Steve: "Team Jessica", as you put it, would like the war to end. That said, I would like the war to end with something other than Russia grabbing 20% of Ukraine, which would come roughly three-to-five years prior to Russia trying for another 20% or more, given that Russia's terms also include what amounts to a disarmament of Ukraine.

Jeff: While I realize it was a typo on your part, I'd be nothing short of amused to see an actual T-35 deployed (there's one left intact at the Kubinka Tank Museum, and it's been maintained in running condition).

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, September 08, 2025 - 09:45 am: Edit

Jeff, there were surprises both ways. Russian tanks aren’t as tough as some feared (the US Army knew exactly what they were). Russian wake-homing carrier-killer torpedoes and skval rocket torpedoes were surprisingly effective and deeply troubling.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Monday, September 08, 2025 - 10:37 am: Edit

Steve, of course we want the war to end. But giving Putin a ceasefire in place has been tried multiple times. It's always ended with a resumption of the war.

Furthermore, Putin continues to fight a low-grade war with the West. He wants to hurt us as much as he can without provoking a reaction. His actions in this regard include the Havana Syndrome attacks on Americans, large fires all over Europe (such as the Marywilska 44 Mall Fire in Warsaw), and assassinations abroad.

Lastly, I think you are missing a large component of the nuclear risk. It is dangerous to teach the lesson that "you can get away with provocations if you have nuclear weapons".

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, September 08, 2025 - 11:41 am: Edit

I have not ever accepted that premise, but I am concerned that every step must be weighed against that risk. If we, for example, fired cruise missiles into Russia, and they fired cruise missiles back at us, we could just say "ceasefire!" and deal with the harm done. If we fired cruise missiles, he fired nukes, we fired nukes back, it becomes hard to say "oh, never mind."

I am 74. I went through high school when the teachers told us, at least once a week: "You will never graduate or get married. You will die in nuclear war before then." I didn't really take them seriously but lots of my generation did. Their words really did burn a deep impression. It still haunts me that the teachers inflicted that horrible myth on a generation. They told us that "duck and cover" was just something to keep us calm while death arrived.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, September 08, 2025 - 11:47 am: Edit

Jessica, Putin is not going to agree to any kind of "go back to original borders" peace treaty unless someone bigger than Ukraine forces him to do it. Using that kind of force is definitely going to be bloody and expensive, and it's going to mean rolling those nuclear dice. Since Russia won't go back to the original borders voluntarily and we're not going to force them to, your plan for a war that somehow ends is just exactly what?

I have said before that...
1. I don't have an answer. (Spoiler: neither do you.)
2. This cannot go on forever; one side will crack, that will get ugly and unpredictable.
3. Trump's idea to just take the deal you can get has some logic to it, even if neither you nor I like it or agree with the idea. The problem is that Putin isn't even going to agree to Trump's idea of the deal we can get.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Monday, September 08, 2025 - 12:18 pm: Edit

SVC, if Putin ends with a ceasefire in place, he ends the war with a territorial gain. It's not the gain he wanted, but he might reasonably conclude that the war has succeeded for him. He might also reasonably conclude that he got away with his other provocations, such as the Havana Syndrome attacks.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, September 08, 2025 - 12:24 pm: Edit

"
By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, September 08, 2025 - 01:56 am: Edit

Jeff, if you're standing there with a rifle, a T34 is deadly enough and a T55 is even more so. True, their appearance means Russia is running out of tanks, but it doesn't mean the ones they are using are are jokes. Now, if they were deploying FT17s you might say junk because armor piercing 5.56 will go through them. But even a Char B is going to be something an infantry soldier must respect."

Just to add to this valid comment - many years ago (mid/late 1990's) I used to dMicro Tank WW2 and Modern Tank Games 1:300 Scale. A couple of us considered going to the UK National Competition and so we did some practice game for the "Modern" stuff.

For some fun - I had an Tajikistan Force (IIRC) - T80's, T34's and BMP.

I was facing a Britsh Heavy Tank Force (Challenger II's and FV80/Warriers as they became know as (the Rules has some rules for stuff about to be introduced - or guestimated if they was still new!!!).

The BMP's went down one flank- crossed a river guarding his flank - the T34's went down the other flank (out of sight for most the trip) and the T80's stayed at long range.

The Challengers was capable of killing the T80's at long range and with alot of luck, the T80's could damage the Challengers- but no matter how good the Challenger II was - it couldn't face 3 ways (so at the end of the game, the Saggers from the BMP's took a toll on one side and the T34's took a toll on the other side - as on the Flank, both could kill the Challenger II's).

(Vehicles has points - and so a Challenger II was alot - and T34 bugger all!)

On Paper - the Challenger II's should have rolled over me.

So - in classic Paper Rock Scissors...Armour Beats all, doesn't matter if it's 1" of 1940's Metal or 3" of 2000's Metal, your in troble if your just a foot soldier.

Why did the Russians keep all those old T55's etc?

They do have some value.

(And yes, it doen to perhaps Russian desires never to through anything useful away - - how many old Rockets are used to take stuff to space etc)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, September 08, 2025 - 12:45 pm: Edit

WJ, so far as I know, Trump offered a ceasefire in place and we saw Putin’s answer: “no, I will take victory for $300, Donald.”

He wants MORE land, no security deals for Ukraine, no sanctions, no further arms sales to Ukraine, Zelenskyy sent into exile or a Russian prison.

By A David Merritt (Adm) on Monday, September 08, 2025 - 02:00 pm: Edit

I stand by my earlier position, Putin will continue to take land from others, as long as we let him. The sooner we stop him, the less resources he has, and the more limited the resulting damage is likely to be.

Does that mean there is a risk of a large nuclear exchange, yes, however; there is a higher chance of a Russian coup now, then after a long string of successes under Putin's leadership. Note that the German military was planning to turn on Hitler if the West had intervened up until Czechoslovakia was dismembered. After that, they all went under Hitler's heel.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Monday, September 08, 2025 - 02:02 pm: Edit

Well, although not ideal (and Putin seems to think he can get eveything he wants)...

.... how about we just lie?

We say 'yes to Peace and you get what you want' - and once the Ink has dried, we annouce Ukraine has joined NATO?

We play the 'we don't trust you card' and massively re-inforce Ukraine.

Yep - Nuclear War is a risk - but if he has got the land he wants and is allowed back into world Trade - one would hope (really really hope) he has won enough to say 'he Won' and everyone is happier?

i.e. We tell Russia one thing and the Ukraine another - they both get what they want 'in the end'??

By Matthew Lawson (Mglawson) on Monday, September 08, 2025 - 02:30 pm: Edit

The first step to peace is probably getting Putin near a very high open window and letting gravity do the rest.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, September 08, 2025 - 02:50 pm: Edit

Matthew: I leave that in your capable hands.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Monday, September 08, 2025 - 10:36 pm: Edit

Russia only has about a dozen working T-34s and they had to buy them back from someone in Afica for their parades. Thy've got singles or so working older tanks that have been seen in parades over the last 10ish years.

Unless they found the cave system they put them and the Shermans they got through Lend-Lease after WW2.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Monday, September 08, 2025 - 11:08 pm: Edit

Ryan,I have no data on current number of T-34 tanks in Russian service, quick internet search seems to support the numbers you quote.

Deep dive into various blogs over the last three years have identified some eighty T-34 model tanks, not all of which have received all of the various refits/upgrades.

Very few actual reports of T-34 tanks in close combat, mostly rear area security (road block/check point) and “indirect fire support”, which frankly, has confused me.

Both sides have aggressively used counter battery fire.

If the Russians did try to use T-34 tanks for “indirect fire support” I would expect the Ukraine counter battery fire would be very able to deal with the threat.

Not to mention drones etc.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Tuesday, September 09, 2025 - 12:11 am: Edit

SVC, correct, Putin did not agree to a ceasefire in place.

Obviously I am not privy to his thinking. My assumption is that it was along the lines of "there is no reason for me to agree to that, because if I keep fighting, I might gain more land. If my military gets in trouble, I can always agree to a ceasefire at that time. But for now, we are gaining ground."

I am aware that his gains are absurdly slow, especially compared to the casualties it costs.

All of that said, if he does later agree to a ceasefire in place, I imagine he could consider that his attacks were a net gain to him, as he has gained territory.

That's why I think that offering a ceasefire in place teaches the lesson that one can get away with provocations, mass murder, and so on if one has nukes.

How do you propose to avoid teaching that lesson?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, September 09, 2025 - 12:19 am: Edit

I don’t think anyone has been teaching that lesson.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Tuesday, September 09, 2025 - 12:37 am: Edit

I'm not accusing anyone of wanting to teach that lesson or of trying to teach that lesson. It's a matter of the practical impact of one's decisions.

I think the lesson has been taught by Obama (Minsk 1 and 2), Biden (refusing various weapon systems to Ukraine; restrictions against attacks in Russia), and Trump (Endless attempts to negotiate peace when Putin isn't interested; Rubio saying "there is no military solution").

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Tuesday, September 09, 2025 - 08:52 am: Edit

Here's how the whole "pardon criminals who will go to the front lines" thing is working out for Russia:

Russian wife killer Azamat Iskaliyev had served less than a third of a nine-year murder sentence - for stabbing his spouse to death in his car in the summer of 2021 because she wanted a divorce - when he was freed and pardoned by Russia in return for fighting in Ukraine.

After returning to civilian life, he knifed an ex-girlfriend more than 60 times after she rejected his advances. In July, he was jailed for more than 19 years for the frenzied murder.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, September 09, 2025 - 08:56 am: Edit

One case doesn’t mean much but no one on the planet thought this policy was a good idea.

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Tuesday, September 09, 2025 - 09:08 am: Edit

Personally, would require the prisoners to serve in the military for the remaining time of their sentence....
Then return them to Russia as civilians....

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, September 09, 2025 - 12:43 pm: Edit

I was (minutes ago) reading a WWII history book in the office bathroom when I came across a mention that a US soldier was found stealing morphine from the medics and selling it to civilian drug addicts. Turns out, he was a career criminal allowed to enlist instead of going to jail. The Army reported a lot of these problems.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Tuesday, September 09, 2025 - 01:33 pm: Edit

Good idea or really stupid?

Israel seems to not want to talk to anyone.... as they have just attacked Hamas Negiotation Teams/leaders (could be either, could be both) in Doha.

Qatar has perhaps correctly claimed it's a blatant violation of international law.

With a US Military Base in Qatar - one can only assume the US was made aware of the attack prior to it occuring (and if so, it puts both the US and Qatar in a very difficult position)?


How is this going to end?

By Jessica Orsini (Jessica_Orsini) on Tuesday, September 09, 2025 - 01:42 pm: Edit

Oh, it wasn't just a strike on the leadership and negotiation team; it was a strike on the leadership and negotiation team while they were in the middle of considering a U.S.-backed peace proposal.

Best guess here is that Security Minister Ben-Gvir is finally getting his way in full.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, September 09, 2025 - 01:53 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Israel seems to not want to talk to anyone.... as they have just attacked Hamas Negiotation Teams/leaders (could be either, could be both) in Doha.

---

---

Quote:

Qatar has perhaps correctly claimed it's a blatant violation of international law.

---

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Tuesday, September 09, 2025 - 01:53 pm: Edit

Interesting story from mid-late 90s...
During an exercise, tank ran of of fuel or broke down...
Crew traded it for a few bottles of vodka...
Only noticed when the farmer was selling high quality steel that had been cut into chunks...