U.S. Response to Russia's Invasion of Ukraine

[Monash]

All good points!

Something I needed to be reminded about....every Fencer, Bear, Backfire and Foxhound that is lost through operational or combat losses is gone for good.

Yep. But beyond that even their more modern Sukhoi series will have problems because the number of engines and other complex components that Russia can produce in a year to keep it's large fleet of combat aircraft in service doesn't seem to be equaling the total cumulative flight hours those aircraft are being asked to fly. Basically? New engine hours coming off the production line seem to be less than the engine hours required by Russia to sustain the current combat operations. So as was the case with land vehicles it looks like Putin is burning through flight hours faster than than they can be replenished.

And if that trend continues the only medium term option is reduced flight hours per unit until such time as an equilibrium is reached. Eventually I would hazard a guess that this is going to lead to a lot of otherwise flyable aircraft sitting around in hangers waiting for spares. And for all practical purposes any aircraft sitting in a hanger with it's guts open up waiting for a new engine or whatever is just as much a 'win' for Ukraine as one that has been shot down. At least in terms of all the good they do Russia.

[TopHatter]

My takeaway was more positive i.e. yes Russia can replace some systems (like (T-90s) at rates more or less sufficient to replace losses but no more than that while other systems like jet engines or hyper-sonic missiles look like they can't be replaced at a rate that will permit sustained high levels of operational usage leading to long term, chronic supply constraints. What I found particularly was interesting was the rate the Russians are burning through armored vehicles. Yes they have some capacity to replace losses but only models currently in production. T-80s, T-72s and BMP-2s etc aren't manufactured new and can't be replaced except from stockpiles.

And Perun pointed out that the Russians appear to have lost most of the their pre-war, first line, fully upgraded T-80s and T-72s and have since started replacing them with less effective/well equipped upgrades form those stockpiles. If I read his figures correctly at current rates they will have burnt through most of their stockpile of surplus vehicles about 2025 or so. New production is simply nowhere near what's needed to replace war time losses.

All good points!

Something I needed to be reminded about....every Fencer, Bear, Backfire and Foxhound that is lost through operational or combat losses is gone for good.

[Monash]

Yeah but what was depressing was how well their defense output is still doing. Thanks to countries like China, Russia seems to be getting all the resources they need to keep up a good output.

My takeaway was more positive i.e. yes Russia can replace some systems (like (T-90s) at rates more or less sufficient to replace losses but no more than that while other systems like jet engines or hyper-sonic missiles look like they can't be replaced at a rate that will permit sustained high levels of operational usage leading to long term, chronic supply constraints. What I found particularly was interesting was the rate the Russians are burning through armored vehicles. Yes they have some capacity to replace losses but only models currently in production. T-80s, T-72s and BMP-2s etc aren't manufactured new and can't be replaced except from stockpiles.

And Perun pointed out that the Russians appear to have lost most of the their pre-war, first line, fully upgraded T-80s and T-72s and have since started replacing them with less effective/well equipped upgrades from those stockpiles. If I read his figures correctly at current rates they will have burnt through most of their stockpile of surplus vehicles about 2025 or so. New production is simply nowhere near what's needed to replace war time losses.

[TopHatter]

BTW has anyone else watched Perun's latest upload, an analysis of Russia's defense output in 2023. Very interesting. It pretty much supports the contention that (provided the Western allies maintain their current levels of support for Ukraine) Russia defense output is on borrowed time and that at the current rate they will have drained their stockpiles of old equipment by about 2025.

Yeah but what was depressing was how well their defense output is still doing. Thanks to countries like China, Russia seems to be getting all the resources they need to keep up a good output.

[Monash]

BTW has anyone else watched Perun's latest upload, an analysis of Russia's defense output in 2023. Very interesting. It pretty much supports the contention that (provided the Western allies maintain their current levels of support for Ukraine) Russia defense output is on borrowed time and that at the current rate they will have drained their stockpiles of old equipment by about 2025.

[TopHatter]

He doesn't have the backing of Congress, mainly the House. Notice in their latest bill there is no money for Ukraine.

Also doesn't have the support of the public. Not in the numbers that he needs

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/04/polit...ld%20do%20more.

All true, but there are things he can do, starting with ATACMS.

It's not going to be a game-changer but it'll be one hell of a great addition to the toolbox. (The SCALP/Storm Shadow strike on Sevastopol are showing that the Ukrainians know how to use 'em too)

And as Steve said, he could be selling further aid, pounding that drum and instructing the relevant Cabinet members to do the same.

I'm also certain that there's plenty more draw down authority left to be wielded.

[S2]

"He doesn't have the backing of Congress, mainly the House."

We shouldn't waste any more time on this then and signal Ukraine it's time to surrender...or Biden can roll up his selling sleeves and go to work selling. It's been a half-azzed effort by our nation and the know-nothings appear to be gaining the day. Cheapest and most righteous war we've been involved in ages and the near-sighted whining is a damned shame.

[Gun Grape]

What's Biden waiting for? Why hasn't he made the unequivocal firm commitment to giving Ukraine everything they need that we've got. THIS WAR, right now, is the only one which matters and we're not helped WRT to possible other wars by any ending other than victory and reclamation of all Ukrainian lands. THESE WEAPONS we hold were designed, first and foremost, to fight THIS ENEMY-in our hands or others.

Because, Russia is our ENEMY. It's o.k. It can be said. It should be said. It should be said by our President. In the clearest, bluntest terms.

Ukraine can't surrender. Bucha is the promise for all Ukrainians who surrender. Why would we not move MOUNTAINS to win this war?

He doesn't have the backing of Congress, mainly the House. Notice in their latest bill there is no money for Ukraine.

Also doesn't have the support of the public. Not in the numbers that he needs

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/04/polit...ld%20do%20more.

Overall, 55% say the US Congress should not authorize additional funding to support Ukraine vs. 45% who say Congress should authorize such funding. And 51% say that the US has already done enough to help Ukraine while 48% say it should do more.

When asked specifically about types of assistance the US could provide to Ukraine, there is broader support for help with intelligence gathering (63%) and military training (53%) than for providing weapons (43%), alongside very slim backing for US military forces to participate in combat operations (17%).

Most Americans who say the US should be doing more to support Ukraine are in favor of providing assistance in intelligence gathering (75%), military training (68%) and weapons (60%), while among those who say the US has already done enough, only intelligence gathering earns majority support (52%).

A majority of Americans do express concern that Russia’s war in Ukraine will threaten US national security (56%), but that’s down significantly February 2022 (72% were worried about threats to US security then).

A bigger worry across partisan lines in the new poll is that the war will continue without a resolution for a long time. Nearly 8 in 10 are worried about that, including 82% of Democrats, 75% of independents and 73% of Republicans. Nearly two-thirds overall are concerned that the war in Ukraine will lead to increased threats to democracy elsewhere (65%) or lead to Russian attacks elsewhere (64%), and about 6 in 10 are worried it could lead to a broader war in Europe (59%).

Republicans broadly say that Congress should not authorize new funding (71%) and that the US has done enough to assist Ukraine (59%). Among Democrats, most say the opposite, 62% favor additional funding and 61% say that the US should do more.

Within both parties, there are splits by ideology. On providing additional funding, liberal Democrats are far and away the most supportive, 74% back it compared with 51% of moderate or conservative Democrats. Among Republicans, about three-quarters of conservatives oppose new funding (76%) compared with 61% of moderate or liberal Republicans.

Independents mostly say the US has done enough to help Ukraine (56%) and that they oppose additional funding (55%).

When asked about specific forms of assistance, majorities across parties say the US should be providing Ukraine assistance in intelligence gathering (70% of Democrats, 63% of independents and 56% of Republicans say so). And while nearly two-thirds of Democrats back military training (64%), support among independents and Republicans drops to about half (48% among each group). There’s an even larger partisan gap over providing weapons to Ukraine, with 61% of Democrats behind that compared with 39% of independents and just 30% of Republicans. Less than 20% across parties back providing US military forces to participate in combat operations (19% among Democrats, 18% among independents and 16% among Republicans).

[TopHatter]

We’re not so innocent

Neither is Britney Spears. But compared to Donald Trump and Cult45, anyone else is practically a goddamn saint.

[statquo]

Well as you know, there's very fine people on both sides.

We’re not so innocent

[TopHatter]

What's Biden waiting for? Why hasn't he made the unequivocal firm commitment to giving Ukraine everything they need that we've got. THIS WAR, right now, is the only one which matters and we're not helped WRT to possible other wars by any ending other than victory and reclamation of all Ukrainian lands. THESE WEAPONS we hold were designed, first and foremost, to fight THIS ENEMY-in our hands or others.

Because, Russia is our ENEMY. It's o.k. It can be said. It should be said. It should be said by our President. In the clearest, bluntest terms.

Ukraine can't surrender. Bucha is the promise for all Ukrainians who surrender. Why would we not move MOUNTAINS to win this war?

This^^ So much fucking THIS^^

[S2]

What's Biden waiting for? Why hasn't he made the unequivocal firm commitment to giving Ukraine everything they need that we've got. THIS WAR, right now, is the only one which matters and we're not helped WRT to possible other wars by any ending other than victory and reclamation of all Ukrainian lands. THESE WEAPONS we hold were designed, first and foremost, to fight THIS ENEMY-in our hands or others.

Because, Russia is our ENEMY. It's o.k. It can be said. It should be said. It should be said by our President. In the clearest, bluntest terms.

Ukraine can't surrender. Bucha is the promise for all Ukrainians who surrender. Why would we not move MOUNTAINS to win this war?

[TopHatter]

No doubt he's trying it say both sides are morally equivalent with that.

Well as you know, there's very fine people on both sides.

[Ironduke]

When Welker noted that Russian forces have bombed Ukrainian maternity wards and indiscriminately targeted civilians, Trump said, "it's all terrible."

No doubt he's trying it say both sides are morally equivalent with that.

[TopHatter]

Trump: Putin praise means ‘what I’m saying is right’


Former President Trump in a new interview welcomed recent comments from Russian President Vladimir Putin embracing Trump’s pledge to end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours if he’s reelected.

“Meet the Press” moderator Kristen Welker quoted recent comments from Putin in which the Russian leader said Trump “says he will resolve all burning issues within several days, including the Ukrainian crisis. We cannot help but feel happy about it.”

“I like that he said that because that means what I’m saying is right,” Trump said when asked about the comments in an interview published Friday. “I would get him into a room, I would get [Ukrainian President] Zelensky into a room and I would get a deal worked out.”

Trump has frequently pledged that he would bring the conflict between Russia and Ukraine to an end in a matter of hours if elected president, something his Republican rivals and Democratic critics have scoffed at and suggested could only happen by ceding to Putin’s demands.

When Welker noted that Russian forces have bombed Ukrainian maternity wards and indiscriminately targeted civilians, Trump said, “it’s all terrible.”

Russia launched an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The Biden administration, with bipartisan support in Congress, has provided billions of dollars in military and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine in the months since, with President Biden vowing to stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes to win the war.

Trump has been critical of ongoing U.S. support, and some of his allies in Congress have opposed additional funding for Ukraine.

The former president has faced frequent criticism for his attitude and rhetoric toward Putin.

Trump repeatedly downplayed the intelligence community’s conclusion that Russia interfered with the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and he has praised Putin’s intelligence multiple times, including calling the Russian leader a “genius” for recognizing two breakaway territories in eastern Ukraine before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Asked by Welker if he welcomes Putin’s support, Trump stressed that Russia did not invade Ukraine while he was in office before reiterating that he and the Russian leader have a “very good relationship.”.

“I got along with him really well, and that’s a good thing, not a bad thing,” Trump said. “Getting along is OK. But I got along through strength. And the war would have never happened. Now what happened, it’s so bad.”
_______

And you'd prevent World War II, while you were at it...right?