05-18-2024, 08:32 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-finall...01421.html
IMO this article is a pretty good summary of the "state of play". The "West" made a horrible mistake by allowing Russia to "hang around" for far too long. History shows that is always a mistake with them. They needed to get "blown out" early, and it didn't happen, using sports terminology. That said, they still have problems. Putin's leadership changes may or may not have permanent effects, and Russia going "all in" on a true war economy may be asking to much. Something may "break" in a way that causes political unrest that is hard to control. We don't have much insight into such things, so we can't count on it.
The failure of the West and Ukraine to defeat Russia while they were still "learning" now puts Ukraine and the West in a situation where we can't afford many "mistakes" in strategy or level of effort. As the article points out, Ukraine's morale is now definitely in question, where it was not previously. The "gradualist" approach the US often adopts in conflicts like this is NEVER a good idea. We sometimes get away with it because our opponent is either incompetent, lacks the combat power to "win" even in the best case, or lacks motivation. Russia was incompetent at the start of the war in large measure. They are unquestionably much better now (granted that was a low bar :). The US and NATO has to up their game and also "get serious". If we don't, Ukraine is toast.
Ukraine also has to up their game in terms of manpower utilization in general and bulk up its "masse de manoeuvre". If they can't do this, they will lose the war this year. The Ukrainians moved way too slowly on this issue. It takes time to train troops even when you have the bodies. You also need a continuous flow of replacements to ensure you are not "caught short" due to timing. Ukraine is now caught short, and their survival is far from certain at this point.
If the West and the Ukraine expect the Ukrainian air force to become a factor in this war, the F-16 program needs to be greatly expanded with full US participation including supplying the bulk of the airframes. The West, particularly the US, has to develop a strategy to win and implement it. A force of even 50 older-model F-16s delivered in dribs and drabs probably won't be the "path to victory", and Ukraine isn't even getting that as things stand. It will be lots of effort for a paltry gain unless an adequate mass of pilots and aircraft can be committed as a unit. Even best-case, a coherent plan of attack with both objectives and rationale is necessary, not just "Here is a bunch of planes. See what you can do."
Some "good news" is that Ukraine isn't complaining about lack of artillery ammunition at the moment. We need to ensure it stays that way. However, Ukraine was unable to bring the Russian offensive in the North to a standstill with artillery. Classically this is a main task for artillery. That indicates to me that all is still not well. Russia has improved in using infiltration tactics on a large scale, but their supply lines should still be vulnerable to interdiction.
IMO this article is a pretty good summary of the "state of play". The "West" made a horrible mistake by allowing Russia to "hang around" for far too long. History shows that is always a mistake with them. They needed to get "blown out" early, and it didn't happen, using sports terminology. That said, they still have problems. Putin's leadership changes may or may not have permanent effects, and Russia going "all in" on a true war economy may be asking to much. Something may "break" in a way that causes political unrest that is hard to control. We don't have much insight into such things, so we can't count on it.
The failure of the West and Ukraine to defeat Russia while they were still "learning" now puts Ukraine and the West in a situation where we can't afford many "mistakes" in strategy or level of effort. As the article points out, Ukraine's morale is now definitely in question, where it was not previously. The "gradualist" approach the US often adopts in conflicts like this is NEVER a good idea. We sometimes get away with it because our opponent is either incompetent, lacks the combat power to "win" even in the best case, or lacks motivation. Russia was incompetent at the start of the war in large measure. They are unquestionably much better now (granted that was a low bar :). The US and NATO has to up their game and also "get serious". If we don't, Ukraine is toast.
Ukraine also has to up their game in terms of manpower utilization in general and bulk up its "masse de manoeuvre". If they can't do this, they will lose the war this year. The Ukrainians moved way too slowly on this issue. It takes time to train troops even when you have the bodies. You also need a continuous flow of replacements to ensure you are not "caught short" due to timing. Ukraine is now caught short, and their survival is far from certain at this point.
If the West and the Ukraine expect the Ukrainian air force to become a factor in this war, the F-16 program needs to be greatly expanded with full US participation including supplying the bulk of the airframes. The West, particularly the US, has to develop a strategy to win and implement it. A force of even 50 older-model F-16s delivered in dribs and drabs probably won't be the "path to victory", and Ukraine isn't even getting that as things stand. It will be lots of effort for a paltry gain unless an adequate mass of pilots and aircraft can be committed as a unit. Even best-case, a coherent plan of attack with both objectives and rationale is necessary, not just "Here is a bunch of planes. See what you can do."
Some "good news" is that Ukraine isn't complaining about lack of artillery ammunition at the moment. We need to ensure it stays that way. However, Ukraine was unable to bring the Russian offensive in the North to a standstill with artillery. Classically this is a main task for artillery. That indicates to me that all is still not well. Russia has improved in using infiltration tactics on a large scale, but their supply lines should still be vulnerable to interdiction.