6 ms·

> Additionally, precision weapons typically have a much smaller logistical footprint, and logistics can make or break military campaigns. Only if you exclude m

> Additionally, precision weapons typically have a much smaller logistical footprint, and logistics can make or break military campaigns. Only if you exclude manufacturing. > This "precision versus quantity" argument played out to greatly favor precision in Ukraine. Until the allies of Ukraine fell behind on artillery manufacturing — allowing Russia to gain dominance and grind down the Ukrainian military. That mass produced artillery out sustained precision munitions is a major lesson in Ukraine’s defeat.

aguaviva 2y ago
It's one thing to make a speculative assessment, or a prediction. But the use of the implied past tense in reference to a situation that has many variables and which in any case is far from decided is definitely quite pretentious.
- zmgsabst 2y ago
  I don’t think anybody serious questions the outcome of the Ukraine war — as evidenced by the international realignment caused by NATOs defeat, increases talk about Ukraine relinquishing ground, etc. What event do you believe could change the outcome at this point? And since Ukraine was defeated, we can discuss why: their inability to match artillery exchanges for most of the war.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    Since you not only "know" the outcome, but it apparently it's ancient history for you already - why are you asking?
    - zmgsabst 2y ago
      You disagree — perhaps I’m wrong. But that you responded with rhetoric rather than pointing out where I’m wrong suggests you don’t have an answer to what would change the outcome. Not even his allies believe in the “Victory Plan” — and several started talking about calling Putin after reading it. If you think I’m wrong, stop engaging in empty rhetoric and explain what you think will allow Ukraine to win… because nobody seems to know, not even Zelensky.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        Sorry, but I can't engage you on this. You have to understand that your original statement, in both content and tone, simply precludes any follow-up or debate. And then when this ws pointed out, you doubled down on the same weird, time-traveling, debate-terminating formulation. So okay, fine: HN is a big place, and there's plenty of other people you can debate on this particular point if you want. I don't think we'll convince each other of anything anyway, which is also perfectly fine.
  - throwaway2037 2y ago
    > caused by NATOs defeat To clarify: Is this a hypothetical statement or is there a specific NATO defeat that you have in mind? As I understand, Russia has not directly attacked any NATO states since the state of the Ukraine war. (Leave aside the sabotage of Nord Stream natural gas pipelines.)
lazide 2y ago
Haha, since when is Ukraine even close to defeat? Defeated enemies aren’t making regular incursions into the ‘victors’ land which the ‘victor’ can’t stop, or launching attacks agains the ‘victors’ capital. This just reads like Russian delusion/cope.
- ChoHag 2y ago
  [dead]
- zmgsabst 2y ago
  What are you talking about? Kursk was stopped after small gains and prior to any major captures — with Ukraine losing their best units. That loss has led to cities along the line of battle being captured, including the fortress city of Vuhledar. There’s now increased talk of Ukraine giving up territory — which is their defeat. Edit due to rate limit: You’re citing areas Russia withdrew from during the Istanbul talks as “lost” while ignoring that Russia posses 18% of Ukraine and is advancing. Russia isn’t losing “more and more control” on any front, they’re forcing Ukraine back — including driving Ukraine from places like Vuhledar they’ve held for the entire war until now. To use your Canadian analogy: It would be like if the US seized the 20% of Canada closest to the continental US and then proceeded to shell Canadian army to dysfunction from there — which would be seen as a sane and effective strategy.
  - lazide 2y ago
    Oh talk. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian-occupied_territories_of_Ukraine#:~:text=By%2011%20November%202022%2C%20the,about%2018%25%20of%20Ukraine's%20territory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian-occupied_territories....] Looks like Russia has lost everything but a tiny portion they gained, at immense cost - including the near total collapse of their economy. And are going to be locked in trench warfare on land they don’t control, with uncertain supply lines, with no air superiority - going into winter. And is losing more and more control of the little they have left. This is Russia’s Afghanistan writ large, and will lead to the total collapse of the Russian gov’t (and society) soon. It’s already nearly destroyed an entire generation of Russian men - in the middle of an already epic demographic collapse. Don’t get me wrong, this has wrought terrible damage to Ukraine too. But with Russia’s economy (previously) and population being 10x larger, this whole debacle is a huge embarrassment to Russia. Even bigger than the collapse of the USSR. It would be like if the US went to invade Canada, and couldn’t even hold Ottawa. Edit to answer your edit: maybe if the 18% was the land near Alaska. And they’re at almost the same amount of land they had control of when this whole mess started. All the major economically productive areas of Ukraine are still under Ukraine’s control.

aguaviva 2y ago

It's one thing to make a speculative assessment, or a prediction. But the use of the implied past tense in reference to a situation that has many variables and which in any case is far from decided is definitely quite pretentious.

zmgsabst 2y ago
I don’t think anybody serious questions the outcome of the Ukraine war — as evidenced by the international realignment caused by NATOs defeat, increases talk about Ukraine relinquishing ground, etc. What event do you believe could change the outcome at this point? And since Ukraine was defeated, we can discuss why: their inability to match artillery exchanges for most of the war.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  Since you not only "know" the outcome, but it apparently it's ancient history for you already - why are you asking?
  - zmgsabst 2y ago
    You disagree — perhaps I’m wrong. But that you responded with rhetoric rather than pointing out where I’m wrong suggests you don’t have an answer to what would change the outcome. Not even his allies believe in the “Victory Plan” — and several started talking about calling Putin after reading it. If you think I’m wrong, stop engaging in empty rhetoric and explain what you think will allow Ukraine to win… because nobody seems to know, not even Zelensky.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      Sorry, but I can't engage you on this. You have to understand that your original statement, in both content and tone, simply precludes any follow-up or debate. And then when this ws pointed out, you doubled down on the same weird, time-traveling, debate-terminating formulation. So okay, fine: HN is a big place, and there's plenty of other people you can debate on this particular point if you want. I don't think we'll convince each other of anything anyway, which is also perfectly fine.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  > caused by NATOs defeat To clarify: Is this a hypothetical statement or is there a specific NATO defeat that you have in mind? As I understand, Russia has not directly attacked any NATO states since the state of the Ukraine war. (Leave aside the sabotage of Nord Stream natural gas pipelines.)

lazide 2y ago

Haha, since when is Ukraine even close to defeat? Defeated enemies aren’t making regular incursions into the ‘victors’ land which the ‘victor’ can’t stop, or launching attacks agains the ‘victors’ capital. This just reads like Russian delusion/cope.

ChoHag 2y ago
[dead]
zmgsabst 2y ago
What are you talking about? Kursk was stopped after small gains and prior to any major captures — with Ukraine losing their best units. That loss has led to cities along the line of battle being captured, including the fortress city of Vuhledar. There’s now increased talk of Ukraine giving up territory — which is their defeat. Edit due to rate limit: You’re citing areas Russia withdrew from during the Istanbul talks as “lost” while ignoring that Russia posses 18% of Ukraine and is advancing. Russia isn’t losing “more and more control” on any front, they’re forcing Ukraine back — including driving Ukraine from places like Vuhledar they’ve held for the entire war until now. To use your Canadian analogy: It would be like if the US seized the 20% of Canada closest to the continental US and then proceeded to shell Canadian army to dysfunction from there — which would be seen as a sane and effective strategy.
- lazide 2y ago
  Oh talk. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian-occupied_territories_of_Ukraine#:~:text=By%2011%20November%202022%2C%20the,about%2018%25%20of%20Ukraine's%20territory https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian-occupied_territories....] Looks like Russia has lost everything but a tiny portion they gained, at immense cost - including the near total collapse of their economy. And are going to be locked in trench warfare on land they don’t control, with uncertain supply lines, with no air superiority - going into winter. And is losing more and more control of the little they have left. This is Russia’s Afghanistan writ large, and will lead to the total collapse of the Russian gov’t (and society) soon. It’s already nearly destroyed an entire generation of Russian men - in the middle of an already epic demographic collapse. Don’t get me wrong, this has wrought terrible damage to Ukraine too. But with Russia’s economy (previously) and population being 10x larger, this whole debacle is a huge embarrassment to Russia. Even bigger than the collapse of the USSR. It would be like if the US went to invade Canada, and couldn’t even hold Ottawa. Edit to answer your edit: maybe if the 18% was the land near Alaska. And they’re at almost the same amount of land they had control of when this whole mess started. All the major economically productive areas of Ukraine are still under Ukraine’s control.