China can wait. The Army’s focus should be Europe.

Status
Not open for further replies.
More:

There are many articles but I found these two well thought out.

China takes Taiwan, but at a high cost, and the US cannot stop it.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/31/asia/china-taiwan-invasion-scenarios-analysis-intl-hnk-ml/index.html

Interesting read from 2 years ago, in 2021, essentially saying that the US and allies have a slight comparative advantage but it's a close call and China is gaining every year. The major advantage cited was the allies to the US and tech advantages. Both are in decline for the US and improving for China. So I suspect that equation has, by now, flipped to the Chinese advantage. This was pre-Ukraine war. Pre-destruction of the Nordstream pipes that supplied energy to NATO allies. Further, the BRICS allegiances have strengthened, and the US alliances have weakened (notably, the Saudis are shifting to the east, Iraq, Brazil, etc. are aligning with China, Iran and N. Korea are becoming nuclear threats, etc.).

https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/If-the-US-went-to-war-with-China-who-would-win
 
IOW they are not foolishly bankrupting themselves whilst alienating the world (N. Africa, Somalia, Haiti, all of the Middle East, Russia, S. America, Mexico, etc.) engaging in futile skirmishes. Yet, right now, they have big lithium and other minerals and resource deals in S. Africa, Afghanistan, etc. and are trading Yuan for oil with Iraq, and engaging 50% of the world (by population) in a new petro-currency. The US dollar is in decline and becoming less relevant daily. Hmmm.... Seems like a good strategy for China, a bad one for the US.






The US debt is currently ~$32 trillion, and that's about $250,000 tax burden per American. Our population is 340M people. The US annual debt exceeds our gross domestic product, meaning we borrow 25% more annually than we bring in or produce. That is a unhealthy debt spiral and has been ongoing for decade(s) now. It will contribute to our demise.

China's debt is less than 1/2 ours, at ~$14 trillion. China's population is 1.4B or 4x the US population so all debts are distributed among 4x as many people. That means by comparison person-to-person China's adjusted debt vs. the US is closer to $3.8 trillion, or 1/8th of the United States. China's annual debt to GDP is a very healthy ~70% meaning they produce more than they borrow.

This is fundamental reading, and basic math and economics from reliable sources. Now, who is spreading false information?
https://www.usdebtclock.org/
https://usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html
https://www.worldeconomics.com/Debt/China.aspx


There's no evidence to support your conclusions whatsoever. Furthermore, as history shows, the US has failed to convincingly win any wars in 70 years, two of which were proxy wars against Communist China/Russia in SE Asia.
It's not always about who has the most sophisticated equipment, regardless. It's also about political will and military decision making - and the US has shown itself to be incapable of convincingly defeating adversaries and having staying power resolve. And it bears repeating, that most of our wars since 1950 were fought against enemies with minimal or no manufacturing base, no Navy, no Air Power, no satellites, no cyber warfare, poor communications, no independent energy production, little infrastructure, and importantly no real ability to strike our forces to cause mass casualties, nor any real ability to hit the US homeland.

Conversely, there is no doubt that China or Russia avoid these problems, can hit with heavy punches, can inflict mass casualties at will, can "turn off our lights," so to speak, shut down our global trade, shoot every airplane down, sink every trade vessel, and put the US back 100 years. Some of you seem willfully unable to appreciate these facts.

If you think this is my hair brained lunatic notion, think again. War simulations and EXPERTS agree the US would lose badly to China. Do any amount of reading on the topic. The United States military is in shambles, unable to make recruitment, and our branches are depleted and equipment outdated and insufficient to fight wars with superpowers right now.

Here's one article that supports this:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/milita...-meet-2022-recruiting-goals-officia-rcna35078
"“This is the start of a long drought for military recruiting,” said Ret. Lt. Gen. Thomas Spoehr of the Heritage Foundation, a think tank. He said the military has not had such a hard time signing recruits since 1973, the year the U.S. left Vietnam and the draft officially ended. Spoehr said he does not believe a revival of the draft is imminent, but “2022 is the year we question the sustainability of the all-volunteer force.”"

And another:
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2...uggles-to-keep-ships-up-to-spec-report-shows/
"US Navy's aging surface fleet struggles to keep ships up to specs."

Here's one article from the American Military News in 2021 stating as much.

https://americanmilitarynews.com/20...ith-china-air-forces-simulation-shows-report/

Last fall, the U.S. Air Force played out a war scenario with China, in which China begins its attack by deploying a biological weapon throughout the Indo-Pacific region. the outcome for the U.S. was not a good one, a new report revealed this week.

“The definitive answer if the U.S. military doesn’t change course is that we’re going to lose fast,” Air Force Lt. Gen. S. Clinton Hinote, the deputy chief of staff for strategy, integration and requirements, told Yahoo News. Many details of the war game remain classified and had not been made public until recently.

In the scenario, set a decade into the future, China uses a biological weapon attack that spreads between bases and warships in the Indo-Pacific and then, under the guise of a major military training exercise, a Chinese invasion force is able to launch a speedy air and amphibious assault to take over Taiwan while targeting crippled U.S. warships and bases in the region with a hail of missile strikes.

Hinote described a trend between past conflict and this most recent scenario. “More than a decade ago, our war games indicated that the Chinese were doing a good job of investing in military capabilities that would make our preferred model of expeditionary warfare, where we push forces forward and operate out of relatively safe bases and sanctuaries, increasingly difficult,” Hinote said. “At that point the trend in our war games was not just that we were losing, but we were losing faster.”

“After the 2018 war game I distinctly remember one of our gurus of war gaming standing in front of the Air Force secretary and chief of staff, and telling them that we should never play this war game scenario [of a Chinese attack on Taiwan] again, because we know what is going to happen,” Hinote continued. “The definitive answer if the U.S. military doesn’t change course is that we’re going to lose fast. In that case, an American president would likely be presented with almost a fait accompli.”

A fait accompli is a French term to describe a foregone conclusion, and is often used in U.S. military strategy contexts to describe a scenario in which an adversary of the U.S. is able to defeat a U.S. strategy before it can even be launched. In the example of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, U.S. military planners sometimes see China’s anti-access area denial strategy (A2/AD) as a fait accompli that allows China to make major territorial gains in the Indo-Pacific while blocking the U.S. from launching a counter-attack. A fait accompli presents a dilemma for the U.S. in whether to escalate conflict further or cede captured territories or objectives to China.

Russia’s 2014 annexation of the Ukrainian territory of Crimea, has been described as a fait accompli, as the annexation was accomplished before the Ukraine our other nations could intervene, and the prospect of retaking Crimea from Russia might then suggest open war with Russia.

Hinote’s comments about the Chinese war game come on the same week U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) commander Amdl. Philip Davidson said China might try and annex Taiwan within this decade and possibly within the next six years.

The use of war games has reportedly helped the U.S. better understand how the Chinese strategy in the Indo-Pacific would play out, but some defense analysts are still uncertain the U.S. is heading in a direction to counter China’s strategies.

“Whenever we war-gamed a Taiwan scenario over the years, our Blue Team [those playing the role of the U.S.] routinely got its *** handed to it, because in that scenario time is a precious commodity and it plays to China’s strength in terms of proximity and capabilities,” David Ochmanek, a senior RAND Corporation analyst and former deputy assistant secretary of defense for force development told Yahoo News. “That kind of lopsided defeat is a visceral experience for U.S. officers on the Blue Team, and as such the war games have been a great consciousness-raising device. But the U.S. military is still not keeping pace with Chinese advances. For that reason, I don’t think we’re much better off than a decade ago when we started taking this challenge more seriously.”
https://www.pragcap.com/lets-stop-talking-about-paying-off-the-national-debt/

https://tradingeconomics.com/china/...na is,macro models and analysts expectations.

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/...rgame/65-37844d34-ab1f-49a2-ad2e-09a7c8ff94c4

"Time and time again, around 25 times, most simulations had the same result: a free and independent Taiwan, a costly victory for the U.S. Navy and Air Force, China humiliated, and a global economic disaster."

https://www.newsweek.com/us-china-taiwan-conflict-war-game-csis-1772943

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/c...rare-look-us-china-taiwan-world-of-wargaming/

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/...l-sides-including-us-if-china-invades-taiwan/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/jan/9/us-defeats-china-simulated-war-over-taiwan-costs-a/

https://thedebrief.org/a-chinese-in...d-be-an-incredibly-bloody-and-costly-venture/
 
More:

There are many articles but I found these two well thought out.
You may be underestimating the strength of the west, especially a united west.

Russia's military is not good, not at all. If they didn't have nuclear weapons things would be much different in Ukraine.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/mi...-could-completely-destroy-the-russian-forces/

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/02/20/russia-was-defeated-in-the-first-three-weeks/

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/02/24/5-most-powerful-armies-world.html
 
Last edited:
I don't understand the obsession with Taiwan. The sky didn't fall when Hong Kong was repatriated 26 years ago in 1997.
As far as I care, China can have both North Korea and Taiwan. The Philippines can remain independant and supply cheap labor.


I’m surprised at your opinion of Hong Kong when you live in British Columbia. A lot of Hong Kong immigrants came and settled in BC before and after the Handover. They saw the writing on the wall. The BC real estate markets went crazy and that extended down the road to Seattle and Portland.

Hong Kong was free. Now they are not. Taiwan wants to keep their freedom too. China will not stop and their intentions go way beyond the South China Sea .
 
I've read most of those and understand the flawed arguments.

One of many major flaws in their reasoning is universally giving all advantages to the west. These "think tanks" also predicted victories in N. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. They also largely predicted Russia would not invade Ukraine, 18 months ago. Wrong. They rarely give the enemy a vote. One other major flaw is the lack of political and military will to win, and our corrupt MIC.

China (and Russia) are proven (or expected) to be able to absorb huge losses and continue forward. The US cannot and will not.
In N. Korea, after just 3 years, and 60k losses, the US pulled out of the North. It was a partial win, partial loss, maybe stalemate. In Vietnam, a 10 year loss saw the US lose 58k and we fled. In Afghanistan and Iraq, more failures and loss of public resolve.

So the KEY in many of these articles is the "heavy losses" part. Another key is DEBT, which is largely ignored or foolishly disputed. WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO FIGHT MORE WARS. Have you ever noticed how expensive things are? That's called inflation. WE have inflated our money to near worthlessness. It costs more to produce a penny and nickel than the face value today. Within a few years a dollar will be nearly worthless, if not entirely worthless.

Every 2/4/6 years we have a change of leadership in Washington, and with that radical changes in policies including war efforts. Many Presidents initially had support but their parties lost seats due to economic costs and war fatigue, to include the unlikely election of Obama in 2008, who ended the Iraq war by 2011 as he campaigned on. This isn't a political post, it's just a fact that seats flip and war agendas radically alter due to the costs and fatigue of war.
 
I agree with many of your points. I think we over-extended ourselves and put ourselves in a very very bad position. I don't think we're on a good path, but I'm not overly pessimistic either. Irag/Afghan were always questionable to me. Our threshold for loss of life is much lower than theirs as you mentioned. Our quality of life is better, arguably, overall. Certainly more than Russia’s. We have more to lose.
 
I’m surprised at your opinion of Hong Kong when you live in British Columbia. A lot of Hong Kong immigrants came and settled in BC before and after the Handover. They saw the writing on the wall. The BC real estate markets went crazy and that extended down the road to Seattle and Portland.

Hong Kong was free. Now they are not. Taiwan wants to keep their freedom too. China will not stop and their intentions go way beyond the South China Sea .
So much for a white Christmas.
The real estate market went nuts in "Hongcouver", but I don't see China Town tent cities sprouting up anywhere.
 
Last edited:
Ukraine is losing men at roughly 10 to 1, and being outshelled by the same margin.
Urkaine is predicted to be out of fighting able men and artillery by summertime. It has no manufacturing, and mobile mechanics to fix broken old equipment. It is getting a patchwork of mismatched vehicles and equipment, and that creates its own reliability and supply line problems and training problems. Ukraine is buried in logistical issues, and is nearly entirely reliant on the continued generosity of the west.

Contrast.
Russia has not been materially impacted by any losses, all have been replaced. Russia is one of the largest arms manufacturers in the world, has the largest landmass in the world, is energy and food rich. And has now good allegances with other key partners, trading in Rubles, energy, and gold, for arms and support.

Ukraine literally stands no chance absent the west directly sending men to die. I hope that does not happen, but it might.

That result would be a protracted Russia victory with more dead on all sides. Or a Russia loss, them feeling threatened, and launching nuclear arms. Might ultimately lead to a stalemate and truce with Russia taking 1/3rd of Ukraine or more. I don't realistically see a different option.


There are literally no reliable metrics to support any of these statements, whatsoever. The reality is as I wrote.
Not true at all, the Russians are losing many many times the men that Ukraine is losing, I know a fellow in the canadian armed forces who knows how the battle is going, and he says its flat out comical, how badly the russians were performing initially, and only now are they learning a few things, but are still greatly out matched in any kind of combined forces actions or even just simple logistics....
In Bakhmut the russians are relying on WW1/WW2 tactics.... but they don't have millions of soldiers to feed into the battle like they did in those conflicts. He says there used to be some respect by NATO for russian armed forces, but with how poorly they have performed in Ukraine, there is no worry of Russia expanding the conflict conventionally at least.
At this point it looks like even nuclear war might actually be winnable against Russia as its likely they have let their nuclear munitions get as poorly maintained as the rest of their weapons.
As the conflict goes on, Russia will start to learn its lessons the hard way, but so far their losses seem unsustainable as is, let alone if they try to go on the offensive.
 
Not true at all, the Russians are losing many many times the men that Ukraine is losing, I know a fellow in the canadian armed forces who knows how the battle is going, and he says its flat out comical, how badly the russians were performing initially, and only now are they learning a few things, but are still greatly out matched in any kind of combined forces actions or even just simple logistics....
In Bakhmut the russians are relying on WW1/WW2 tactics.... but they don't have millions of soldiers to feed into the battle like they did in those conflicts. He says there used to be some respect by NATO for russian armed forces, but with how poorly they have performed in Ukraine, there is no worry of Russia expanding the conflict conventionally at least.
At this point it looks like even nuclear war might actually be winnable against Russia as its likely they have let their nuclear munitions get as poorly maintained as the rest of their weapons.
As the conflict goes on, Russia will start to learn its lessons the hard way, but so far their losses seem unsustainable as is, let alone if they try to go on the offensive.
Pure western propaganda completely divorced from reality. Zelinkski is at NATO and the US near daily begging for arms and equipment (and suggesting men). Ukraine is kidnapping young and old men and sending them to the front often with no training or weapon. The lifespan of a Ukrainian Soldier at the front is less than 5 hours as reported from multiple sources. It's under constant Russian shelling, and Russia has it 75% surrounded and it's just bleeding Ukraine of men and arms every day. They have left 1 road open to allow this and Ukraine keeps sending men to their deaths, thousands dying daily.

Bakmut is basically fallen and unwinnable by Ukraine, basically a meatgrinder, with Ukraine troops fleeing daily. And it's important having been touted by the west as a critical place to hold.

As I've mentioned, within weeks or months Ukraine is out of men and artillery. It has outpaced the ability of the west to produce more arms to give them.

https://www.europereloaded.com/bakhmut-has-fallen-and-its-obvious-why/

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-bakhmut-fall-war-1786631

https://www.theburningplatform.com/2023/03/04/bakhmut-strategic-or-not-is-falling/

https://cairnsnews.org/2023/02/03/b...ping-nearly-25000-ukros-and-supplies-cut-off/

https://www.militarytimes.com/flash...out-of-shells-equipment-in-fight-for-bakhmut/
 
Last edited:
Pure western propaganda completely divorced from reality. Zelinkski is at NATO and the US near daily begging for arms and equipment (and suggesting men). Ukraine is kidnapping young and old men and sending them to the front often with no training or weapon. The lifespan of a Ukrainian Soldier at the front is less than 5 hours as reported from multiple sources. It's under constant Russian shelling, and Russia has it 75% surrounded and it's just bleeding Ukraine of men and arms every day. They have left 1 road open to allow this and Ukraine keeps sending men to their deaths, thousands dying daily.

Bakmut is basically fallen and unwinnable by Ukraine, basically a meatgrinder, with Ukraine troops fleeing daily. And it's important having been touted by the west as a critical place to hold.

As I've mentioned, within weeks or months Ukraine is out of men and artillery. It has outpaced the ability of the west to produce more arms to give them.

https://www.europereloaded.com/bakhmut-has-fallen-and-its-obvious-why/

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-ukraine-bakhmut-fall-war-1786631

https://www.theburningplatform.com/2023/03/04/bakhmut-strategic-or-not-is-falling/

https://cairnsnews.org/2023/02/03/b...ping-nearly-25000-ukros-and-supplies-cut-off/

https://www.militarytimes.com/flash...out-of-shells-equipment-in-fight-for-bakhmut/
The main reason Ukraine is holding in Bakhmut is that its an easy way to trade men at a favorable ratio for Ukraine. For sure the Ukrainians are short of some weapons and ammo, but the same is true of Russia.
Anyways, your reliable sources seem to agree with me, and your "Cairnsnews.org" type tinfoil hat wearing sources seem to favor russia for some reason? I guess they just chose the opposite viewpoint of the government, no matter how silly, because they must be wrong?
 
The main reason Ukraine is holding in Bakhmut is that its an easy way to trade men at a favorable ratio for Ukraine. For sure the Ukrainians are short of some weapons and ammo, but the same is true of Russia.
Anyways, your reliable sources seem to agree with me, and your "Cairnsnews.org" type tinfoil hat wearing sources seem to favor russia for some reason? I guess they just chose the opposite viewpoint of the government, no matter how silly, because they must be wrong?
Thankfully the dogs and cats left behind are being well fed.
"Trade men at a favorable ratio"? There ain't no woke movement in the RF.
Putin cleaned up the prisons of chronic repeat offenders and street zombies.
 
The main reason Ukraine is holding in Bakhmut is that its an easy way to trade men at a favorable ratio for Ukraine.
Untrue. Ukraine forces are dwindling, down to a barely combat effective military. Russia has something between 300k - 750k men in reserve. Probably more.

According to this CNN article, Ukraine started with 200,000 active and 900,000 reservists. But we know millions of Ukraien men fled. And we know Ukraine has suffered some 150k dead and 250k wounded. Ukraine is almost out of men. Contrast that with Russia. It started with 900,000 active and 2,000,000 reservists. It has also employed Wagner and sent conscripts of unknown numbers. Whatever the actual figure, something probably significantly less than Ukraine, Russia has hundreds of thousands or millions of men in reserve.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/25/europe/russia-ukraine-military-comparison-intl/index.html

Ukrainians are short of some weapons and ammo, but the same is true of Russia.
Russia is among the largest arms producers in the world, has near endless artillery reserves, and is pounding Ukraine 10x as much, at up to 60,000 shells daily.

Ukraine has no manufacturing and entirely now relying on western aid, and projections say they'll run out of artillery by summer.

From 2022:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/russia-ukraine-war-ammo-rcna56210
"Russia is firing a staggering 20,000 artillery rounds per day, a senior U.S. defense official estimated, while Ukraine is firing from 4,000 to 7,000 rounds daily.

The Ukrainians are quickly burning through their stockpiles of artillery rounds and other ammunition, including for their air defense systems, officials said.

“Ukraine still needs a significant amount of artillery going forward,” the official said. “Consumption rates in this war are very high.”"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-to-...illery-shells-as-russia-gains-ground-5e25a064
March 20, 2023
"EU to Send Ukraine a Million Artillery Shells as Russia Gains Ground"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...-theyre-worried-about-running-out/ar-AA192oMJ
March 21, 2023
"Front-line Ukrainian soldiers say it seems like Russia has 'unlimited' artillery shells to throw at them while they're worried about running out. "They have an unlimited amount of shells. They have entire warehouses full of them," one soldier, identified as Dima, said. "They could shoot all day, and they'll never run out of shells."
 
Untrue. Ukraine forces are dwindling, down to a barely combat effective military. Russia has something between 300k - 750k men in reserve. Probably more.

According to this CNN article, Ukraine started with 200,000 active and 900,000 reservists. But we know millions of Ukraien men fled. And we know Ukraine has suffered some 150k dead and 250k wounded. Ukraine is almost out of men. Contrast that with Russia. It started with 900,000 active and 2,000,000 reservists. It has also employed Wagner and sent conscripts of unknown numbers. Whatever the actual figure, something probably significantly less than Ukraine, Russia has hundreds of thousands or millions of men in reserve.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/25/europe/russia-ukraine-military-comparison-intl/index.html


Russia is among the largest arms producers in the world, has near endless artillery reserves, and is pounding Ukraine 10x as much, at up to 60,000 shells daily.

Ukraine has no manufacturing and entirely now relying on western aid, and projections say they'll run out of artillery by summer.

From 2022:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/russia-ukraine-war-ammo-rcna56210
"Russia is firing a staggering 20,000 artillery rounds per day, a senior U.S. defense official estimated, while Ukraine is firing from 4,000 to 7,000 rounds daily.

The Ukrainians are quickly burning through their stockpiles of artillery rounds and other ammunition, including for their air defense systems, officials said.

“Ukraine still needs a significant amount of artillery going forward,” the official said. “Consumption rates in this war are very high.”"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-to-...illery-shells-as-russia-gains-ground-5e25a064
March 20, 2023
"EU to Send Ukraine a Million Artillery Shells as Russia Gains Ground"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...-theyre-worried-about-running-out/ar-AA192oMJ
March 21, 2023
"Front-line Ukrainian soldiers say it seems like Russia has 'unlimited' artillery shells to throw at them while they're worried about running out. "They have an unlimited amount of shells. They have entire warehouses full of them," one soldier, identified as Dima, said. "They could shoot all day, and they'll never run out of shells."
No one of import has said Ukraine had to hold Bahkmut. It holds no strategic or geographic significance. Its a town on the European plain that produced Gypsum. For some reason Russia wants it. They have been pouring men directly into machine gun nests to get it for I think 7 months.

Number of shells is to some degree irrelevant at this point, given that Russia is trying to flatten towns with WW1 precision and Ukraine is not.

Yesterday you told me the AP was a nest of Western Propoganda but today you post CNN is a basion of truth?

No one will know anything until May when the ground dries up and movement en mass is possible again.
 
Our stuff works as seen constantly and we have more of it. Show where Chinese stuff works please....Thanks didn't think you could.
Oh yea their stealth stuff is inferior.

My concern is, how fast can losses be replaced, by either side? What does it matter how good your stuff is if (for example) you can only replace a single plane per month? what if your competitor can build 1 per week? who will lose that game?

That's the downside of high tech weaponry, you can't replace it easily or not at all if some part of the supply chain is out of your control.
 
No one of import has said Ukraine had to hold Bahkmut. It holds no strategic or geographic significance.
:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:

6 months ago, it was critically important, but now that it's all but fallen the western propaghandists claim it's of little strategic value.

I guess, technically, Zelinsky isn't that important.
https://www.newsweek.com/zelensky-issues-warning-about-whats-come-if-ukraine-loses-bakhmut-1786167
"Losing control of Bakhmut could shape the future of the war against Russia, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said. More than a year after Russian President Vladimir Putin launched the invasion of Ukraine, some of the most bloody combat remains concentrated around Bakhmut, a city in the Donetsk region, one of the two areas that comprise the Donbas, a separatist area that Russia said it wanted to liberate at the start of the war. Zelensky has vowed to keep his troops fighting for the city. He explained why Ukraine will not withdraw from Bakhmut in a new interview with CNN on Tuesday, explaining that giving up control of the city could have significant impact, allowing Russia to have easier access to other areas in Eastern Ukraine. "This is tactical for us," he said. "We understand that after Bakhmut, they could go further. They could go to Kramatorsk. They could go to Sloviansk. It would be open road for the Russians after Bakhmut to other towns in Ukraine in the Donetsk direction in the east of Ukraine. That's why our guys are standing there.""


https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/24/politics/ukraine-shift-tactics-bakhmut/index.html
"The US and its allies want Ukraine to change its battlefield tactics in the spring"
...Ukraine is also suffering enormous casualties in the battle and expending tremendous amounts of artillery ammunition daily – a style of fighting that the US does not believe is sustainable. In terms of sheer volume, Russia still has more artillery ammunition and manpower, with the paramilitary organization Wagner Group using thousands of convicts to “throw bodies” at the battle, the Western intelligence official said...."


https://thehill.com/policy/international/3899514-fighting-in-bakhmut-very-tough-zelensky-says/
3/14/23
"NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg warned last week that despite heavy Russian losses, “we cannot rule out that Bakhmut may eventually fall in the coming days.”"

Dozens are articles essentially state the same thing. Ukraine has made it their last stand of stragic import and Russia is grinding them to nothing there. Zelinsky is slow to learn this and wants to hold, but now the west wants him to abandon it for obvious reasons. And those reasons DO NOT include "Ukraine is winning in Bakhmut."
 
My concern is, how fast can losses be replaced, by either side? What does it matter how good your stuff is if (for example) you can only replace a single plane per month? what if your competitor can build 1 per week? who will lose that game?

That's the downside of high tech weaponry, you can't replace it easily or not at all if some part of the supply chain is out of your control.
My observations, and the slight side-discussion about Ukraine/Russia, are important inasmuch as both the west and China are watching this carefully.

One major takeaway is the fact that the western backed Ukraine is LOSING. It's just reality. And supply chains are long and slow. The west has promised a handful of mismatched tanks and jets, etc. but most of those are weeks or months from arrival and training times are long on these systems.

Given the more isolated eastern proximity and challenges of defending Taiwan, I would expect the west to have LESS success there, not greater. The west has bases there sure, notably S. Korea. We have a (largely unarmed) Japan, and Australia. Not a whole lot more support in that region. We have to cross oceans to arrive as well, with long supply chains.
 
Untrue. Ukraine forces are dwindling, down to a barely combat effective military. Russia has something between 300k - 750k men in reserve. Probably more.

According to this CNN article, Ukraine started with 200,000 active and 900,000 reservists. But we know millions of Ukraien men fled. And we know Ukraine has suffered some 150k dead and 250k wounded. Ukraine is almost out of men. Contrast that with Russia. It started with 900,000 active and 2,000,000 reservists. It has also employed Wagner and sent conscripts of unknown numbers. Whatever the actual figure, something probably significantly less than Ukraine, Russia has hundreds of thousands or millions of men in reserve.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/25/europe/russia-ukraine-military-comparison-intl/index.html


Russia is among the largest arms producers in the world, has near endless artillery reserves, and is pounding Ukraine 10x as much, at up to 60,000 shells daily.

Ukraine has no manufacturing and entirely now relying on western aid, and projections say they'll run out of artillery by summer.

From 2022:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/russia-ukraine-war-ammo-rcna56210
"Russia is firing a staggering 20,000 artillery rounds per day, a senior U.S. defense official estimated, while Ukraine is firing from 4,000 to 7,000 rounds daily.

The Ukrainians are quickly burning through their stockpiles of artillery rounds and other ammunition, including for their air defense systems, officials said.

“Ukraine still needs a significant amount of artillery going forward,” the official said. “Consumption rates in this war are very high.”"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-to-...illery-shells-as-russia-gains-ground-5e25a064
March 20, 2023
"EU to Send Ukraine a Million Artillery Shells as Russia Gains Ground"

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...-theyre-worried-about-running-out/ar-AA192oMJ
March 21, 2023
"Front-line Ukrainian soldiers say it seems like Russia has 'unlimited' artillery shells to throw at them while they're worried about running out. "They have an unlimited amount of shells. They have entire warehouses full of them," one soldier, identified as Dima, said. "They could shoot all day, and they'll never run out of shells."
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, my buddy "in the know" says a draw is likely unless the west ships more of its more modern weapons. Neither side can get air superiority, the Russian ground forces aren't skilled or organized enough to make any rapid gains, and Ukraine does lack the man power and armour to roll the Russians back over a broad front.
A Bakhmut type battle favors the Russians will lots of simple short/mid range artillery, and more men, but they still can't even win that in a reasonably efficient manner...
As an arm-chair general I think might be a good Ukraine strategy to fake a few mass retreats, and let the Russians overextend and screw up their supply line defenses again... The Ukrainian armed forces were in training by NATO in our combat methods for a long time before the war started, so they can handle a rapidly evolving battle and joint force operations much better than the russians seem to be able to.
Also part of me just wants the good guys to win, why cheer for a murderous tyrant dictator? I think since the west is this committed so far, we should just make it clear we are going to supply Ukraine with the weapons to hold Russia off until they give up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom