No offense, but do you have any background in combat arms ?
as a former ACR(Armored Cav Regiment) NCO, all the media, arm chair general numbers, metrics, general narratives are fine but not material when it comes to large scale combined arms ground combat power.
To actually change the balance of the war there is a requirement which is:
A)building of a NCO core, command leadership up to brigade/regiment level grounded in AirLand Battle Doctrine (Ukraine version)
B) Building that force while integrating across combined combat arms domains is whats necessary to build large scale mobile combat power.
C) Also, nobody has Air dominance and it doesn't look like Russian Air Force Command is working to generate it, they are focused on SEAD not the full Suppression and Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD/DEAD) cycle
D) to control, dictate the pace, scale & mass, movement across large scale Battlespace (measured in 1000s of grid squares) is the measure of dominance in the fight in Ukraine
E) Ukraine Ground Forces have been building defense in depth, fortifications, lines of support..& are also transforming their SEAD/DEAD
F) This "Russian breakthrough", predicted since the invasion is not a capability that Russian Land Forces have in mass, leadership, support, sustainment, combined arms
G) Basically every metric the Russians don't have a ability to create a breakthrough much less exploit one at scale 40-80,000 forces across grid squares (100s)
H) Ukraine at this time has the second or third most battle tested capable land force on earth
I) The idea that Ukraine should "sue for peace" after 26+ months of the highest kinetic warfare in Europe since 1945 & 10yrs of fighting Russian forces and having given up less then 10% of new Ukrainian territory since the invasion doesn't make logic
J) I'm missing the logic of why Ukraine should give up and what settlement with Russia would generate a result that would be different then any of the last 20yrs with Russia ?
K) Everyone seems to want the fighting to stop but offer zero on how to enforce the settlement with deterrence necessary vs. Russia to enforce it
L) There seems to be after 2+yrs in the media, academic, general discourse a very weak understanding of how actual things work across
battle doctrine, sustainment, force development, composition, employment, combat leadership/ NCO & leader development, Air-land power relationships, combined arms combat power, synchronizing of forces across multi-domain planning, the whole C6ISR cycle, Theater/Corps level area planning & all concepts in the defensive/ offensive force dynamics & deployment
Does the 5 week training Nato gives to ukrainian middle aged men (median age 43) equip them for a modern day war? Against troops in their 20s and 30s who have have completed at least a year of conscription and then a minimum of 3 months specialised training?
Does the hodgepodge of different arms, artillery, systems, tanks etc give Ukraine a huge disadvantage to a set of arms which have been in use in that army continuously?
What happened to the Patriots?
F) This "Russian breakthrough", predicted since the invasion is not a capability that Russian Land Forces have in mass, leadership, support, sustainment, combined arms
True. But Ukraine has run out of arms, men, willpower and US will only print money if most of it results in kick backs to Washington.
H) Ukraine at this time has the second or third most battle tested capable land force on earth
Ukraine's first land force (the original one) was tested and destroyed.
The second one (newly manned with all the remaining ex-Soviet weaponry in E Europe) was tested and destroyed.
The third one was given western weapons, new men trained in Nato countries and was tested and destroyed.
The half million current call up is to build a fourth one.
Tested and proven failures every one.
K) Everyone seems to want the fighting to stop but offer zero on how to enforce the settlement with deterrence necessary vs. Russia to enforce it
There is no deterrence feasible. Nato guarantees to Kiev would kill any possible deal.
A settlement requires a full acceptance of defeat and guaranteed by a competent Kiev government that it will not repeat attacks on Russian speaker, seek to join Nato or permit Nato troops on rump Ukraine.
Finding that competent government will be the real challenge.
US & Nato got Ukraine into this mess, but Ukraine has to gets itself out. (or try and find another half million to sent to the front)
The majority of training Ukraine has in basic training (2-4weeks), small unit tactics (SUT) 1-2 weeks is in regional training centers for about 600k Ukrainians & the assigned battalions training team does the majority of the training after that which is a hodge podge of skills has to be upgraded to the Brigade training group as a new standard and then one day Division training & readiness regiment where real individual soldier & unit readiness can be developed, measured, sustained & upgraded
Ukraine needs a "Smart Book" Series of publications across their combat arms forces to standardize training, readiness, effective MOS skill ratings across all forces. I expect this in the next phase of Ukraine Force development
While this has been below US readiness average, compared to "Russian Meat Launchers" of the last 2yrs its at least developmental. Also Russia does not have an effective NCO core, mobile combined arms doctrine or capability or air dominatance, high mobility fires. This limits Russian large scale offensive force employment.
F) thats the point, if Russia doesn't have breakthru ability, but according to you Ukraine has nothing and never did, then how do you explain Russia limits in their ability to take advantage. Both can't be true.
Maybe Russia can't breakthru because they don't have the force capability, employment & Ukraine has built defense in depth?
H) Please explain to me why if Russia has destroyed so many generations of Ukrainian Land Forces why Russian Army Groups can't create a thrust more then 10km into contested battlespace ?
Doesn't add up? the magical awesome Russian forces who can't take or hold objectives with more then a battalion after 2yrs .. What gives ?
Maybe just Maybe Russian Land Forces are not that effective & Ukraine Ground Forces are better then given credit for.. Maybe
K) Given Russia can't make Ukraine stop fighting, the west can't either your approach is to just wishcast Ukraine to stop, give up, accept Russia as a dominator and thats it.
Kinda absurd. Ukraine is not stopping, Russia has to escalate to try to change battlespace dynamics but without Air Dominance can't so none of you proposals will happen.
Q2 - do you think 5 weeks with nato is sufficient was my question.
I;m guessing not at all.
then 100k is the Nato training. But Ukraine has recruited something like 1 million since the start (lets assume the initial 700k were trained, if only as a national guard).
Many have claimed they were dragged into the army off the street,allowed to shoot 3 or 4 bullets from a rifle, and then sent straight to the front line.
Again do you think they are responsibly trained and ready to fight even Wagner (who actually made up a small part of Russian forces when they were active - all Wagner was 50k).
Russians by contrast (what ever you seem to have read) have called up reserves who all have at least 1 year in conscription somewhere in their past plus a minimum of 3 months training before they get sent to the SMO. (they also get regular rotation which Ukrainians don't).
(you seem to be under the illusion that Russia is careless with troops - pure Kiev propaganda. There is a huge difference, Russians are professional. General Syrsky's nickname is the Butcher - given to him by his own troops. It is not for his reputation as a killer of Russians, it is as a manager of Ukrainian troops.
Smart Book?? Just how many Smart Books do you think Ukraine needs given the incredible complex of systems it has been given each in small quantities. Often systems that interact with other systems in different ways and requiring different training. There wasn't a smartbook in Ukrainian ever for the Javelin which one would have thought was a pretty standard weapon. There are Ukrainian horror stories of searching google for instructions in English when faced with a Russian tank.
And even Smart books aren't going to help with weapons designed for use against the wrong opposition, Troop carriers built for Afghanistan where being high helps to spot an IED or potential trouble aren't ideal in very flat Ukraine. Nor are tall tanks designed for mountain regions.
"Also Russia does not have an effective NCO core, mobile combined arms doctrine or capability or air dominatance, high mobility fires. This limits Russian large scale offensive force employment."
No idea where you have read this stuff. Russia prioritises highly trained junior officers over NCOs true. Which is the reverse of US practice but equally effective and provides equal levels of independent action.
Of course it has mobile combined arms doctrine but this is a war of attrition where Russia is simply maximising the kill ration by firing 10x the shells and adding long distance missiles to target gatherings of troops. Russia has total air dominance (as reports from Ukraine have confirmed - they have often complained about Nato training being based on having air dominance while conditions are the reverse - consequently much of Nato's tactics have been junked.
High mobility fires? And yet somehow in Feb/March 2022 Russia put all that artillery in front of the dug in Ukrainian positions and was outfiring them 10:1. 8 years Nato spent advising on those dug in positions and they were supposed to give Ukraine the edge as they could simply shell civilians until the LPR/DPR gave in.
Btw while Ukraine brags about regaining 6k sq km in summer 2022 has anyone asked how Russia without the ability to employ large scale offensive force took the first 18k sq km in a week or two? No - we don't talk about losing 18-0 in the first half, it is all about getting back to 18-6 in the second half.
Still despite this, Russia cares for the Ukrainian population and for its own troops. A large scale attack on a defended Ukraine would cause significant deaths to both. So it is unlikely. Further so long as Ukraine lets Russia attack concentrated numbers of Ukrainian troops in small towns and fights to the death to keep them, it is far far more efficient in terms of kill ratio to let them defend the small towns because of the 10:1 shell ratio.
Ukraine collapses very soon.
F&H) much of this is answered above - attrition suits Russia a lot.
The other big point is that western media have completely mislead their readers about Russian goals. the goals are: de-nazification; de-militarisation (of Ukraine but they are rapidly demilitarising Nato too - weapons, they have no troops); and preventing Ukraine from inviting Nato forces into Russian's neighbour.
None of this implies taking land, and certainly given that Russia is a huge underpopulated country that gives away land to immigrants. Protection of Russian speakers is a goal, but that is driven by local requests to join Russia not a Russian desire to gain land. As you will recall in Minsk 1 & 2 Russia actively encouraged Donbas to be part of Ukraine with limited autonomy.
So attriton until Ukraine collapses. Occasional withdrawals are quite acceptable if there would be any cost in blood to defend a position.
K) Ukraine has stopped. It stopped attacking long ago and has reluctantly got around to building some rather piddly defences which will not last long if attacked.
The reason this has taken so long is because Nato really did spend 8 years building dug in artillery positions in front of Donbas as a threat to Donbas civilians. And if you listen to Russia talking strategy the intention really is to destroy those dug in positions and NOT take territory.
There are few troops left, no more wester equipment to be delivered (that ran out too) so fighting is near an end.
What Russia needs now is a stable competent rump Ukraine government willing to behave responsibly, keep Nato out, and not threaten Russian speakers.
That is the difficult part for Kiev and the near impossible part for Nato/US (which is why there are so many people in the Swiss peace conference trying to tell the US to give up - Russian presence is not necessary).
Obviously Ukrainians need this too. They can't afford another half million dead.
Your final point. Russia is very happy with battle space dynamics. 500 dead Russians a month, 700-1000 dead Ukrainians A DAY!!!!
Again Russia has total air dominance and has had since the start. Remember that long line of tanks and vehicles that was supposed to be in a traffic jam? Did Ukraine attack it by air? Ever? Once? Russia had air dominance even then.
Its clear. that you support Russia and their war of aggression vs. Ukraine & threatening of Europe.
I hope you understand that when making points if your numbers are off by orders of magnitude, don't offer sources, links most people stop reading or paying attention.
Lets start with your metrics.. I hope you understand your math ?
Read above..you stated
"Your final point. Russia is very happy with battle space dynamics. 500 dead Russians a month, 700-1000 dead Ukrainians A DAY!!!!"
This is so absurd that it becomes pointless to debate. Your math equals 300k dead Ukrainians a year in an Army that is 600k and the historic ratio of KIA to WIA of 4/6 to 1 so after 2yrs your estimate is 600k KIA & 2.5m WIA for Ukraine.
That makes sense..
Then you state that Russia is losing 500 a moth which is 12k after 2yrs.. Even Russia doesn't state a number that low.
you can search and find dozens of sources that range from 50k-200k Russian KIAs
Your logic is Russia likes attrition and is good at it, OK so "splain" why if Russia loves attrition that they wouldn't be hammering Ukraine with 1000s of sorties a day ?
Ukraine has maybe the 20th best air force in Europe & maybe the 40th in the world..
Russia has nothing close to air dominance, how can you have air dominance if Russia struggles to protect air bases within 500km of Ukrainian forces, lets see how well Russia Air command would do if they setup 20 air bases with 30 wings within 500km of the war..
Russian Air Dominance is only in peoples wishcasting of the war, if Russia had air dominance they would be up to 100,000s of sorties so far and they are 10x less then that.. While Ukraine Air is 20-30x smaller, capable then Russia.
Can't wait to hear that Russia likes it this way..
Your prediction of its over, doesn't add up. if it was over why can't Russia take 10km ?
Also, your Ukraine built defenses that "NATO built over 8yrs" who ? NATO has very few Battle Groups, Brigades. But then you claim
"Ukraine has stopped. It stopped attacking long ago and has reluctantly got around to building some rather piddly defences which will not last long if attacked."
Which is it ? that isn't logical
and of course you state that "Ukraine collapses very soon."
When and has that been your POV for the last 27 months ?
My fav is:
"Russia prioritises highly trained junior officers over NCOs true. Which is the reverse of US practice but equally effective and provides equal levels of independent action."
"Russians by contrast (what ever you seem to have read) have called up reserves who all have at least 1 year in conscription somewhere in their past plus a minimum of 3 months training before they get sent to the SMO"
good luck with a strategy of reserve forces that were maybe trained 3-20yrs ago, led by "junior officers" vs. 5-20yr NCOs ..
Also, who is training, kitting & sustaining these "Russian professionals".. other junior officers ? part of why NCOs are so fundamental is thats who leads the training at scale.
?? The most provoked war ever i'd call it. And the most civilian friendly by far. Of course I admire what Russia has done.
On the maths it is boring to discuss when day be day it is clear Ukraine is down to its last few troops.
Ukraine claimed 700k troops at the start and has recruited at least 1m since, so about 1.5m are gone.
KIA:WIA of 4 or 6 to 1 is quite ridiculous (and not historic). 3:1 as a baseline I'd accept. But that would be well trained soldiers with close support, good medical back up and short lines from front lines to safe recovery. It also implies a high degree of care and concern for the troops by the army as a whole. Like Russian troops for example.
You have combat arms experience.
How many weeks of training does it take for a new recruit to learn how to save a wounded mans life by preventing him from bleeding to death.26 weeks? 13 weeks? 5 weeks? Do you think Nato taught it before packing men off to the front line?
And I'm pretty sure the majority of those trained in Ukraine for a week and 4 or 5 bullets worth of firing a rifle weren't trained to do it. I couldn't without training.
Poor transport, drones, poor defence positions (now they have been run out of the deeply dug in positions outside Donbas and the steel works in Mariupol all mean only the lightly wounded can survive.
Then you have the thermobaric weapons which take out whole trenches. WIA:KIA is 0:1 there.
It doesn't matter now because it is all almost over and Ukrainians have for some months talked openly about just how bad it has been for them - you should have found this out by now.
But it did matter for 2 years because those complicit in the lie that Ukraine was doing OK are complicit in the deaths of 500k Ukrainian military for no purpose.
Very long and very good, but a) Russia doesn’t have air dominance, look up the definition. Russia definitely has advantage, but for air dominance you need complete destruction of air defense, best recent examples are Iraq and Libya. B) your opponent is right, empirically there is no evidence of Russia being able to achieve large scale breakthrough. Start of the war operations were of a different class, btgr’s strikes, which is what Russia did early on, do not equate to deep operations, these are quite different. Again, most recent example would be the sweep the US did in Iraq in the first gulf war through the desert. And ww2 is full of them,obviously. Now, logically, not observing something doesn’t mean it’s not there, but it remains to be seen, and there is a bunch of reasons I could name why Russian army has difficulties with them, but that’s for a separate post, really.
Having said that, high level, there is no reason for Ukraine to keep fighting, as there was no reason to start this war back in 2014, even without going into nitty gritty you opponent seems to like.
I suspect Russia has air dominance in the sense that if it were to take high risks associated with an evenly matched war you would see Russian aircraft everywhere. The Patriots got destroyed within a couple of months. Not many missiles get stopped.
b) doesn't really matter either way. Russia wants to de-militarise not gain unnecessary land. Chasing Nazis beyond the Dnieper would leade to high death rates for both civilians and Russian troops neither of which are acceptable to Russia (whereas civilian collateral was seen as irrelevant in iraq or Libya.) 10K civilians dead, 500k ukrainian troops - the most civilian friendly war EVER.
The real question is why Ukraine (read US) has chosen a strategy that inevitably lead to the consistent attrittion of their men and equipment. If they had really wanted to give Russia a hard time they could have withdrawn, continued taking potshots at Russian speaking civilians, and made Russia look foolish or even got Russia to chase them => high russian troop deaths, fantastic pictures of little Ukrainian victories and even a few genuine pictures of Ukrainian civilian victims of Russia (which unlike Bucha could be filmed by foreigh crews like Reuters or BBC rather than only being visible to Ukrainian film crews working through Ukrainian production companies).
A) air dominance is a condition where one’s side aerial operations are not impeded in any way by the other. Clearly not the case
B) breakthroughs are not about taking land, they are the most efficient way of destroying the adversary via flanking and encirclement. Attritional warfare is far more costly. Which is the point - death by thousand cuts is an inferior strategy, which raises rhetoric legitimate question of why it is pursued by Russia
The russians do not have air "dominance." The actual term is *Air Superiority* and the russians do not have it.
The russians do not have the resources to force Ukraine to demilitarize.
The russians do not have the resources to force Ukraine to forego NATO membership.
The russians do not have the resources to force a change of government in Ukraine that is sympathetic to Moscow.
Why?
Because russia does not have the resources to take Kyiv.
Without controlling Kyiv, all of russia's original strategic objectives have gone down the drain.
What is all the more revealing is that those of you on the pro-russian side can't really keep your stories straight. Half of you claim that you only want to secure Donbas and Crimea for russian control, while the other half of you declare these maximalist objectives such as demilitarizing Ukraine and forcing a change of government in Kyiv. Which is it? The fact that you guys can't even keep your stories straight reveals that you don't really have any clear idea of what you are even capable of achieving at this point - you just want something that can be spun as a "victory".
The Ukrainians have resisted russian efforts to eliminate or suppress the Ukrainian language and the Ukrainian identity for centuries. Ukraine has always won in the end.
Well certainly in normal language Russia has air dominance and superiority.
But I am curious that it is supposed to be unable to take cities and territory with only 70% dominance when Ukraine was expected last year to take back Donbas and Crimea with 0% dominance. Surely someone first needed to tell the Nato advisers.
Russia has the resources to do most things, what it doesn't have is the willingness to lose another 50K Russian troops or see another 10k civilian die as collateral. Yet it is fighting an army lead by Zelensky and Nato/US which are perfectly willing to see another 500k Ukrainian troops dead.
[What madness is it that has infected you to think Russia wants or needs to control Kiev? It has made no effort to do so.]
You are right - it is v difficult to know what Russia plans to do and guesses vary wildly. That is what happens with competent governments and militaries that do not inform you of their intentions first. Just their capabilities.
Contrast Ukraine which gave 9 months notice of their intention to fight their way to Crimea permitting 9 months of preparation of 3 strong defence lines of which Kiev broke the first one in one place at a depth of about 1km. Tells you all you need to know about Kiev and its puppet masters.
Now De-militarisation is almost over (it is in the western press between the lines already).
Your last paragraph - I should have read earlier - complete idiot, complete time waster, know nothing. Quite amazing to show so much ignorance in so few words.
Russia does not appear to be fighting a kinetic breakthrough oriented war, because maneuver is something you do when you're a colonial military bullying a weaker nation. Air power is also not going to be the deciding factor in a war where both sides have competent AA that hasn't been compromised by the French ahead of time. This is a grinding war of attrition where the goal is not to take and hold land but the destruction of the enemy army.
The problem with your point H) is that Ukraine is up against the first most battle tested capable land force on Earth. Russia has learned from its mistakes and adapted its doctrines, although Ukraine still seems to be following the advice of their NATO advisors, who have no idea how to run a modern war. Russian industry is adapting to supply decisive firepower advantages that Ukraine and its western backers seem incapable of matching. As the article noted, all the GDP in the world doesn't matter if there's no productive capacity. You can't just go to the store and buy more ammo and soldiers when you run out.
As for why Ukraine would negotiate, maybe its the mountains of dead with no end in sight? Ukraine is losing and will continue to lose. Even if they pull out a miracle and win they are looking at severe demographic problems in the future, but no miracle is coming. And on top of that they are facing economic ruin - Ukraine will never be able to pay back its debts as is. Negotiating now saves tens of thousands of Ukrainian lives
Stalin was kinda of a NCO "member of the E4 Mafia" :)
He founded a Mafia called "The Outfit" which in 1905 were robbing banks and general chaos, very E4 Mafia of him:)
also, he was a leader in the Bolshevik Battle Squad, very E5/E6 of him.. first E4 in history to get 6 stars when he became Generalissimus of the Soviet Union in 1945 :)
The number of Russian shills responding here is a strong indicator that it is very much in our interest to continue to support Ukraine, and to do so far more assertively.
I am amused by those who equate some misguided notion of their own moral righteousness for anything remotely resembling analysis of the circumstances on the ground in Ukraine.
I read the phrase "Russian shills" as "people who enthusiastically offer up excuses for Russia, claiming that everything it does, including invading Ukraine, is all NATO's fault."
There is nothing which the Biden Administration or any institutional body in the USA to advance a 'ceasefire' strategy. The decision which is being reached there now will almost entirely exclude the USA as a consequential party, and will be Russian imposed. There is nothing the US can consequentially offer as a concession which would be of interest to Russia---or believed, either, in my view. This war will continue until a rump Ukrainian state is reduced to a Russian protectorate under a Russian controlled government. I seriously doubt whether Russia would even acceptt American involvement in mediating a Ukrainian surrender. Russia has expended considerable blood and treasure to have its way in Ukraine, and it is very much in Russian interests to have Europe and America stand by shamefaced as Russia imposes its will without and despite them.
I don't state those conclusions because I like them but because they are the obvious vectors of result from the current context and present potentials. Ukraine's forces are attritted out. They are likely so see major collapse in the course of the next 3-9 months, with the only real questions being a) how much of Ukraine Russia occupies in the course of those events, and b) what kind of Ukrainian government is extant on the other side of such a 'singularity.'
The only manner in which the US or Europe could influence the outcome of the current Russo-Ukrainian War would be to enter into it, either by a clearly demonstrable threat or actually dispatching serious force structures. There is no will to do this in either the US or Europe; thankfully, as that course would be indescribably irrational. There are regardless no competent force structures which Europe could commit, so its threat would be empty. There are no consequential force structures the US would be _willing_ to commit, and even what it has extant would almost certainly be inadequate. The American public is NOT going to go to war in Ukraine, for Ukraine. Every political actor with a stake in the outcome there knows all of this. The faction which won't admit any of this is the Anglo-American media sphere, which evidently only talks to itself.
Russia doesn't need Euro-American permission or involvement to impose terms of its liking in Ukraine. That's an emergent fact. And Joe Biden is quite unlikely to have any part in what comes after since he is most unlikely so survive the electoral consequences of losing in Gaza and Ukraine alike.
What strikes me as strange about the current situation is that Obama openly admitted as much (that Ukraine is strategically meaningless to the US and that American troops would never be sent there) during his presidency, and Biden was right there beside him! Suddenly getting anyone to recognize the obvious is fraught with difficulty -- what is wrong with people?
Not strange at all: The situation changed in 2022. When Russia _actually invaded Ukraine_. Ukraine is not strategically crucial at all to the United States---but Europe is. The Member States of the EU were and still are incapable of defending themselves should Russia in fact go so far as to, say, reoccupy the Baltic states. That's not farfetched even if not in prospect. Russian veiled threats in 2021-22 did everything to intimidate Europe up to and including the implicit threat to cut off gas deliveries. I'm not saying all of ANY party's actions were competently undertaken or rationally assessed, only that the EU and the US had to consider that Russia now posed a very active military threat _potential_ to Europe and that the current Russian government could not certainly be judged to stop short of that in a situation of advantage. --So Ukraine was designated as a 'human shield' for Europe, as has been used as such since.
America and Europe don't truly give a tinker's damn for Ukraine, but care a great deal about keeping Russia 'bogged down in the rasputitsa' there. The US conducted successful proxy wars in the 1980s of this kind, against Iran in aiding Iraq and against Russia in Afghanistan. Current US-EU initiatives in Ukraine are the exact equivalent--only Russia mobilized all out to win this time after initially grossly miscalculating the situation. This is one reason why a simple armistice and negotiation in Ukraine is highly unlikely: Russia in many respects needs to get a complete win to discourage the US and EU from any further proxy initiatives in Russia's claimed sphere of interest. A negotiated end is in fact at least a 'tie' for the US, so Russia will prosecute this conflict until the resolution is an undoubted and unequivocal win for themselves. And it is fully within Russia's means to do so. That has now become more important to all parties concerned than whatever Russian objectives might be in Ukraine itself---except to Ukraine.
It is Ukraine's miserable fate to be a pawn of a mouse soldier while the elephants dance. Bulgaria repeatedly saw this fate in the later 1800s. Korea had this kind of experience through the first half of the 1900s. Afghanistan the same over the last 45 years. Ukraine now. Who knows where elsewhere.
Ukraine is a puppet with less authority in its own house than the Biden family pets. It no more decides anything about the war than Major decided whether or not to be neutered.
Sure you can. Hold out false promises and ruthlessly punish dissenters and those who try to surrender.
The internet is awash in videos of military comissars literally press-ganging recruits off the streets. of Ukraine. Happened to the son of a Kiev resident I know.
The New Hotness is to either deport military aged Ukrainian refugees from Europe, or to not so subtly convince those refugees to return home "voluntarily" where they can be press-ganged.
Why, look at this video I found on the internet, poor guy was an innocent, peaceful musician, a top man at his craft, until he was "press ganged" by his FASCIST government:
There is a draft. You know how a draft works, right? Was this "son of a Kiev resident" that you know a resident of Kiev himself? Was he able-bodied and over 27?
Why would Russia accept a cease fire at this point, at this contact line? Ukraine is out of sticks - it’s all carrots from here.
Certainly Russia won’t accept peace on any terms less than “what we hold + Crimea is internationally recognized” and they’ll probably demand up the Dnieper.
Too bad this otherwise sensible argument, whose points and conclusions were all foreseeable years ago, wasn’t accepted sooner. Oh well. Let it be a salutary lesson to other would-be cannon fodder nations.
Quite. the reason why there are a hundred or so participants at the Swiss peace talks but not Russia is that first an education session about just how bad the situation is must happen before people are ready to think about negotiations.
Russia will demand that a competent and reasonably friendly government is installed in rump Ukraine. Anything else would be Minsk 3. Oh and Odessa and probably all the coast to Romania.
Unfortunately, "competent" is negatively correlated with "friendly to Putin." Look no further than the USA for examples. Ah yes, those highly competent leaders, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Donald Trump.
Absolutely - it was incompetent US, Nato and Ukraine leaders that got them into this mess. And they keep shootng themslelves in the foot till they sort that out. Lets stop pretending this is Putin's fault.
I think i got that. I have only taught the subject about 150 times.
What I missed was your absurd suggestion that Trump was friendly to Putin. Why do you think Trump spent 4 years telling Nato to upp their spending on military? Don't you think there was a war he was happy to support in the planning?
(please don't tell me you haven't been told Russia gate was a scam - with a big chunk of Ukrainian disinformation).
"What this would entail would be consolidating Ukraine’s existing defensive positions, offering a guarantee of future Western economic and military support and then moving to ceasefire negotiations"
But would Russia agree to any "guarantees" that actually had any teeth to them?
Miley had better advice for UA autumn 2022 than Tooze or the maximalist who wrote the study.
The study - by a think tanker i.e. by a consultant - posits that Russia is recruiting 10k p month while many other sources have it at 30k.
The new 60 B package has many B destined to replenish AMERICAN stocks. There are no large amounts of new weapons and munitions available to send. Currently the US army is conducting its regular artillery training with S Korean shells. While the Russians are buying N Korean shells, but not just to immediately use but also to build a stockpile in case of conflict with the west. They are way better prepared than the chaotic and haphazardly reacting democracies.
I bet the author hasn't seen a single video (of the massive amount available) where UA commanders decry their situation, lack of manpower, and the non-fighting Kiev elite (and sometimes threaten them). Even elite battalions are giving up, refusing orders etc (yes, those battalions created and led by, let's say, nationalist influencers - Europe is going to have a lot of fun with them when they're demobilized...Zelensky already hinted at that).
The study completely ignores the fact that we're looking at a UA civil war (a significant portion of RU deaths are recruited in the eastern oblasts) in which the west has taken sides years ago, having our politico's standing side to side with rather iffy UA, let's say, nationalist influencers.
It doesn't mention UA manpower issues: within UA draft dodging is rife while 650.00 UA men of military age are in Europe, without any inclination to go back and die for UA possession of Crimea or Donbass (while RU clearly will escalate if UA would get near those areas). The UA gov does not recruit amongst its own class - 'high' tax payers are exempted since 'we need their tax receipts' while those who typically fight wars - young men - are also mostly exempted. Though now the recruiting age has been lowered from 27 to 25 yo.
Pretty easy to stick to your maximalist objectives then...
The class difference is really visible in this video below, which i find as offensive as western non combattants dreaming up another fancy UA 'offensive':
Honest opinion of Ukrainians: «Should we start to negotiate with Russia about peace?»\
In the video class and its privileges are exquisitely expressed through the well manicured, of student age, bravehearts behind the front, The only one who makes sense is a young soldier at 3:26 minute, just out of hospital (the only oner who spoke Russian btw). Compared to the other interviewees he's clearly the only working class guy, who already lost two brothers and, from his resignation expressed in the interview, has accepted his own fate. In his words 'this is the war of politics, we just play some role'.
This war is ran by and for creepy types without any real skin in the game. They do however talk a good game, only scarily sterile and emotionally remote. Note how UA elites and their western think tank counterparts use this empty technocratic language to describe the war, their objectives and to justify the dying:
The Economist editor: (financing the war is) 'the cheapest possible way for the US to enhance its security'.
'Does the west want its previous investments in Poland c.s go to waste when UA loses to RU and Eastern Europe becomes the new buffer zone?
This is why investing in UA success is key, regardless of which political force wins the over 70 elections this year' (she couldn't mention UA elections of course).
Nial Ferguson:
'Support for UA is like an insurance premium which is vastly smaller than when RU wins'
A couple of hours ago I finished Wages of Destruction, and was hugely impressed so this disturbs me.
No this is not the moment to start negotiations - that was 2 years ago. And 23 months ago, and 22 months ago, in fact every day since has been time to stop the senseless slaughter of Ukrainian middle aged men.
At no point were Ukrainians killing Russians at a 4:1 rate, never even at a 1:2 rate (the linked article is a fraud). Over 2 years it has been 1:10 and at least 1:30 for the past few months where Mediazona is reporting 500 Russian deaths a month while the Russian MOD reports 700-1000 Ukrainian deaths A DAY.
Roughly 500k Ukrainian military deaths, 50K Russian deaths.
Artillery accounts for 70% of casualties in this kind of war and Russia outfires Ukraine by 10:1.
Then Russians all have a minimum of 3 months training on top of their conscription period. Ukrainians have at most 5 weeks. When it comes to saving colleagues from death through loss of blood Russians have a huge experience advantage as well as much better mobility in and out of frontline positions.
Ukraine started with 700k troops (it claimed) it recruited over a million and now has 3 or 400K. (It is reported to have called up Policemen and trainee cadets to the front line. RnR or returning home almost never happens.).
Of that disappeared 1.3 or 1.4m some will certainly have just run away and some are POWs but 500K dead is a conservative estimate.
Before we go any further - what are the things that our media, Nato leaders and western politicians cannot say? Ever. Especially if true. My list (feel free to add).
1. That Nato is incapable of defending Europe from Russia.
2. That Nato or US equipment is inferior to Russian (or Chinese) equipment.
3. That Ukraine are the bad guys and Russia are the good guys*.
4. That the situation is bad enough that we should stop sending more Ukrainians to their certain deaths
Once we start with this understanding, the complete failure to inform us of real events in Ukraine becomes less surprising.
*Think Nazis and the UN 10K civilian death estimate which makes this the most civilian friendly war ever.
If the majority of Ukrainian men don’t want to fight, why should I pay? And that is counting just the men in country, not those who have already run away to get paid to live in the EU.
And if the soldiers on the front line sense the country isn’t willing to make the sacrifices they are, why should they hold the line?
We’ve seen this play out before. Hearts and public support matter more than how many grids you can count on a map.
It’s very clear that Zelensky and the US/EU have mismanaged this war- providing UA with too little firepower too late to launch an offensive before Russia had mobilized and dug in. Even then, the idea of recovering Crimea would have been pure BS (and triggered tactical nuke use by Putin).
Neither Ukraine nor the allies have the stomach or the resources for more years of a war of attrition. Russia does. As the Obama/Biden admin noted in 2014, Russia cares a lot more about the fate of Ukraine than the US does. The only thing that changed post 2020 was that Biden’s base saw Ukraine as a hero of Trump’s impeachment and Putin as an ally of Trump. Hence, Dems turned from the type of “leaders” who would be happy to unconditionally forgive Russia for invading Georgia, promise Putin more flexibility after the election, do little when it took Crimea, “work” with Russia on chemical weapons in Syria, ignore assassinations, approve Nordstream2, etc into suddenly bloodthirsty warmongers because they believed the Trump-Russia collusion nonsense (and the MAGA types oppose Ukraine aid in part due to some of the same political “wedge” considerations).
It is unforgivable that our leaders have continued to lie to the public about the potential for victory in Ukraine, one where Ukraine will recapture all of its territory. It is fine for Zelensky to lie to his own people or set aspirational goals, but not with our checkbook.
The only good news out of this whole situation is that Putin has proved that Russian conventional forces present zero sustainable threat to NATO. Ukraine has done an admirable job in holding Russia off with neither an Air Force nor a Navy nor long range offensive missile capability.
Moreover, the US and Europe have openly tolerated Russia forcing Moldova to be demilitarized and neutral and as well as Russian subjugation of Belarus, now occupied by Russian troops and nukes and right on the borders of the Baltics and Poland. If NATO can accept Belarus as a militarized Russian client state on NATO borders with nary a complaint, how can anyone believe that Russian control of Ukraine would be an existential threat (which isn’t going to happen anyway)?
Ukraine is going to have to cut a deal. The best they can hope for is to sign away Crimea and most of the Donbas in return for Russia withdrawing from Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. France, Germany, Poland and the UK could then provide security guarantees to Ukraine (with guarantees from the US to provide those countries with arms and logistical support as needed). Of course, such a deal would be the end for Zelensky, but he is enough of a patriot where doing what is right for the country- so it can rebuild and live in peace and join the EU- will take precedence over his political career.
Agree Aaron. See also Timothy Snyder and Phillips O’Brien. Biden is to be congratulated for reviving NATO and backing Ukraine but faulted for caving to Putin’s empty threats of using nukes. Also every knows you don’t negotiate from weakness.
The Ukrainian army is showing signs of exhaustion but so are the Russians. Armored breakthroughs seem very unlikely to either side. The formula of Ukrainian valor + Russian atrocities = continued Western support still holds.
And given the US/UK support for Israel it will be very difficult to persuade the smaller countries ever to get involved again. Look at the Eurovision (song contest) in Sweden, protesters against Israel. Try telling Swedes they should up military spending to 3%.
Moreover Nato countries have neither troops nor weapons - the last thing they want is an aggressive Nato (even if they are daft enough to think Russia is the aggressor here).
Russia doesn’t have all the needed tanks and BMPs for a run to Kharkiv, but infantry can walk in that direction when defensive lines are breached and the defenders have no Air Force and are short on artillery. Remember that Ukraine also lacked tanks and APCs when they retook Kharkiv oblast.
"Russian economy has rebounded. Its armaments economy is expanding as not seen since the Cold War. Western pressure has driven Moscow closer to Beijing"📢
But doesn't some of that "resilience" (both today and in WWII) come from the fact that they live under a dictatorship and all dissent is brutally suppressed? Seems like the US would have had an easier time staying the course in Vietnam if all that darn free speech and democracy didn't get in our way.
Nah bro you are just a coward. Maybe give them more stuff? Wtf is thing that we are doomed with an economy 20 times the size of Russia? What is this bullvrap?
Problematic assay, if it does not address what incentives Russia would have for a permanent ceasefire and what kind of framework could possibly secure the rights of self determination within whatever Putin conceives to be Russia‘s sphere of influence. Since any ceasefire would seem to require massive strengthening of NATO‘s eastern borders and especially what remains of Ukraine (air defence, airpower, fortifications, conscription ) as deterence against the next round of Russian pressure, doesn’t seem really clear what the difference between ceasefire and no ceasefire would be, beyond a short term suspension of casualties (no small thing).
It also doesn’t adequately address the common view that 2025 could see an improvement in the balance of power.
And of course the question of whether it is up to Ukrainian society and not the US to decide where to come down on the choice between resolve and war or a very grim consolidation of Putinism.
This is not the way. The US and EU should support Ukraine unconditionally and let Ukraine choose how it wants to end the war. There's likely no way Ukraine can win the war through breakthroughs, but eventually Russia will realize it's small gains aren't worth the continual bloodshed. A cease fire will just lead to a revamped and emboldened Russia.
Your way will get more of Ukraine wrecked and change precisely nothing about the outcome except for when the hostilities cease. Congratulations, I guess?
Adam,
No offense, but do you have any background in combat arms ?
as a former ACR(Armored Cav Regiment) NCO, all the media, arm chair general numbers, metrics, general narratives are fine but not material when it comes to large scale combined arms ground combat power.
To actually change the balance of the war there is a requirement which is:
A)building of a NCO core, command leadership up to brigade/regiment level grounded in AirLand Battle Doctrine (Ukraine version)
https://www.armyupress.army.mil/journals/military-review/online-exclusive/2023-ole/returning-context-to-our-doctrine/#:~:text=The%20doctrine%20provided%20a%20central,victory%20that%20drove%20how%20all
B) Building that force while integrating across combined combat arms domains is whats necessary to build large scale mobile combat power.
C) Also, nobody has Air dominance and it doesn't look like Russian Air Force Command is working to generate it, they are focused on SEAD not the full Suppression and Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD/DEAD) cycle
D) to control, dictate the pace, scale & mass, movement across large scale Battlespace (measured in 1000s of grid squares) is the measure of dominance in the fight in Ukraine
E) Ukraine Ground Forces have been building defense in depth, fortifications, lines of support..& are also transforming their SEAD/DEAD
F) This "Russian breakthrough", predicted since the invasion is not a capability that Russian Land Forces have in mass, leadership, support, sustainment, combined arms
G) Basically every metric the Russians don't have a ability to create a breakthrough much less exploit one at scale 40-80,000 forces across grid squares (100s)
H) Ukraine at this time has the second or third most battle tested capable land force on earth
I) The idea that Ukraine should "sue for peace" after 26+ months of the highest kinetic warfare in Europe since 1945 & 10yrs of fighting Russian forces and having given up less then 10% of new Ukrainian territory since the invasion doesn't make logic
J) I'm missing the logic of why Ukraine should give up and what settlement with Russia would generate a result that would be different then any of the last 20yrs with Russia ?
K) Everyone seems to want the fighting to stop but offer zero on how to enforce the settlement with deterrence necessary vs. Russia to enforce it
L) There seems to be after 2+yrs in the media, academic, general discourse a very weak understanding of how actual things work across
battle doctrine, sustainment, force development, composition, employment, combat leadership/ NCO & leader development, Air-land power relationships, combined arms combat power, synchronizing of forces across multi-domain planning, the whole C6ISR cycle, Theater/Corps level area planning & all concepts in the defensive/ offensive force dynamics & deployment
Do you have any background in combat arms?
If so can you answer me this:
Does the 5 week training Nato gives to ukrainian middle aged men (median age 43) equip them for a modern day war? Against troops in their 20s and 30s who have have completed at least a year of conscription and then a minimum of 3 months specialised training?
Does the hodgepodge of different arms, artillery, systems, tanks etc give Ukraine a huge disadvantage to a set of arms which have been in use in that army continuously?
What happened to the Patriots?
F) This "Russian breakthrough", predicted since the invasion is not a capability that Russian Land Forces have in mass, leadership, support, sustainment, combined arms
True. But Ukraine has run out of arms, men, willpower and US will only print money if most of it results in kick backs to Washington.
H) Ukraine at this time has the second or third most battle tested capable land force on earth
Ukraine's first land force (the original one) was tested and destroyed.
The second one (newly manned with all the remaining ex-Soviet weaponry in E Europe) was tested and destroyed.
The third one was given western weapons, new men trained in Nato countries and was tested and destroyed.
The half million current call up is to build a fourth one.
Tested and proven failures every one.
K) Everyone seems to want the fighting to stop but offer zero on how to enforce the settlement with deterrence necessary vs. Russia to enforce it
There is no deterrence feasible. Nato guarantees to Kiev would kill any possible deal.
A settlement requires a full acceptance of defeat and guaranteed by a competent Kiev government that it will not repeat attacks on Russian speaker, seek to join Nato or permit Nato troops on rump Ukraine.
Finding that competent government will be the real challenge.
US & Nato got Ukraine into this mess, but Ukraine has to gets itself out. (or try and find another half million to sent to the front)
Q1: As a former 19Z in an ACR, its yes I do
Q2: While allies have trained about 100,000+ Ukrainians so far that make up 20 or so Brigades.
https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-war-france-military-f70fb490a8e4fd5ea472e3d81de7a176
The majority of training Ukraine has in basic training (2-4weeks), small unit tactics (SUT) 1-2 weeks is in regional training centers for about 600k Ukrainians & the assigned battalions training team does the majority of the training after that which is a hodge podge of skills has to be upgraded to the Brigade training group as a new standard and then one day Division training & readiness regiment where real individual soldier & unit readiness can be developed, measured, sustained & upgraded
Ukraine needs a "Smart Book" Series of publications across their combat arms forces to standardize training, readiness, effective MOS skill ratings across all forces. I expect this in the next phase of Ukraine Force development
https://warontherocks.com/2023/06/what-the-ukrainian-armed-forces-need-to-do-to-win/
While this has been below US readiness average, compared to "Russian Meat Launchers" of the last 2yrs its at least developmental. Also Russia does not have an effective NCO core, mobile combined arms doctrine or capability or air dominatance, high mobility fires. This limits Russian large scale offensive force employment.
https://www.armyupress.army.mil/portals/7/hot%20spots/documents/russia/2017-07-the-russian-way-of-war-grau-bartles.pdf
F) thats the point, if Russia doesn't have breakthru ability, but according to you Ukraine has nothing and never did, then how do you explain Russia limits in their ability to take advantage. Both can't be true.
Maybe Russia can't breakthru because they don't have the force capability, employment & Ukraine has built defense in depth?
https://mwi.westpoint.edu/the-russian-way-of-war-in-ukraine-a-military-approach-nine-decades-in-the-making/
H) Please explain to me why if Russia has destroyed so many generations of Ukrainian Land Forces why Russian Army Groups can't create a thrust more then 10km into contested battlespace ?
Doesn't add up? the magical awesome Russian forces who can't take or hold objectives with more then a battalion after 2yrs .. What gives ?
Maybe just Maybe Russian Land Forces are not that effective & Ukraine Ground Forces are better then given credit for.. Maybe
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12150
K) Given Russia can't make Ukraine stop fighting, the west can't either your approach is to just wishcast Ukraine to stop, give up, accept Russia as a dominator and thats it.
Kinda absurd. Ukraine is not stopping, Russia has to escalate to try to change battlespace dynamics but without Air Dominance can't so none of you proposals will happen.
Thanks for the response.
Q2 - do you think 5 weeks with nato is sufficient was my question.
I;m guessing not at all.
then 100k is the Nato training. But Ukraine has recruited something like 1 million since the start (lets assume the initial 700k were trained, if only as a national guard).
Many have claimed they were dragged into the army off the street,allowed to shoot 3 or 4 bullets from a rifle, and then sent straight to the front line.
Again do you think they are responsibly trained and ready to fight even Wagner (who actually made up a small part of Russian forces when they were active - all Wagner was 50k).
Russians by contrast (what ever you seem to have read) have called up reserves who all have at least 1 year in conscription somewhere in their past plus a minimum of 3 months training before they get sent to the SMO. (they also get regular rotation which Ukrainians don't).
(you seem to be under the illusion that Russia is careless with troops - pure Kiev propaganda. There is a huge difference, Russians are professional. General Syrsky's nickname is the Butcher - given to him by his own troops. It is not for his reputation as a killer of Russians, it is as a manager of Ukrainian troops.
Smart Book?? Just how many Smart Books do you think Ukraine needs given the incredible complex of systems it has been given each in small quantities. Often systems that interact with other systems in different ways and requiring different training. There wasn't a smartbook in Ukrainian ever for the Javelin which one would have thought was a pretty standard weapon. There are Ukrainian horror stories of searching google for instructions in English when faced with a Russian tank.
And even Smart books aren't going to help with weapons designed for use against the wrong opposition, Troop carriers built for Afghanistan where being high helps to spot an IED or potential trouble aren't ideal in very flat Ukraine. Nor are tall tanks designed for mountain regions.
"Also Russia does not have an effective NCO core, mobile combined arms doctrine or capability or air dominatance, high mobility fires. This limits Russian large scale offensive force employment."
No idea where you have read this stuff. Russia prioritises highly trained junior officers over NCOs true. Which is the reverse of US practice but equally effective and provides equal levels of independent action.
Of course it has mobile combined arms doctrine but this is a war of attrition where Russia is simply maximising the kill ration by firing 10x the shells and adding long distance missiles to target gatherings of troops. Russia has total air dominance (as reports from Ukraine have confirmed - they have often complained about Nato training being based on having air dominance while conditions are the reverse - consequently much of Nato's tactics have been junked.
High mobility fires? And yet somehow in Feb/March 2022 Russia put all that artillery in front of the dug in Ukrainian positions and was outfiring them 10:1. 8 years Nato spent advising on those dug in positions and they were supposed to give Ukraine the edge as they could simply shell civilians until the LPR/DPR gave in.
Btw while Ukraine brags about regaining 6k sq km in summer 2022 has anyone asked how Russia without the ability to employ large scale offensive force took the first 18k sq km in a week or two? No - we don't talk about losing 18-0 in the first half, it is all about getting back to 18-6 in the second half.
Still despite this, Russia cares for the Ukrainian population and for its own troops. A large scale attack on a defended Ukraine would cause significant deaths to both. So it is unlikely. Further so long as Ukraine lets Russia attack concentrated numbers of Ukrainian troops in small towns and fights to the death to keep them, it is far far more efficient in terms of kill ratio to let them defend the small towns because of the 10:1 shell ratio.
Ukraine collapses very soon.
F&H) much of this is answered above - attrition suits Russia a lot.
The other big point is that western media have completely mislead their readers about Russian goals. the goals are: de-nazification; de-militarisation (of Ukraine but they are rapidly demilitarising Nato too - weapons, they have no troops); and preventing Ukraine from inviting Nato forces into Russian's neighbour.
None of this implies taking land, and certainly given that Russia is a huge underpopulated country that gives away land to immigrants. Protection of Russian speakers is a goal, but that is driven by local requests to join Russia not a Russian desire to gain land. As you will recall in Minsk 1 & 2 Russia actively encouraged Donbas to be part of Ukraine with limited autonomy.
So attriton until Ukraine collapses. Occasional withdrawals are quite acceptable if there would be any cost in blood to defend a position.
K) Ukraine has stopped. It stopped attacking long ago and has reluctantly got around to building some rather piddly defences which will not last long if attacked.
The reason this has taken so long is because Nato really did spend 8 years building dug in artillery positions in front of Donbas as a threat to Donbas civilians. And if you listen to Russia talking strategy the intention really is to destroy those dug in positions and NOT take territory.
There are few troops left, no more wester equipment to be delivered (that ran out too) so fighting is near an end.
What Russia needs now is a stable competent rump Ukraine government willing to behave responsibly, keep Nato out, and not threaten Russian speakers.
That is the difficult part for Kiev and the near impossible part for Nato/US (which is why there are so many people in the Swiss peace conference trying to tell the US to give up - Russian presence is not necessary).
Obviously Ukrainians need this too. They can't afford another half million dead.
Your final point. Russia is very happy with battle space dynamics. 500 dead Russians a month, 700-1000 dead Ukrainians A DAY!!!!
Again Russia has total air dominance and has had since the start. Remember that long line of tanks and vehicles that was supposed to be in a traffic jam? Did Ukraine attack it by air? Ever? Once? Russia had air dominance even then.
Its clear. that you support Russia and their war of aggression vs. Ukraine & threatening of Europe.
I hope you understand that when making points if your numbers are off by orders of magnitude, don't offer sources, links most people stop reading or paying attention.
Lets start with your metrics.. I hope you understand your math ?
Read above..you stated
"Your final point. Russia is very happy with battle space dynamics. 500 dead Russians a month, 700-1000 dead Ukrainians A DAY!!!!"
This is so absurd that it becomes pointless to debate. Your math equals 300k dead Ukrainians a year in an Army that is 600k and the historic ratio of KIA to WIA of 4/6 to 1 so after 2yrs your estimate is 600k KIA & 2.5m WIA for Ukraine.
That makes sense..
Then you state that Russia is losing 500 a moth which is 12k after 2yrs.. Even Russia doesn't state a number that low.
you can search and find dozens of sources that range from 50k-200k Russian KIAs
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20240503-france-estimates-that-150-000-russian-soldiers-have-been-killed-in-the-ukraine-war
Your logic is Russia likes attrition and is good at it, OK so "splain" why if Russia loves attrition that they wouldn't be hammering Ukraine with 1000s of sorties a day ?
Ukraine has maybe the 20th best air force in Europe & maybe the 40th in the world..
Russia has nothing close to air dominance, how can you have air dominance if Russia struggles to protect air bases within 500km of Ukrainian forces, lets see how well Russia Air command would do if they setup 20 air bases with 30 wings within 500km of the war..
Russian Air Dominance is only in peoples wishcasting of the war, if Russia had air dominance they would be up to 100,000s of sorties so far and they are 10x less then that.. While Ukraine Air is 20-30x smaller, capable then Russia.
Can't wait to hear that Russia likes it this way..
Your prediction of its over, doesn't add up. if it was over why can't Russia take 10km ?
Also, your Ukraine built defenses that "NATO built over 8yrs" who ? NATO has very few Battle Groups, Brigades. But then you claim
"Ukraine has stopped. It stopped attacking long ago and has reluctantly got around to building some rather piddly defences which will not last long if attacked."
Which is it ? that isn't logical
and of course you state that "Ukraine collapses very soon."
When and has that been your POV for the last 27 months ?
My fav is:
"Russia prioritises highly trained junior officers over NCOs true. Which is the reverse of US practice but equally effective and provides equal levels of independent action."
"Russians by contrast (what ever you seem to have read) have called up reserves who all have at least 1 year in conscription somewhere in their past plus a minimum of 3 months training before they get sent to the SMO"
good luck with a strategy of reserve forces that were maybe trained 3-20yrs ago, led by "junior officers" vs. 5-20yr NCOs ..
Also, who is training, kitting & sustaining these "Russian professionals".. other junior officers ? part of why NCOs are so fundamental is thats who leads the training at scale.
there are 10 others but would rather watch NBA
?? The most provoked war ever i'd call it. And the most civilian friendly by far. Of course I admire what Russia has done.
On the maths it is boring to discuss when day be day it is clear Ukraine is down to its last few troops.
Ukraine claimed 700k troops at the start and has recruited at least 1m since, so about 1.5m are gone.
KIA:WIA of 4 or 6 to 1 is quite ridiculous (and not historic). 3:1 as a baseline I'd accept. But that would be well trained soldiers with close support, good medical back up and short lines from front lines to safe recovery. It also implies a high degree of care and concern for the troops by the army as a whole. Like Russian troops for example.
You have combat arms experience.
How many weeks of training does it take for a new recruit to learn how to save a wounded mans life by preventing him from bleeding to death.26 weeks? 13 weeks? 5 weeks? Do you think Nato taught it before packing men off to the front line?
And I'm pretty sure the majority of those trained in Ukraine for a week and 4 or 5 bullets worth of firing a rifle weren't trained to do it. I couldn't without training.
Poor transport, drones, poor defence positions (now they have been run out of the deeply dug in positions outside Donbas and the steel works in Mariupol all mean only the lightly wounded can survive.
Then you have the thermobaric weapons which take out whole trenches. WIA:KIA is 0:1 there.
It doesn't matter now because it is all almost over and Ukrainians have for some months talked openly about just how bad it has been for them - you should have found this out by now.
But it did matter for 2 years because those complicit in the lie that Ukraine was doing OK are complicit in the deaths of 500k Ukrainian military for no purpose.
Very long and very good, but a) Russia doesn’t have air dominance, look up the definition. Russia definitely has advantage, but for air dominance you need complete destruction of air defense, best recent examples are Iraq and Libya. B) your opponent is right, empirically there is no evidence of Russia being able to achieve large scale breakthrough. Start of the war operations were of a different class, btgr’s strikes, which is what Russia did early on, do not equate to deep operations, these are quite different. Again, most recent example would be the sweep the US did in Iraq in the first gulf war through the desert. And ww2 is full of them,obviously. Now, logically, not observing something doesn’t mean it’s not there, but it remains to be seen, and there is a bunch of reasons I could name why Russian army has difficulties with them, but that’s for a separate post, really.
Having said that, high level, there is no reason for Ukraine to keep fighting, as there was no reason to start this war back in 2014, even without going into nitty gritty you opponent seems to like.
I suspect Russia has air dominance in the sense that if it were to take high risks associated with an evenly matched war you would see Russian aircraft everywhere. The Patriots got destroyed within a couple of months. Not many missiles get stopped.
b) doesn't really matter either way. Russia wants to de-militarise not gain unnecessary land. Chasing Nazis beyond the Dnieper would leade to high death rates for both civilians and Russian troops neither of which are acceptable to Russia (whereas civilian collateral was seen as irrelevant in iraq or Libya.) 10K civilians dead, 500k ukrainian troops - the most civilian friendly war EVER.
The real question is why Ukraine (read US) has chosen a strategy that inevitably lead to the consistent attrittion of their men and equipment. If they had really wanted to give Russia a hard time they could have withdrawn, continued taking potshots at Russian speaking civilians, and made Russia look foolish or even got Russia to chase them => high russian troop deaths, fantastic pictures of little Ukrainian victories and even a few genuine pictures of Ukrainian civilian victims of Russia (which unlike Bucha could be filmed by foreigh crews like Reuters or BBC rather than only being visible to Ukrainian film crews working through Ukrainian production companies).
A) air dominance is a condition where one’s side aerial operations are not impeded in any way by the other. Clearly not the case
B) breakthroughs are not about taking land, they are the most efficient way of destroying the adversary via flanking and encirclement. Attritional warfare is far more costly. Which is the point - death by thousand cuts is an inferior strategy, which raises rhetoric legitimate question of why it is pursued by Russia
The russians do not have air "dominance." The actual term is *Air Superiority* and the russians do not have it.
The russians do not have the resources to force Ukraine to demilitarize.
The russians do not have the resources to force Ukraine to forego NATO membership.
The russians do not have the resources to force a change of government in Ukraine that is sympathetic to Moscow.
Why?
Because russia does not have the resources to take Kyiv.
Without controlling Kyiv, all of russia's original strategic objectives have gone down the drain.
What is all the more revealing is that those of you on the pro-russian side can't really keep your stories straight. Half of you claim that you only want to secure Donbas and Crimea for russian control, while the other half of you declare these maximalist objectives such as demilitarizing Ukraine and forcing a change of government in Kyiv. Which is it? The fact that you guys can't even keep your stories straight reveals that you don't really have any clear idea of what you are even capable of achieving at this point - you just want something that can be spun as a "victory".
The Ukrainians have resisted russian efforts to eliminate or suppress the Ukrainian language and the Ukrainian identity for centuries. Ukraine has always won in the end.
Well certainly in normal language Russia has air dominance and superiority.
But I am curious that it is supposed to be unable to take cities and territory with only 70% dominance when Ukraine was expected last year to take back Donbas and Crimea with 0% dominance. Surely someone first needed to tell the Nato advisers.
Russia has the resources to do most things, what it doesn't have is the willingness to lose another 50K Russian troops or see another 10k civilian die as collateral. Yet it is fighting an army lead by Zelensky and Nato/US which are perfectly willing to see another 500k Ukrainian troops dead.
[What madness is it that has infected you to think Russia wants or needs to control Kiev? It has made no effort to do so.]
You are right - it is v difficult to know what Russia plans to do and guesses vary wildly. That is what happens with competent governments and militaries that do not inform you of their intentions first. Just their capabilities.
Contrast Ukraine which gave 9 months notice of their intention to fight their way to Crimea permitting 9 months of preparation of 3 strong defence lines of which Kiev broke the first one in one place at a depth of about 1km. Tells you all you need to know about Kiev and its puppet masters.
Now De-militarisation is almost over (it is in the western press between the lines already).
Your last paragraph - I should have read earlier - complete idiot, complete time waster, know nothing. Quite amazing to show so much ignorance in so few words.
Russia does not appear to be fighting a kinetic breakthrough oriented war, because maneuver is something you do when you're a colonial military bullying a weaker nation. Air power is also not going to be the deciding factor in a war where both sides have competent AA that hasn't been compromised by the French ahead of time. This is a grinding war of attrition where the goal is not to take and hold land but the destruction of the enemy army.
The problem with your point H) is that Ukraine is up against the first most battle tested capable land force on Earth. Russia has learned from its mistakes and adapted its doctrines, although Ukraine still seems to be following the advice of their NATO advisors, who have no idea how to run a modern war. Russian industry is adapting to supply decisive firepower advantages that Ukraine and its western backers seem incapable of matching. As the article noted, all the GDP in the world doesn't matter if there's no productive capacity. You can't just go to the store and buy more ammo and soldiers when you run out.
As for why Ukraine would negotiate, maybe its the mountains of dead with no end in sight? Ukraine is losing and will continue to lose. Even if they pull out a miracle and win they are looking at severe demographic problems in the future, but no miracle is coming. And on top of that they are facing economic ruin - Ukraine will never be able to pay back its debts as is. Negotiating now saves tens of thousands of Ukrainian lives
I think the last NCO to draw up a plan of conquest in Ukraine was Hitler. 😊
Stalin was kinda of a NCO "member of the E4 Mafia" :)
He founded a Mafia called "The Outfit" which in 1905 were robbing banks and general chaos, very E4 Mafia of him:)
also, he was a leader in the Bolshevik Battle Squad, very E5/E6 of him.. first E4 in history to get 6 stars when he became Generalissimus of the Soviet Union in 1945 :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_Joseph_Stalin#:~:text=Stalin%20founded%20the%20Outfit%2C%20a,Outfit%20members%20through%20his%20bodyguard.
Oh, congrats, you are repeating what Mearscheimer has been saying since June 2023. Tad too late, no?
I didn't know it was a contest, who could surrender quickest.
Actually he was talking about the primrose path Ukraine has been puto on since 2014.
And what others have been saying a lot longer.
Others are dismissed as Russian stooges. Bit hard to do that with meatscheimer
Mearsheimer has been consistently wrong about Ukraine. His whole premise is incorrect, though I realize the pro-russia side *loves* to parrot him.
Mearsheimer, Scott Ritter, and Jeffrey Sachs would love to see Ukraine clobbered, though I'm not sure why.
The number of Russian shills responding here is a strong indicator that it is very much in our interest to continue to support Ukraine, and to do so far more assertively.
Would you care to explain your reasoning?
I am amused by those who equate some misguided notion of their own moral righteousness for anything remotely resembling analysis of the circumstances on the ground in Ukraine.
Know the difference.
I read the phrase "Russian shills" as "people who enthusiastically offer up excuses for Russia, claiming that everything it does, including invading Ukraine, is all NATO's fault."
I was responding to the back end of Charlie's post, not the front end.
Glad to hear it, no need to argue over the definition of "Russian shill" when there are so many good examples right here in this discussion
There is nothing which the Biden Administration or any institutional body in the USA to advance a 'ceasefire' strategy. The decision which is being reached there now will almost entirely exclude the USA as a consequential party, and will be Russian imposed. There is nothing the US can consequentially offer as a concession which would be of interest to Russia---or believed, either, in my view. This war will continue until a rump Ukrainian state is reduced to a Russian protectorate under a Russian controlled government. I seriously doubt whether Russia would even acceptt American involvement in mediating a Ukrainian surrender. Russia has expended considerable blood and treasure to have its way in Ukraine, and it is very much in Russian interests to have Europe and America stand by shamefaced as Russia imposes its will without and despite them.
I don't state those conclusions because I like them but because they are the obvious vectors of result from the current context and present potentials. Ukraine's forces are attritted out. They are likely so see major collapse in the course of the next 3-9 months, with the only real questions being a) how much of Ukraine Russia occupies in the course of those events, and b) what kind of Ukrainian government is extant on the other side of such a 'singularity.'
The only manner in which the US or Europe could influence the outcome of the current Russo-Ukrainian War would be to enter into it, either by a clearly demonstrable threat or actually dispatching serious force structures. There is no will to do this in either the US or Europe; thankfully, as that course would be indescribably irrational. There are regardless no competent force structures which Europe could commit, so its threat would be empty. There are no consequential force structures the US would be _willing_ to commit, and even what it has extant would almost certainly be inadequate. The American public is NOT going to go to war in Ukraine, for Ukraine. Every political actor with a stake in the outcome there knows all of this. The faction which won't admit any of this is the Anglo-American media sphere, which evidently only talks to itself.
Russia doesn't need Euro-American permission or involvement to impose terms of its liking in Ukraine. That's an emergent fact. And Joe Biden is quite unlikely to have any part in what comes after since he is most unlikely so survive the electoral consequences of losing in Gaza and Ukraine alike.
What strikes me as strange about the current situation is that Obama openly admitted as much (that Ukraine is strategically meaningless to the US and that American troops would never be sent there) during his presidency, and Biden was right there beside him! Suddenly getting anyone to recognize the obvious is fraught with difficulty -- what is wrong with people?
Not strange at all: The situation changed in 2022. When Russia _actually invaded Ukraine_. Ukraine is not strategically crucial at all to the United States---but Europe is. The Member States of the EU were and still are incapable of defending themselves should Russia in fact go so far as to, say, reoccupy the Baltic states. That's not farfetched even if not in prospect. Russian veiled threats in 2021-22 did everything to intimidate Europe up to and including the implicit threat to cut off gas deliveries. I'm not saying all of ANY party's actions were competently undertaken or rationally assessed, only that the EU and the US had to consider that Russia now posed a very active military threat _potential_ to Europe and that the current Russian government could not certainly be judged to stop short of that in a situation of advantage. --So Ukraine was designated as a 'human shield' for Europe, as has been used as such since.
America and Europe don't truly give a tinker's damn for Ukraine, but care a great deal about keeping Russia 'bogged down in the rasputitsa' there. The US conducted successful proxy wars in the 1980s of this kind, against Iran in aiding Iraq and against Russia in Afghanistan. Current US-EU initiatives in Ukraine are the exact equivalent--only Russia mobilized all out to win this time after initially grossly miscalculating the situation. This is one reason why a simple armistice and negotiation in Ukraine is highly unlikely: Russia in many respects needs to get a complete win to discourage the US and EU from any further proxy initiatives in Russia's claimed sphere of interest. A negotiated end is in fact at least a 'tie' for the US, so Russia will prosecute this conflict until the resolution is an undoubted and unequivocal win for themselves. And it is fully within Russia's means to do so. That has now become more important to all parties concerned than whatever Russian objectives might be in Ukraine itself---except to Ukraine.
It is Ukraine's miserable fate to be a pawn of a mouse soldier while the elephants dance. Bulgaria repeatedly saw this fate in the later 1800s. Korea had this kind of experience through the first half of the 1900s. Afghanistan the same over the last 45 years. Ukraine now. Who knows where elsewhere.
Ukraine is a puppet with less authority in its own house than the Biden family pets. It no more decides anything about the war than Major decided whether or not to be neutered.
This is nonsense. You can't make a people fight if they don't want to fight. See Afghanistan.
Sure you can. Hold out false promises and ruthlessly punish dissenters and those who try to surrender.
The internet is awash in videos of military comissars literally press-ganging recruits off the streets. of Ukraine. Happened to the son of a Kiev resident I know.
The New Hotness is to either deport military aged Ukrainian refugees from Europe, or to not so subtly convince those refugees to return home "voluntarily" where they can be press-ganged.
Yes, "The internet is awash in videos." I can find a video for anything, even for things that never happened.
All of them are fake. Go on, tell yourself that. Which is totally why Ukraine is demanding the return of refugees, because things are going so well.
Why, look at this video I found on the internet, poor guy was an innocent, peaceful musician, a top man at his craft, until he was "press ganged" by his FASCIST government:
https://youtu.be/8of3uhG1tCI
There is a draft. You know how a draft works, right? Was this "son of a Kiev resident" that you know a resident of Kiev himself? Was he able-bodied and over 27?
All of which is beside the point.
Why would Russia accept a cease fire at this point, at this contact line? Ukraine is out of sticks - it’s all carrots from here.
Certainly Russia won’t accept peace on any terms less than “what we hold + Crimea is internationally recognized” and they’ll probably demand up the Dnieper.
Too bad this otherwise sensible argument, whose points and conclusions were all foreseeable years ago, wasn’t accepted sooner. Oh well. Let it be a salutary lesson to other would-be cannon fodder nations.
Quite. the reason why there are a hundred or so participants at the Swiss peace talks but not Russia is that first an education session about just how bad the situation is must happen before people are ready to think about negotiations.
Russia will demand that a competent and reasonably friendly government is installed in rump Ukraine. Anything else would be Minsk 3. Oh and Odessa and probably all the coast to Romania.
"a competent and reasonably friendly government"
Unfortunately, "competent" is negatively correlated with "friendly to Putin." Look no further than the USA for examples. Ah yes, those highly competent leaders, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Donald Trump.
Absolutely - it was incompetent US, Nato and Ukraine leaders that got them into this mess. And they keep shootng themslelves in the foot till they sort that out. Lets stop pretending this is Putin's fault.
Yeah, I wonder why anyone would think it's Putin's fault?
Most provoked war ever.
Every dictator has never lacked for people willing to lick his boots. The really sad cases are the ones who will do it for free.
Also, sometime I'd be happy to explain to you what "negatively correlated" means.
I think i got that. I have only taught the subject about 150 times.
What I missed was your absurd suggestion that Trump was friendly to Putin. Why do you think Trump spent 4 years telling Nato to upp their spending on military? Don't you think there was a war he was happy to support in the planning?
(please don't tell me you haven't been told Russia gate was a scam - with a big chunk of Ukrainian disinformation).
"What this would entail would be consolidating Ukraine’s existing defensive positions, offering a guarantee of future Western economic and military support and then moving to ceasefire negotiations"
But would Russia agree to any "guarantees" that actually had any teeth to them?
Miley had better advice for UA autumn 2022 than Tooze or the maximalist who wrote the study.
The study - by a think tanker i.e. by a consultant - posits that Russia is recruiting 10k p month while many other sources have it at 30k.
The new 60 B package has many B destined to replenish AMERICAN stocks. There are no large amounts of new weapons and munitions available to send. Currently the US army is conducting its regular artillery training with S Korean shells. While the Russians are buying N Korean shells, but not just to immediately use but also to build a stockpile in case of conflict with the west. They are way better prepared than the chaotic and haphazardly reacting democracies.
I bet the author hasn't seen a single video (of the massive amount available) where UA commanders decry their situation, lack of manpower, and the non-fighting Kiev elite (and sometimes threaten them). Even elite battalions are giving up, refusing orders etc (yes, those battalions created and led by, let's say, nationalist influencers - Europe is going to have a lot of fun with them when they're demobilized...Zelensky already hinted at that).
The study completely ignores the fact that we're looking at a UA civil war (a significant portion of RU deaths are recruited in the eastern oblasts) in which the west has taken sides years ago, having our politico's standing side to side with rather iffy UA, let's say, nationalist influencers.
It doesn't mention UA manpower issues: within UA draft dodging is rife while 650.00 UA men of military age are in Europe, without any inclination to go back and die for UA possession of Crimea or Donbass (while RU clearly will escalate if UA would get near those areas). The UA gov does not recruit amongst its own class - 'high' tax payers are exempted since 'we need their tax receipts' while those who typically fight wars - young men - are also mostly exempted. Though now the recruiting age has been lowered from 27 to 25 yo.
Pretty easy to stick to your maximalist objectives then...
The class difference is really visible in this video below, which i find as offensive as western non combattants dreaming up another fancy UA 'offensive':
Honest opinion of Ukrainians: «Should we start to negotiate with Russia about peace?»\
https://youtu.be/FpZlRkUZGV4?t=204
In the video class and its privileges are exquisitely expressed through the well manicured, of student age, bravehearts behind the front, The only one who makes sense is a young soldier at 3:26 minute, just out of hospital (the only oner who spoke Russian btw). Compared to the other interviewees he's clearly the only working class guy, who already lost two brothers and, from his resignation expressed in the interview, has accepted his own fate. In his words 'this is the war of politics, we just play some role'.
This war is ran by and for creepy types without any real skin in the game. They do however talk a good game, only scarily sterile and emotionally remote. Note how UA elites and their western think tank counterparts use this empty technocratic language to describe the war, their objectives and to justify the dying:
The Economist editor: (financing the war is) 'the cheapest possible way for the US to enhance its security'.
https://youtu.be/uhbDgWSUR44?t=3340
Lesia Vasylenko, UA MP:
'Does the west want its previous investments in Poland c.s go to waste when UA loses to RU and Eastern Europe becomes the new buffer zone?
This is why investing in UA success is key, regardless of which political force wins the over 70 elections this year' (she couldn't mention UA elections of course).
Nial Ferguson:
'Support for UA is like an insurance premium which is vastly smaller than when RU wins'
Vasylenko:
'I like that about the insurance premium'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBfCvwYB_-4&t=621s
I bet she did.
Ferguson obviously could not resist quoting Churchill (wrongly, so he corrects himself at the end).
This is what happened with previous financial support packages:
https://thegrayzone.com/2022/08/18/ukraine-veterans-us-aid-soldiers-war/
A couple of hours ago I finished Wages of Destruction, and was hugely impressed so this disturbs me.
No this is not the moment to start negotiations - that was 2 years ago. And 23 months ago, and 22 months ago, in fact every day since has been time to stop the senseless slaughter of Ukrainian middle aged men.
At no point were Ukrainians killing Russians at a 4:1 rate, never even at a 1:2 rate (the linked article is a fraud). Over 2 years it has been 1:10 and at least 1:30 for the past few months where Mediazona is reporting 500 Russian deaths a month while the Russian MOD reports 700-1000 Ukrainian deaths A DAY.
Roughly 500k Ukrainian military deaths, 50K Russian deaths.
Artillery accounts for 70% of casualties in this kind of war and Russia outfires Ukraine by 10:1.
Then Russians all have a minimum of 3 months training on top of their conscription period. Ukrainians have at most 5 weeks. When it comes to saving colleagues from death through loss of blood Russians have a huge experience advantage as well as much better mobility in and out of frontline positions.
Ukraine started with 700k troops (it claimed) it recruited over a million and now has 3 or 400K. (It is reported to have called up Policemen and trainee cadets to the front line. RnR or returning home almost never happens.).
Of that disappeared 1.3 or 1.4m some will certainly have just run away and some are POWs but 500K dead is a conservative estimate.
Before we go any further - what are the things that our media, Nato leaders and western politicians cannot say? Ever. Especially if true. My list (feel free to add).
1. That Nato is incapable of defending Europe from Russia.
2. That Nato or US equipment is inferior to Russian (or Chinese) equipment.
3. That Ukraine are the bad guys and Russia are the good guys*.
4. That the situation is bad enough that we should stop sending more Ukrainians to their certain deaths
Once we start with this understanding, the complete failure to inform us of real events in Ukraine becomes less surprising.
*Think Nazis and the UN 10K civilian death estimate which makes this the most civilian friendly war ever.
"the Russian MOD reports 700-1000 Ukrainian deaths A DAY."
LOL, I always trust the numbers i get from the Russian Ministry of Truth... er, I mean, Ministry of DEFENSE.
If the majority of Ukrainian men don’t want to fight, why should I pay? And that is counting just the men in country, not those who have already run away to get paid to live in the EU.
And if the soldiers on the front line sense the country isn’t willing to make the sacrifices they are, why should they hold the line?
We’ve seen this play out before. Hearts and public support matter more than how many grids you can count on a map.
It’s very clear that Zelensky and the US/EU have mismanaged this war- providing UA with too little firepower too late to launch an offensive before Russia had mobilized and dug in. Even then, the idea of recovering Crimea would have been pure BS (and triggered tactical nuke use by Putin).
Neither Ukraine nor the allies have the stomach or the resources for more years of a war of attrition. Russia does. As the Obama/Biden admin noted in 2014, Russia cares a lot more about the fate of Ukraine than the US does. The only thing that changed post 2020 was that Biden’s base saw Ukraine as a hero of Trump’s impeachment and Putin as an ally of Trump. Hence, Dems turned from the type of “leaders” who would be happy to unconditionally forgive Russia for invading Georgia, promise Putin more flexibility after the election, do little when it took Crimea, “work” with Russia on chemical weapons in Syria, ignore assassinations, approve Nordstream2, etc into suddenly bloodthirsty warmongers because they believed the Trump-Russia collusion nonsense (and the MAGA types oppose Ukraine aid in part due to some of the same political “wedge” considerations).
It is unforgivable that our leaders have continued to lie to the public about the potential for victory in Ukraine, one where Ukraine will recapture all of its territory. It is fine for Zelensky to lie to his own people or set aspirational goals, but not with our checkbook.
The only good news out of this whole situation is that Putin has proved that Russian conventional forces present zero sustainable threat to NATO. Ukraine has done an admirable job in holding Russia off with neither an Air Force nor a Navy nor long range offensive missile capability.
Moreover, the US and Europe have openly tolerated Russia forcing Moldova to be demilitarized and neutral and as well as Russian subjugation of Belarus, now occupied by Russian troops and nukes and right on the borders of the Baltics and Poland. If NATO can accept Belarus as a militarized Russian client state on NATO borders with nary a complaint, how can anyone believe that Russian control of Ukraine would be an existential threat (which isn’t going to happen anyway)?
Ukraine is going to have to cut a deal. The best they can hope for is to sign away Crimea and most of the Donbas in return for Russia withdrawing from Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. France, Germany, Poland and the UK could then provide security guarantees to Ukraine (with guarantees from the US to provide those countries with arms and logistical support as needed). Of course, such a deal would be the end for Zelensky, but he is enough of a patriot where doing what is right for the country- so it can rebuild and live in peace and join the EU- will take precedence over his political career.
Agree Aaron. See also Timothy Snyder and Phillips O’Brien. Biden is to be congratulated for reviving NATO and backing Ukraine but faulted for caving to Putin’s empty threats of using nukes. Also every knows you don’t negotiate from weakness.
The Ukrainian army is showing signs of exhaustion but so are the Russians. Armored breakthroughs seem very unlikely to either side. The formula of Ukrainian valor + Russian atrocities = continued Western support still holds.
Nato has been killed off by Ukraine.
And given the US/UK support for Israel it will be very difficult to persuade the smaller countries ever to get involved again. Look at the Eurovision (song contest) in Sweden, protesters against Israel. Try telling Swedes they should up military spending to 3%.
Moreover Nato countries have neither troops nor weapons - the last thing they want is an aggressive Nato (even if they are daft enough to think Russia is the aggressor here).
Russia doesn’t have all the needed tanks and BMPs for a run to Kharkiv, but infantry can walk in that direction when defensive lines are breached and the defenders have no Air Force and are short on artillery. Remember that Ukraine also lacked tanks and APCs when they retook Kharkiv oblast.
"Russian economy has rebounded. Its armaments economy is expanding as not seen since the Cold War. Western pressure has driven Moscow closer to Beijing"📢
russian resilience would hardly be a surprise for the germans
But doesn't some of that "resilience" (both today and in WWII) come from the fact that they live under a dictatorship and all dissent is brutally suppressed? Seems like the US would have had an easier time staying the course in Vietnam if all that darn free speech and democracy didn't get in our way.
Nah bro you are just a coward. Maybe give them more stuff? Wtf is thing that we are doomed with an economy 20 times the size of Russia? What is this bullvrap?
Problematic assay, if it does not address what incentives Russia would have for a permanent ceasefire and what kind of framework could possibly secure the rights of self determination within whatever Putin conceives to be Russia‘s sphere of influence. Since any ceasefire would seem to require massive strengthening of NATO‘s eastern borders and especially what remains of Ukraine (air defence, airpower, fortifications, conscription ) as deterence against the next round of Russian pressure, doesn’t seem really clear what the difference between ceasefire and no ceasefire would be, beyond a short term suspension of casualties (no small thing).
It also doesn’t adequately address the common view that 2025 could see an improvement in the balance of power.
And of course the question of whether it is up to Ukrainian society and not the US to decide where to come down on the choice between resolve and war or a very grim consolidation of Putinism.
This is not the way. The US and EU should support Ukraine unconditionally and let Ukraine choose how it wants to end the war. There's likely no way Ukraine can win the war through breakthroughs, but eventually Russia will realize it's small gains aren't worth the continual bloodshed. A cease fire will just lead to a revamped and emboldened Russia.
Your way will get more of Ukraine wrecked and change precisely nothing about the outcome except for when the hostilities cease. Congratulations, I guess?