War

Retired general explains strategy behind Ukraine's attacks on key bridges

10K views 20 minutes ago #CNN #News
Ukraine struck two key bridges linking the Russian-occupied Kherson region to Crimea, Russian authorities say. Retired Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling joins CNN’s Jim Acosta to break down Ukraine’s efforts.

The “we can win this”, “it’s going slow but we still see chances”, “things will get better once …” might have helped to gain support from other nations, keep them donating services and equipment, but I’m not so sure it’s a good long term tactic.

I’m just speaking for myself, but right now I’d be far more inclined to say “ffs send in nato get it over with and end the war whatever the cost“ if Ukraine were to say “ok, unless you come and help properly we’re screwed and all the fighting and sacrifices made were for nothing”. If this doesn’t go like how DIY and other optimists project, people will use that as an excuse. “we haben es nicht gewusst, everyone said they could win this if we just kept sending them the hardware”.

I’m saying if they can’t win in the current situation, change the situation to whatever is necessary. NATO can send planes, but can’t include pilots cause a pilot has a nationaliy and NATO wants to avoid a direct war with Russia? Sounds so silly. A plane can become Ukrainian, but so can a pilot. If a nato pilot gets caught just show the Ukrainian passport Zelensky can easily provide. That’s what going to put Putin over the edge? Russians take down a 63million usd *ukranian’ jet provided by NATO, who also already provided billions in arms, and then the Russians find a pilot who isn’t Ukranian and then Putin will go “oh now you dun it, his paperwork is not in order“ and pushes some buttons and self-destruct??

Also need a new NATO rule: anyone who fires off a nuke is fuckd. It is more than likely any nuke regardless of where on the planet it’s detonated is a threat to NATO members and the rest of the world.

And can someone please tell me grumpy ol’ Roger didnt get himself booted?

what, is roger gone now, shit
a minutes silence
we shall remember them, the fallen stoners that blazed the trail with us through thick and thin

Sativied said:

The “we can win this”, “it’s going slow but we still see chances”, “things will get better once …” might have helped to gain support from other nations, keep them donating services and equipment, but I’m not so sure it’s a good long term tactic.

I’m just speaking for myself, but right now I’d be far more inclined to say “ffs send in nato get it over with and end the war whatever the cost“ if Ukraine were to say “ok, unless you come and help properly we’re screwed and all the fighting and sacrifices made were for nothing”. If this doesn’t go like how DIY and other optimists project, people will use that as an excuse. “we haben es nicht gewusst, everyone said they could win this if we just kept sending them the hardware”.

I’m saying if they can’t win in the current situation, change the situation to whatever is necessary. NATO can send planes, but can’t include pilots cause a pilot has a nationaliy and NATO wants to avoid a direct war with Russia? Sounds so silly. A plane can become Ukrainian, but so can a pilot. If a nato pilot gets caught just show the Ukrainian passport Zelensky can easily provide. That’s what going to put Putin over the edge? Russians take down a 63million usd *ukranian’ jet provided by NATO, who also already provided billions in arms, and then the Russians find a pilot who isn’t Ukranian and then Putin will go “oh now you dun it, his paperwork is not in order“ and pushes some buttons and self-destruct??

Also need a new NATO rule: anyone who fires off a nuke is fuckd. It is more than likely any nuke regardless of where on the planet it’s detonated is a threat to NATO members and the rest of the world.

And can someone please tell me grumpy ol’ Roger didnt get himself booted?

Click to expand...

to the last: sorry no. Es ist schlimmer als wir dachten.

I get the impression that we are sending just enough equipment to stave off Ukraine being overrun, but not enough to support a restoring offensive.

A high priority seems (to me) to be to deny the Russians air access in the occupied region. Manpads were ok when combat was close, but two obvious things to do are send more antiair capability with some range, so that the Russian tactic of tying the good stuff down around cities is overwhelmed.

The other is, like you say, sending military advisers, like the Chinese pilots we shot down in Korea and the Russians we engaged over Vietnam.

All Russian command has is the nuclear threat. This is perhaps an instance to implement the policy of not negotiating with terrorists.

printer said:

I have been using DuckDuckGo lately. There are times it is not bringing up results that I think could be out there and I switch to Google. You would think Google would be years better than it was ten years ago, hah.

Click to expand...

Try Startpage. I find it much better than the duck. Zero tracking and they go thru Google for results. I've used it for years with FireFox.

This reads like some Wile E Coyote sh*t right here....lol
Translation from a Russian telegram channel:

Goodbye Russian rail bridges 100 or 200km inside Russia leading into Ukraine, looks like Germany wants the war to end and Russia to lose. The Russians are extremely dependent on rail transport for fuel and logistics and don't have the road transport of operate much more than 50km from their railheads in any force. The Ukrainians could stop them inside Russia and cut off their supplies, but the Germans might put restrictions on the use of the weapons inside Russia. Rail lines are quick to fix, rail bridges over rivers and streams are another matter and these look like they were made for the job. Cutting the half dozen rail lines inside Russia by destroying the rail bridges leading into Ukraine could end this war pretty fast IMO by cutting the Russians off from resupply and reinforcement. Take out the road bridges too and they will be in even more trouble, it will end the war quickly and in the most humane way.

cannabineer said:

to the last: sorry no. Es ist schlimmer als wir dachten.

I get the impression that we are sending just enough equipment to stave off Ukraine being overrun, but not enough to support a restoring offensive.

A high priority seems (to me) to be to deny the Russians air access in the occupied region. Manpads were ok when combat was close, but two obvious things to do are send more antiair capability with some range, so that the Russian tactic of tying the good stuff down around cities is overwhelmed.

The other is, like you say, sending military advisers, like the Chinese pilots we shot down in Korea and the Russians we engaged over Vietnam.

All Russian command has is the nuclear threat. This is perhaps an instance to implement the policy of not negotiating with terrorists.

View attachment 5315864

Click to expand...

A parallax view?

OldMedUser said:

Try Startpage. I find it much better than the duck. Zero tracking and they go thru Google for results. I've used it for years with FireFox.

Click to expand...

Bookmarked it.

cannabineer said:

to the last: sorry no. Es ist schlimmer als wir dachten.

I get the impression that we are sending just enough equipment to stave off Ukraine being overrun, but not enough to support a restoring offensive.

A high priority seems (to me) to be to deny the Russians air access in the occupied region. Manpads were ok when combat was close, but two obvious things to do are send more antiair capability with some range, so that the Russian tactic of tying the good stuff down around cities is overwhelmed.

The other is, like you say, sending military advisers, like the Chinese pilots we shot down in Korea and the Russians we engaged over Vietnam.

All Russian command has is the nuclear threat. This is perhaps an instance to implement the policy of not negotiating with terrorists.

View attachment 5315864

Click to expand...

to the first: …


“I get the impression that we are sending just enough equipment to stave off Ukraine being overrun, but not enough to support a restoring offensive.”

Exactly that. Which seems increasingly cruel. Everyone knew the counter-offense would start and we (sane people and nations on the good side of history) want them to succeed. To me that means you give them at least 110% chance, not the seemingly 60% or worse.

The whole suggestion there’s a certain threshold, that if we send certain types of ammo or equipment or ‘military advisors’ it means nuclear ww3, but if we send them just enough it won’t trigger Putin… We’ve made clear to Russia we’re not going to let them win. As brave and competent the Ukranians are, they’d be lost without NATO’s support. Putin will lose because of NATO’s support. Why should we pretend it matters what or who we send? We’ll just deny responsibility and with a straight face tell Putin we had nothing to do with it and what he sees and hears isn’t what happening. Tell him covid was a hoax and the first cosmonaut was actually filmed in a studio in Hollywood. fk him. The next more advanced jet or long range missile will make Putin go that’s it, I’m destroying the planet? Laughable really. As crazy and masochistic the Russians are, none of them wants to sacrifice Russia over losing some land that’s not even theirs.

The distance between Rotterdam, largest seaport outside east asia, and Brussel, capital of EU, is only 75 miles. Drop 1 or 2 nukes and aside from the physical damage the economic damage would be devastating for the EU. Every type of support has been met with threats from Russia. Same with the F16s, it would be considered an escalation. As you said, all they really got is the nuclear threat. Russia is constantly “don’t, else we might nuke you [and self-destruct Moscow]”. I’m to believe we’re so scared of Russia using nukes that we’re going to avoid that by not being scared enough to send “just enough”.

It just doesn’t make sense. What would make sense is Russia using nukes if they face an existential threat. Which they don’t unless they use nukes themselves, they will just have to back off and fuck off to their own side of the border.

Russia retaliating on a NATO member would mean direct war with NATO and instantly removes the reason to not let Ukraine join. Somehow I don’t think Putin or Russia in general is that dumb.

Sativied said:

Exactly that. Which seems increasingly cruel.

Click to expand...

While Ukraine has worked miracles, it is under a breaking strain. They can’t keep the defense, let alone add an offensive, indefinitely. Their endurance is finite.

US has a long history of half-wars since the nuclearization of foreign policy. This is behaving the same way, and with the singular exception of the first Gulf war, the postwar situation was worse than before. I rate Korea a draw.

That “policy” born of nuclear fear is likely to be disastrous if it is used in/on Ukraine. Imo the only plausible source of a more positive plan is from our Nato allies in Europe.

What would make sense is Russia using nukes if they face an existential threat.

Click to expand...

Russia has been promiscuous with assigning the term existential to nuisance threats. They’re exploiting 70 years of blunted response due to the nuclear threat. It’s working for them. I wonder if solidly calling them on this nonsense might be indicated. Otherwise Ukraine possibly turns into another Afghanistan or Lebanon … a nice place ruined by perpetual half-war.

Couple of months old but extensive:

Most likely candidate to provide F16s is NL cause we’re further with replacing them with F35s. Our government collapsed recently but that’s not as dramatic as it sounds. No major decisions till after new elections, but some pressing issues are exempt, one of them is support tor Ukraine. And after that, no matter if left or right wins, it’s guaranteed to become a coalition of several pro-Ukraine support parties. However, it does mean our former-forever-pm aka teflon-Mark will after 14 years no longer be PM. Was longest still sitting PM in EU and partly because of that one of the most influential leaders in the EU. He’s also a driving force behind EU’s support for Ukraine, including the push for F16s. If anything, he was proficient at getting others to work together, even if reluctantly. While by far most people here agree it’s time to replace him, it’s a bit like when Merkel left, it will change the dynamics in EU.

cannabineer said:

While Ukraine has worked miracles, it is under a breaking strain. They can’t keep the defense, let alone add an offensive, indefinitely. Their endurance is finite.

US has a long history of half-wars since the nuclearization of foreign policy. This is behaving the same way, and with the singular exception of the first Gulf war, the postwar situation was worse than before. I rate Korea a draw.

That “policy” born of nuclear fear is likely to be disastrous if it is used in/on Ukraine. Imo the only plausible source of a more positive plan is from our Nato allie’s on Europe.

Russia has been promiscuous with assigning the term existential to nuisance threats. They’re exploiting 70 years of blunted response due to the nuclear threat. It’s working for them. I wonder if solidly calling them on this nonsense might be indicated. Otherwise Ukraine possibly turns into another Afghanistan or Lebanon … a nice place ruined by perpetual half-war.

Click to expand...

Again, exactly that.

What sparked my initial post on this is the realization I and I assume many others would feel pretty bad if Ukraine loses a for them very costly war solely because we half-assed the support or simply responded too slow. Only reason I support the support is because I believe they can win with the proper support. Anything else would be sadistic and not preferred over leaving the situation alone when it started and telling Putin ok you can have those regions but that’s it, attack other Kyiv or other areas again and NATO interferes with all its might. Not suggesting such a deal should be on the table now. Telling Ukrainians now ‘ok nice effort guys but Russia wins cause we’re scared if we send you more decisive equipment they’ll nuke us‘ would be absurd.

“US has a long history of… “ I said that once or thrice in these forums, I supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite of how others were convinced to join or approve, but ffs stop half-assing it. In this case this goes even more for EU than US if anything for geographical reasons, but yes the still possible negative result you paint would be a shitstain on our history.