. Basically, they don't have to play if it's not fun anymore. That luxury can be afforded by relative size, resources, geography, or allies.
AF was not a war, they never had a chance and we could have stayed as long as we had the will to stay (not that I can think of any reason why we should have).
UA/RU is a war... RU leadership wishes they had never even heard of UA, much less invaded. But they're stuck, since domestic politics (and to a degree perhaps international face) dictates that Vlad must win or reach some accommodation short of being routed back to the Volga.
09-08-2023, 05:55 AM
#1274
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,115
09-08-2023, 07:08 AM
#1276
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 788
I'm very much a "My country, right or wrong" kinda guy. What other choice do you have?
Kenneth Branagh did a great adaptation of Henry V. Most focus on the "St. Crispin's Day" speech. (It's great, iconic even.).
The better scene, however, is where he mingles among the troops before the battle and discovers that they believed that whatever orders they executed, the responsibly was solely placed on the executive (in this case, King Henry). Little people don't decide national destinies. They're just pawns, and easily controlled ones at that.
Heavy is the head that wears the crown.
With rare exceptions, troops and civilians are exempt from the moral consequences, good or bad, their leaders implement. Including inflicting mass death of civilians, which the US is into it's up to it's g-damd neck for many, many decades.
--------
I will say that the length of US conflicts are concerning.
The Punic wars lasted 23 and 14 years, consecutively.
Afghanistan was what? 20 years?
There's nothing new under the sun. The Ukraine conflict will continue unabated unless something awful happens.
Kenneth Branagh did a great adaptation of Henry V. Most focus on the "St. Crispin's Day" speech. (It's great, iconic even.).
The better scene, however, is where he mingles among the troops before the battle and discovers that they believed that whatever orders they executed, the responsibly was solely placed on the executive (in this case, King Henry). Little people don't decide national destinies. They're just pawns, and easily controlled ones at that.
Heavy is the head that wears the crown.
With rare exceptions, troops and civilians are exempt from the moral consequences, good or bad, their leaders implement. Including inflicting mass death of civilians, which the US is into it's up to it's g-damd neck for many, many decades.
--------
I will say that the length of US conflicts are concerning.
The Punic wars lasted 23 and 14 years, consecutively.
Afghanistan was what? 20 years?
There's nothing new under the sun. The Ukraine conflict will continue unabated unless something awful happens.
In Viet Nam, 85% of contact against ARVN or American forces was initiated by Viet Cong or NVA. (admittedly, partly due to tactics that deliberately put allied soldiers in harms way so as to entice attack, which was supposed to then use superior fire power to kill NVA and Viet Cong at rates greater than replacement level). Point being, the enemy always controlled the countryside and the initiative. The enemy had the support of the People.
In Afghanistan, the Soviets withdrew after 15 to 26 thousand killed and over 50,000 wounded. They never gained control of the countryside, nor the support of it's own People. Gorbachev could not pursue restructuring and the war without the People. I know one professional observer, now an old man, who felt that Russia broke it's army there and never fixed it. ( he spent 10 years serving as part of Warsaw Pact, then his last few years as part of NATO...a unique perspective)
Today Russia uses 10 to 15 private armed forces, depending on where you read and how the counting is done. This is a telling bit of info as to the state of power enjoyed by Putin. He can't get laid on his own talents, so he has to go pay for it.
Any country that uses hired help to make it's army run is admitting issues. I mean this from cooking meals to actually fighting battles.
If they need to hire support staff...they lack ability to recruit or conscript, and then train, enough people.
If they turn over lethal force to mercenaries, they surrender control of tactics and moral restraint. They also create a potential traitorous predator.
Russia can't field an army willing to fight. So Putin tries to cover this up by going out and paying for it. He will lose because the Leader needs the People to share his vision. The People do not.
09-08-2023, 07:13 AM
#1277
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,115
Not too much more there. Does pose a bit of a conundrum though. If your country is intentionally limiting the range of the weaponry they are supplying to someone (which has pretty much been the case) should an American Company assist in overcoming that range limit?
Not sure that question has occurred before or what the legal ramifications might be one way or another.
09-08-2023, 07:26 AM
#1278
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2009
Posts: 788
https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...ian%20warships.
Not too much more there. Does pose a bit of a conundrum though. If your country is intentionally limiting the range of the weaponry they are supplying to someone (which has pretty much been the case) should an American Company assist in overcoming that range limit?
Not sure that question has occurred before or what the legal ramifications might be one way or another.
Not too much more there. Does pose a bit of a conundrum though. If your country is intentionally limiting the range of the weaponry they are supplying to someone (which has pretty much been the case) should an American Company assist in overcoming that range limit?
Not sure that question has occurred before or what the legal ramifications might be one way or another.
Should a company wholly owned by Musk control the USA' s ability to launch satellites?
Personal opinion: the more concentrated any capability is in either a foreign entity or private company, the more brittle the dependent military is.
09-08-2023, 07:36 AM
#1279
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 12,115
Another interesting read…
https://www.army-technology.com/news/are-western-allies-shifting-the-content-of-ukraine-war-support/?cf-view
An excerpt:
Pledged US Abrams M1A1 tanks have also still not arrived in theatre, despite the commitment being made at the start of the year and even then, watered down from providing the more advanced A2 variant. Barring a general collapse of Russian forces along the front, Western allies appear to have accepted that the 19-month-long war will still be running by the time dawn breaks on 2024.
For the Western allies, key questions will then dictate the likely outcome of the war, including the US elections, the will of a European population struggling with inflation and rising prices caused by the conflict, and whether Nato can again re-equip and re-arm Ukraine with the platforms it needs to embark on a 2024 offensive.
With combined military losses potentially in the 400,000 area, and two militaries devastated through months of full-scale combat operations, the measure of support each can extract from allies – Ukraine leaning west to Europe and the US, Russia eastwards to China, Iran, and North Korea – will be the determining factor in 2024 should Kyiv be unable to force a strategic breakthrough and defeat of Moscow this year
For the Western allies, key questions will then dictate the likely outcome of the war, including the US elections, the will of a European population struggling with inflation and rising prices caused by the conflict, and whether Nato can again re-equip and re-arm Ukraine with the platforms it needs to embark on a 2024 offensive.
With combined military losses potentially in the 400,000 area, and two militaries devastated through months of full-scale combat operations, the measure of support each can extract from allies – Ukraine leaning west to Europe and the US, Russia eastwards to China, Iran, and North Korea – will be the determining factor in 2024 should Kyiv be unable to force a strategic breakthrough and defeat of Moscow this year
09-08-2023, 07:47 AM
#1280
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,047
https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...ian%20warships.
Not too much more there. Does pose a bit of a conundrum though. If your country is intentionally limiting the range of the weaponry they are supplying to someone (which has pretty much been the case) should an American Company assist in overcoming that range limit?
Not sure that question has occurred before or what the legal ramifications might be one way or another.
Not too much more there. Does pose a bit of a conundrum though. If your country is intentionally limiting the range of the weaponry they are supplying to someone (which has pretty much been the case) should an American Company assist in overcoming that range limit?
Not sure that question has occurred before or what the legal ramifications might be one way or another.
Yeah interesting. Existing law probably doesn't address that.
I can understand why UA is upset, but I can kind of see Musk's point as well. If I were in his shoes, I would have asked the NSC (while they wouldn't take my call, I'm sure they'd take Elon's).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
