20905

Yes, but both he and I said “western supplied”, not western equipment :)

20906

Yes, but:
image

20907

Fair enough but my point still remains about the amount of equipment supplied, whether NATO or Russian.

20908

Certainly. And the article lists the actual models of all the equipment. It’s just that the headline can be misleading - a lot the pieces in question are “Warsaw Pact” in origin, not really what is considered NATO - which I assume was Woolen’s point.

20909

Those poor buggers appear to be using M113s in an assault capacity, so some of those numbers are going to be very unfavorable indeed.

20910

The two messages I am hearing from right-wing media are: reassurance that the US will continue promised strong support for Ukraine but, also a strong push for the need for detailed congressional oversight for all military and other aid. I don’t know how much is the GOP “Hunter’s laptop”-ing the situation, how much is for grift or more pressure plays, and how much of the details will end up directly in Putin’s inbox.

20911
20912

“Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition”:

20913

We should apply a 300% tax to guns and ammo to help bolster the U.S. military. They all support the troops right?

20914

It’s a concern that will hopefully be addressed. But of course the whole reason we have NATO ammunition stockpiles is to reduce the threat of a Russian invasion of Europe. And that’s exactly what those artillery shells are doing.

20915
20916

The GOP has been desperate to find something that is non-Trump and non-Culture War that they can hang their hats on to appeal to moderate Independents, and this is an easy win.

“We support Ukraine, but we need to know where our money is going” is an easy line to deliver. But when they are in power and Lockheed Martin starts giving them the stink-eye over holding up the most recent round of ammunition funding, they’ll fall in line pretty quick.

20917

That was the old GOP. This new GQP is a mix of conspiracy theorists, racists, and outright traitors.

20918

It’s sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation perhaps for Russia. The BTGs are ineffective, but at least don’t concentrate a lot of stuff that can become targets. Larger formations concentrate combat power, especially artillery, but also make for juicy targets for long-range strikes. Overall though I do worry a bit because larger, less flexible but more powerful formations is much more in Russia’s wheelhouse historically.

20919

It also means that Russia is evaluating, learning lessons, and adapting which is not ideal.

20920

Does MOD publish more detailed analysis anywhere? RuAF might not be deploying new BTGs because they’re learning something, or because they lack the material and ability to form new ones.

20921

Yeah, I get the feeling that the new GOP isn’t quite as heavily influenced by Big Corporate as they used to be. Too many of the nuts that get them elected don’t care about that stuff.

20922

That’s actually a really important point. A 7-year-old estimate of the cost of a carrier group was $30 billion, so we haven’t yet spent as much on Ukraine as a single carrier yet, although we are rapidly approaching it. The damage the Ukrainians have inflicted on Russia makes the US and NATO vastly safer than a carrier group, or a couple of divisions or many air wings.

Now of course, it is very doubtful that we will actually see a meaningful reduction in US military spending. But from the security of the US and NATO, the ammo is way more useful for destroying Russian, equipment than sitting in a warehouse gathering dust and becoming obsolete. Of course, the human loss is horrendous, but that is not the choice of Ukraine or the US, it is Putin’s choice alone.

20923

Yikes.

20924

Was there any indication of what they’ve replaced the BTGs with?