Ukraine's counteroffensive began later than it had hoped as it waited for more Western weapons, giving Russia time to build up its defenses.
A former Army Ranger who fought in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Ukraine said the fighting in the Eastern European country was much worse than that in those other countries. David Bramlette told The Daily Beast that he had air support, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance when he was in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"The worst day in Afghanistan and Iraq is a great day in Ukraine," he said.
Because there were no wars with extensive trench warfare after WW2. It was always insurgents vs regular military, or insurgents vs other insurgents. Now there is regular military on both sides, and they had 1.5 years to dig fortifications and cover every flat piece of land with mines and tripwires.
I wonder if we could use data from satellites and develop an AI program to extrapolate where possible mines might be placed based on previously found mine locations using video and geo-spatial data along with real-time verification to improve modeling.
Or would that be too practical and not make enough money?
The problem isn't knowing roughly where mines could be, people are good at that and you don't need an AI for this. The problem is knowing precisely where mines are, which is something AIs won't help with.
Yes because if Ukraine threatens to gain territory within Russia's historic (pre-2014) border they will absolutely use nuclear weapons. They've made this clear, and honestly, they didn't have to.
No nuclear power has ceded any significant territory through open conflict since the advent of nuclear weapons. China won't, France won't, Russia won't, Pakistan won't, North Korea won't, the U.S. won't. It doesn't even have to be spoken out loud to be a known factor. If the deterrent of nuclear strikes won't protect your border, then you have absolutely nothing to lose by using them if you are even slightly concerned that you couldn't move the border back conventionally.