[Mick]

The Russian military started out as an organized force that was equipped and trained to move large quantities of troops. They failed at it. Now imagine doing the same thing with civilians who have no training and are not organized for such movements. They also have no organic transport and have to organize that too. I think you greatly underestimate the difficulty in doing so. Couple that with the fact a lot of the troops signed on to defend their homes. Plenty of them probably are not prepared to adopt an expeditionary posture, and may of them are probably not physically fit enough to do so.

"Never get involved in a land war in Asia."  (Vizzini)

...and yes, I know Ukraine is in Europe. Still a good line.

[Mick]

The Russian military started out as an organized force that was equipped and trained to move large quantities of troops. They failed at it. Now imagine doing the same thing with civilians who have no training and are not organized for such movements. They also have no organic transport and have to organize that too. I think you greatly underestimate the difficulty in doing so. Couple that with the fact a lot of the troops signed on to defend their homes. Plenty of them probably are not prepared to adopt an expeditionary posture, and may of them are probably not physically fit enough to do so.

"Never get involved in a land war in Asia."  (Vizzini)

...and yes, I know Ukraine is in Europe. Still a good line.

[Goose]

Indeed there are. Putin can destroy life on the planet, Milosevic not so much. I sympathize greatly with the current administration. If Putin couldn't nuke us, I am pretty sure Biden would bomb the heck out of the Russians. He can, so that is off the table. The administration has to sort of guess what they can do that won't provoke a response we can't live with. How does one do that? I have no idea.
What I do hope the administration is doing involves making plans to deal with the various possible twists and turns of this war. So far the present administration has at best a mixed record on anticipatory planning. We don't want to end up "winging it" if a quick response to an event is required.

Agreed. This is a very different situation than dealing with a non nuclear Milosevic. But to be clear, Biden has to not only be worrying about the “twists and turns of this war”, but also planning for someone (China, Iran, NKorea) trying to take advantage of the  current situation to start/exacerbate another problem in a different area of the world. Need to be talking to our friends/allies throughout the world to be prepared for a lot.

Absolutely.

[Goose]

Indeed there are. Putin can destroy life on the planet, Milosevic not so much. I sympathize greatly with the current administration. If Putin couldn't nuke us, I am pretty sure Biden would bomb the heck out of the Russians. He can, so that is off the table. The administration has to sort of guess what they can do that won't provoke a response we can't live with. How does one do that? I have no idea.
What I do hope the administration is doing involves making plans to deal with the various possible twists and turns of this war. So far the present administration has at best a mixed record on anticipatory planning. We don't want to end up "winging it" if a quick response to an event is required.

Agreed. This is a very different situation than dealing with a non nuclear Milosevic. But to be clear, Biden has to not only be worrying about the “twists and turns of this war”, but also planning for someone (China, Iran, NKorea) trying to take advantage of the  current situation to start/exacerbate another problem in a different area of the world. Need to be talking to our friends/allies throughout the world to be prepared for a lot.

Absolutely.

[Mick]

Indeed there are. Putin can destroy life on the planet, Milosevic not so much. I sympathize greatly with the current administration. If Putin couldn't nuke us, I am pretty sure Biden would bomb the heck out of the Russians. He can, so that is off the table. The administration has to sort of guess what they can do that won't provoke a response we can't live with. How does one do that? I have no idea.
What I do hope the administration is doing involves making plans to deal with the various possible twists and turns of this war. So far the present administration has at best a mixed record on anticipatory planning. We don't want to end up "winging it" if a quick response to an event is required.

Agreed. This is a very different situation than dealing with a non nuclear Milosevic. But to be clear, Biden has to not only be worrying about the “twists and turns of this war”, but also planning for someone (China, Iran, NKorea) trying to take advantage of the  current situation to start/exacerbate another problem in a different area of the world. Need to be talking to our friends/allies throughout the world to be prepared for a lot.

Absolutely.

What do you think would happen to Putin and Russia if Russia decided to use one so-called "tactical nuke?"

[Mick]

Indeed there are. Putin can destroy life on the planet, Milosevic not so much. I sympathize greatly with the current administration. If Putin couldn't nuke us, I am pretty sure Biden would bomb the heck out of the Russians. He can, so that is off the table. The administration has to sort of guess what they can do that won't provoke a response we can't live with. How does one do that? I have no idea.
What I do hope the administration is doing involves making plans to deal with the various possible twists and turns of this war. So far the present administration has at best a mixed record on anticipatory planning. We don't want to end up "winging it" if a quick response to an event is required.

Agreed. This is a very different situation than dealing with a non nuclear Milosevic. But to be clear, Biden has to not only be worrying about the “twists and turns of this war”, but also planning for someone (China, Iran, NKorea) trying to take advantage of the  current situation to start/exacerbate another problem in a different area of the world. Need to be talking to our friends/allies throughout the world to be prepared for a lot.

Absolutely.

What do you think would happen to Putin and Russia if Russia decided to use one so-called "tactical nuke?"

[BigJohn043]

Of course Ukrainians have eventually as an option.  They are going to keep fighting until they win and the threat is existential.


Russian has conquered a small part of Ukraine.  Farms will be planted in the spring and food will be grown.

No, it unfortunately is not and mostly will not be planted. That is a big world wide problem causing the UN to forecast serious world-wide shortages. The farmers have picked up weapons and are fighting. They largely can't do both. The wheat they would grow can't be shipped because Russia controls the South coast. This is one of Ukraine's big problems.

 
Ukraine is now hooked up to the EU power grid.

Which runs on Russian gas. The EU itself will be in a world of hurt if Putin shuts of their gas supply. Everybody is assuming he won't do that because he needs the money. However, with the sanctions it may turn out the money does him no good. I am not sure what will happen here, but being hooked to the EU grid may not be a panacea. There is no excess capacity to begin with.
The Ukraine (and Moldova) have synchronized their grid's frequency and phase to the EU grid. However, as I understand it no power has yet been transferred. The intended cut-over date for this operation was in 2023. It is unclear how much power can actually be shared from the EU due to transmission line limitations.

It is going to be hard and nasty but Ukraine won't be starved out.  And the aid from the West is going to be of immense proportions.

True, and that will help. But supporting 36 million people who are still fighting a war and are being bombed and hit by missiles daily isn't easy. Ukraine won't stave, but it also won't produce much. Not going to be "easy". How long can they endure it?

Russia on the other hand has to deliver foot, ammo & fuel to their troops often over many miles of contested roads.  Every village is a source of insurgency.  And their economy is trashed.  You can buy new equipment from China but all of their existing equipment needs western spare parts.  This is a mess.
I think it also depends on what you are talking about.  The advances around Kiev are totally untenable.  The eastern approaches in particular have long supply lines subject to counter attack.  Suny and Chernihiv are still in their rear.  My view is that the Russians are going to need to retreat to east of Kharkiv.
In the East and the South OTOH the Russians can likely hold some ground.  My guess is they get pushed out of Kherson but hold some eastern territory.

In the East, Russia has short supply lines, Ukraine has longer ones. In the East, Russia fights under the IAD based in Russia. Ukraine is denied the sky in these areas. Indeed, Russia foolishly attempted advances on multiple fronts creating salients that they could neither supply nor defend. Majorly stupid, but they have (belatedly) figured that out. We will see what happens in the East, but I expect that Russia will (unfortunately) do much better there. They will be able to concentrate their forces and will be able to use only the "better" units as assault forces. How well these units hold up will be critical to the advance.

But the truth is that this is a total mess for Putin.  He has accomplished very little, has limited additional reinforcements and not chance of really taking additional territory.  Every day his leverage goes down and he needs to make a deal.
Ukraine has been badly damaged and it is going to get worse.  But they are in a fight for their existence and they believe they are going to win.  The Russians have no idea why they are there.

I agree with every bit of this except the idea Russia has no chance of taking additional territory. I think they have every chance of doing so. Fight under an air umbrella and take 30 to 50 km wide "slices". Short supply lines. Reinforce success (a normal Russian procedure), outflank failure. Ukraine doesn't have the transport or the troops to hold everywhere. They will slowly lose the battle because they can't force Russia to defend and respond to counter-attacks that threaten the flanks or rear. Ukraine is also running out of Soviet era artillery ammunition and it is unclear if/when they can get more. They have stated this is a big problem. Even when they get it, they have to move it from the Polish border to Donbas. Now Ukraine is the one with a very long supply chain.
I expect it is impossible for Russia to take the entire Ukraine that way, but it is certainly possible to secure the Donbas and the majority of Eastern Ukraine that way. If the Russian troops will fight, this can happen. Hopefully, they will have a morale collapse and not do so.

---

There was much more urgency from the Clinton administration back in those days to end the conflict on the battlefield than what I see today in helping Ukraine.   Naturally there are differences between dealing with Milosevic and with Putin.

Indeed there are. Putin can destroy life on the planet, Milosevic not so much. I sympathize greatly with the current administration. If Putin couldn't nuke us, I am pretty sure Biden would bomb the heck out of the Russians. He can, so that is off the table. The administration has to sort of guess what they can do that won't provoke a response we can't live with. How does one do that? I have no idea.
What I do hope the administration is doing involves making plans to deal with the various possible twists and turns of this war. So far the present administration has at best a mixed record on anticipatory planning. We don't want to end up "winging it" if a quick response to an event is required.

The Ukrainians view this as a fight for their existence.  Their economy is on a total war footing.  Their people believe that their only option to servitude is to pick up a weapon and fight.  And they fully believe they are going to win.  They can put up with an immense amount of suffering.  OTOH, the Russian army doesn't know why they are fighting.  Morale makes a brobdingnagian difference.

Supply lines across a friendly country are very different than across an enemy territory where all of the inhabitants want you to fail.

I agree that in the east the Russians might take some territory.  But they have shown no ability to take cities of really any size.  Controlling some farm land isn't exactly compelling.

Once again, every day Putin's leverage is going down.  The only question is how aware he is of the situation and when he is willing to face his issues....

[BigJohn043]

Of course Ukrainians have eventually as an option.  They are going to keep fighting until they win and the threat is existential.


Russian has conquered a small part of Ukraine.  Farms will be planted in the spring and food will be grown.

No, it unfortunately is not and mostly will not be planted. That is a big world wide problem causing the UN to forecast serious world-wide shortages. The farmers have picked up weapons and are fighting. They largely can't do both. The wheat they would grow can't be shipped because Russia controls the South coast. This is one of Ukraine's big problems.

 
Ukraine is now hooked up to the EU power grid.

Which runs on Russian gas. The EU itself will be in a world of hurt if Putin shuts of their gas supply. Everybody is assuming he won't do that because he needs the money. However, with the sanctions it may turn out the money does him no good. I am not sure what will happen here, but being hooked to the EU grid may not be a panacea. There is no excess capacity to begin with.
The Ukraine (and Moldova) have synchronized their grid's frequency and phase to the EU grid. However, as I understand it no power has yet been transferred. The intended cut-over date for this operation was in 2023. It is unclear how much power can actually be shared from the EU due to transmission line limitations.

It is going to be hard and nasty but Ukraine won't be starved out.  And the aid from the West is going to be of immense proportions.

True, and that will help. But supporting 36 million people who are still fighting a war and are being bombed and hit by missiles daily isn't easy. Ukraine won't stave, but it also won't produce much. Not going to be "easy". How long can they endure it?

Russia on the other hand has to deliver foot, ammo & fuel to their troops often over many miles of contested roads.  Every village is a source of insurgency.  And their economy is trashed.  You can buy new equipment from China but all of their existing equipment needs western spare parts.  This is a mess.
I think it also depends on what you are talking about.  The advances around Kiev are totally untenable.  The eastern approaches in particular have long supply lines subject to counter attack.  Suny and Chernihiv are still in their rear.  My view is that the Russians are going to need to retreat to east of Kharkiv.
In the East and the South OTOH the Russians can likely hold some ground.  My guess is they get pushed out of Kherson but hold some eastern territory.

In the East, Russia has short supply lines, Ukraine has longer ones. In the East, Russia fights under the IAD based in Russia. Ukraine is denied the sky in these areas. Indeed, Russia foolishly attempted advances on multiple fronts creating salients that they could neither supply nor defend. Majorly stupid, but they have (belatedly) figured that out. We will see what happens in the East, but I expect that Russia will (unfortunately) do much better there. They will be able to concentrate their forces and will be able to use only the "better" units as assault forces. How well these units hold up will be critical to the advance.

But the truth is that this is a total mess for Putin.  He has accomplished very little, has limited additional reinforcements and not chance of really taking additional territory.  Every day his leverage goes down and he needs to make a deal.
Ukraine has been badly damaged and it is going to get worse.  But they are in a fight for their existence and they believe they are going to win.  The Russians have no idea why they are there.

I agree with every bit of this except the idea Russia has no chance of taking additional territory. I think they have every chance of doing so. Fight under an air umbrella and take 30 to 50 km wide "slices". Short supply lines. Reinforce success (a normal Russian procedure), outflank failure. Ukraine doesn't have the transport or the troops to hold everywhere. They will slowly lose the battle because they can't force Russia to defend and respond to counter-attacks that threaten the flanks or rear. Ukraine is also running out of Soviet era artillery ammunition and it is unclear if/when they can get more. They have stated this is a big problem. Even when they get it, they have to move it from the Polish border to Donbas. Now Ukraine is the one with a very long supply chain.
I expect it is impossible for Russia to take the entire Ukraine that way, but it is certainly possible to secure the Donbas and the majority of Eastern Ukraine that way. If the Russian troops will fight, this can happen. Hopefully, they will have a morale collapse and not do so.

---

There was much more urgency from the Clinton administration back in those days to end the conflict on the battlefield than what I see today in helping Ukraine.   Naturally there are differences between dealing with Milosevic and with Putin.

Indeed there are. Putin can destroy life on the planet, Milosevic not so much. I sympathize greatly with the current administration. If Putin couldn't nuke us, I am pretty sure Biden would bomb the heck out of the Russians. He can, so that is off the table. The administration has to sort of guess what they can do that won't provoke a response we can't live with. How does one do that? I have no idea.
What I do hope the administration is doing involves making plans to deal with the various possible twists and turns of this war. So far the present administration has at best a mixed record on anticipatory planning. We don't want to end up "winging it" if a quick response to an event is required.

The Ukrainians view this as a fight for their existence.  Their economy is on a total war footing.  Their people believe that their only option to servitude is to pick up a weapon and fight.  And they fully believe they are going to win.  They can put up with an immense amount of suffering.  OTOH, the Russian army doesn't know why they are fighting.  Morale makes a brobdingnagian difference.

Supply lines across a friendly country are very different than across an enemy territory where all of the inhabitants want you to fail.

I agree that in the east the Russians might take some territory.  But they have shown no ability to take cities of really any size.  Controlling some farm land isn't exactly compelling.

Once again, every day Putin's leverage is going down.  The only question is how aware he is of the situation and when he is willing to face his issues....

[BigJohn043]

Of course Ukrainians have eventually as an option.  They are going to keep fighting until they win and the threat is existential.


Russian has conquered a small part of Ukraine.  Farms will be planted in the spring and food will be grown.

No, it unfortunately is not and mostly will not be planted. That is a big world wide problem causing the UN to forecast serious world-wide shortages. The farmers have picked up weapons and are fighting. They largely can't do both. The wheat they would grow can't be shipped because Russia controls the South coast. This is one of Ukraine's big problems.

 
Ukraine is now hooked up to the EU power grid.

Which runs on Russian gas. The EU itself will be in a world of hurt if Putin shuts of their gas supply. Everybody is assuming he won't do that because he needs the money. However, with the sanctions it may turn out the money does him no good. I am not sure what will happen here, but being hooked to the EU grid may not be a panacea. There is no excess capacity to begin with.
The Ukraine (and Moldova) have synchronized their grid's frequency and phase to the EU grid. However, as I understand it no power has yet been transferred. The intended cut-over date for this operation was in 2023. It is unclear how much power can actually be shared from the EU due to transmission line limitations.

It is going to be hard and nasty but Ukraine won't be starved out.  And the aid from the West is going to be of immense proportions.

True, and that will help. But supporting 36 million people who are still fighting a war and are being bombed and hit by missiles daily isn't easy. Ukraine won't stave, but it also won't produce much. Not going to be "easy". How long can they endure it?

Russia on the other hand has to deliver foot, ammo & fuel to their troops often over many miles of contested roads.  Every village is a source of insurgency.  And their economy is trashed.  You can buy new equipment from China but all of their existing equipment needs western spare parts.  This is a mess.
I think it also depends on what you are talking about.  The advances around Kiev are totally untenable.  The eastern approaches in particular have long supply lines subject to counter attack.  Suny and Chernihiv are still in their rear.  My view is that the Russians are going to need to retreat to east of Kharkiv.
In the East and the South OTOH the Russians can likely hold some ground.  My guess is they get pushed out of Kherson but hold some eastern territory.

In the East, Russia has short supply lines, Ukraine has longer ones. In the East, Russia fights under the IAD based in Russia. Ukraine is denied the sky in these areas. Indeed, Russia foolishly attempted advances on multiple fronts creating salients that they could neither supply nor defend. Majorly stupid, but they have (belatedly) figured that out. We will see what happens in the East, but I expect that Russia will (unfortunately) do much better there. They will be able to concentrate their forces and will be able to use only the "better" units as assault forces. How well these units hold up will be critical to the advance.

But the truth is that this is a total mess for Putin.  He has accomplished very little, has limited additional reinforcements and not chance of really taking additional territory.  Every day his leverage goes down and he needs to make a deal.
Ukraine has been badly damaged and it is going to get worse.  But they are in a fight for their existence and they believe they are going to win.  The Russians have no idea why they are there.

I agree with every bit of this except the idea Russia has no chance of taking additional territory. I think they have every chance of doing so. Fight under an air umbrella and take 30 to 50 km wide "slices". Short supply lines. Reinforce success (a normal Russian procedure), outflank failure. Ukraine doesn't have the transport or the troops to hold everywhere. They will slowly lose the battle because they can't force Russia to defend and respond to counter-attacks that threaten the flanks or rear. Ukraine is also running out of Soviet era artillery ammunition and it is unclear if/when they can get more. They have stated this is a big problem. Even when they get it, they have to move it from the Polish border to Donbas. Now Ukraine is the one with a very long supply chain.
I expect it is impossible for Russia to take the entire Ukraine that way, but it is certainly possible to secure the Donbas and the majority of Eastern Ukraine that way. If the Russian troops will fight, this can happen. Hopefully, they will have a morale collapse and not do so.

---

There was much more urgency from the Clinton administration back in those days to end the conflict on the battlefield than what I see today in helping Ukraine.   Naturally there are differences between dealing with Milosevic and with Putin.

Indeed there are. Putin can destroy life on the planet, Milosevic not so much. I sympathize greatly with the current administration. If Putin couldn't nuke us, I am pretty sure Biden would bomb the heck out of the Russians. He can, so that is off the table. The administration has to sort of guess what they can do that won't provoke a response we can't live with. How does one do that? I have no idea.
What I do hope the administration is doing involves making plans to deal with the various possible twists and turns of this war. So far the present administration has at best a mixed record on anticipatory planning. We don't want to end up "winging it" if a quick response to an event is required.

The Ukrainians view this as a fight for their existence.  Their economy is on a total war footing.  Their people believe that their only option to servitude is to pick up a weapon and fight.  And they fully believe they are going to win.  They can put up with an immense amount of suffering.  OTOH, the Russian army doesn't know why they are fighting.  Morale makes a of immense proportions difference.

Supply lines across a friendly country are very different than across an enemy territory where all of the inhabitants want you to fail.

I agree that in the east the Russians might take some territory.  But they have shown no ability to take cities of really any size.  Controlling some farm land isn't exactly compelling.

Once again, every day Putin's leverage is going down.  The only question is how aware he is of the situation and when he is willing to face his issues....

Here is a good thread on what is happening in Kharkiv.  If the Russians are going to take anything in the east this would be it.  They are getting pushed back and haven't taken anything....

[tweet]https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1509422477553934338?s=20&t=vZM5zJ-O4I17Zz4r2SwoDQ[/tweet]

[BigJohn043]

Of course Ukrainians have eventually as an option.  They are going to keep fighting until they win and the threat is existential.


Russian has conquered a small part of Ukraine.  Farms will be planted in the spring and food will be grown.

No, it unfortunately is not and mostly will not be planted. That is a big world wide problem causing the UN to forecast serious world-wide shortages. The farmers have picked up weapons and are fighting. They largely can't do both. The wheat they would grow can't be shipped because Russia controls the South coast. This is one of Ukraine's big problems.

 
Ukraine is now hooked up to the EU power grid.

Which runs on Russian gas. The EU itself will be in a world of hurt if Putin shuts of their gas supply. Everybody is assuming he won't do that because he needs the money. However, with the sanctions it may turn out the money does him no good. I am not sure what will happen here, but being hooked to the EU grid may not be a panacea. There is no excess capacity to begin with.
The Ukraine (and Moldova) have synchronized their grid's frequency and phase to the EU grid. However, as I understand it no power has yet been transferred. The intended cut-over date for this operation was in 2023. It is unclear how much power can actually be shared from the EU due to transmission line limitations.

It is going to be hard and nasty but Ukraine won't be starved out.  And the aid from the West is going to be of immense proportions.

True, and that will help. But supporting 36 million people who are still fighting a war and are being bombed and hit by missiles daily isn't easy. Ukraine won't stave, but it also won't produce much. Not going to be "easy". How long can they endure it?

Russia on the other hand has to deliver foot, ammo & fuel to their troops often over many miles of contested roads.  Every village is a source of insurgency.  And their economy is trashed.  You can buy new equipment from China but all of their existing equipment needs western spare parts.  This is a mess.
I think it also depends on what you are talking about.  The advances around Kiev are totally untenable.  The eastern approaches in particular have long supply lines subject to counter attack.  Suny and Chernihiv are still in their rear.  My view is that the Russians are going to need to retreat to east of Kharkiv.
In the East and the South OTOH the Russians can likely hold some ground.  My guess is they get pushed out of Kherson but hold some eastern territory.

In the East, Russia has short supply lines, Ukraine has longer ones. In the East, Russia fights under the IAD based in Russia. Ukraine is denied the sky in these areas. Indeed, Russia foolishly attempted advances on multiple fronts creating salients that they could neither supply nor defend. Majorly stupid, but they have (belatedly) figured that out. We will see what happens in the East, but I expect that Russia will (unfortunately) do much better there. They will be able to concentrate their forces and will be able to use only the "better" units as assault forces. How well these units hold up will be critical to the advance.

But the truth is that this is a total mess for Putin.  He has accomplished very little, has limited additional reinforcements and not chance of really taking additional territory.  Every day his leverage goes down and he needs to make a deal.
Ukraine has been badly damaged and it is going to get worse.  But they are in a fight for their existence and they believe they are going to win.  The Russians have no idea why they are there.

I agree with every bit of this except the idea Russia has no chance of taking additional territory. I think they have every chance of doing so. Fight under an air umbrella and take 30 to 50 km wide "slices". Short supply lines. Reinforce success (a normal Russian procedure), outflank failure. Ukraine doesn't have the transport or the troops to hold everywhere. They will slowly lose the battle because they can't force Russia to defend and respond to counter-attacks that threaten the flanks or rear. Ukraine is also running out of Soviet era artillery ammunition and it is unclear if/when they can get more. They have stated this is a big problem. Even when they get it, they have to move it from the Polish border to Donbas. Now Ukraine is the one with a very long supply chain.
I expect it is impossible for Russia to take the entire Ukraine that way, but it is certainly possible to secure the Donbas and the majority of Eastern Ukraine that way. If the Russian troops will fight, this can happen. Hopefully, they will have a morale collapse and not do so.

---

There was much more urgency from the Clinton administration back in those days to end the conflict on the battlefield than what I see today in helping Ukraine.   Naturally there are differences between dealing with Milosevic and with Putin.

Indeed there are. Putin can destroy life on the planet, Milosevic not so much. I sympathize greatly with the current administration. If Putin couldn't nuke us, I am pretty sure Biden would bomb the heck out of the Russians. He can, so that is off the table. The administration has to sort of guess what they can do that won't provoke a response we can't live with. How does one do that? I have no idea.
What I do hope the administration is doing involves making plans to deal with the various possible twists and turns of this war. So far the present administration has at best a mixed record on anticipatory planning. We don't want to end up "winging it" if a quick response to an event is required.

The Ukrainians view this as a fight for their existence.  Their economy is on a total war footing.  Their people believe that their only option to servitude is to pick up a weapon and fight.  And they fully believe they are going to win.  They can put up with an immense amount of suffering.  OTOH, the Russian army doesn't know why they are fighting.  Morale makes a of immense proportions difference.

Supply lines across a friendly country are very different than across an enemy territory where all of the inhabitants want you to fail.

I agree that in the east the Russians might take some territory.  But they have shown no ability to take cities of really any size.  Controlling some farm land isn't exactly compelling.

Once again, every day Putin's leverage is going down.  The only question is how aware he is of the situation and when he is willing to face his issues....

Here is a good thread on what is happening in Kharkiv.  If the Russians are going to take anything in the east this would be it.  They are getting pushed back and haven't taken anything....

[tweet]https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1509422477553934338?s=20&t=vZM5zJ-O4I17Zz4r2SwoDQ[/tweet]

[BostonCard]

How the west got the Russian military so wrong.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...ns/629418/

Parallels to the pre-world war 2 French military.

“Everybody’s got a plan till they get punched in the mouth”

Mike Tyson

[BostonCard]

How the west got the Russian military so wrong.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...ns/629418/

Parallels to the pre-world war 2 French military.

“Everybody’s got a plan till they get punched in the mouth”

Mike Tyson

[Mick]

How the west got the Russian military so wrong.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...ns/629418/

Parallels to the pre-world war 2 French military.

“Everybody’s got a plan till they get punched in the mouth”

Mike Tyson

I wonder if part of the miscalculation was due to decades' worth of overestimating Russian military might in order to build up the American military.

[Mick]

How the west got the Russian military so wrong.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...ns/629418/

Parallels to the pre-world war 2 French military.

“Everybody’s got a plan till they get punched in the mouth”

Mike Tyson

I wonder if part of the miscalculation was due to decades' worth of overestimating Russian military might in order to build up the American military.

[Goose]

The Ukrainians view this as a fight for their existence.  Their economy is on a total war footing.  Their people believe that their only option to servitude is to pick up a weapon and fight.  And they fully believe they are going to win.  They can put up with an immense amount of suffering.  OTOH, the Russian army doesn't know why they are fighting.  Morale makes a of immense proportions difference.

Indeed it does. Russia has big problems in that area and they will get bigger as casualties mount and the troops figure out their leaders don't know what they are doing. The success (or not) of the current replenishment and reorganization of the Russian attack will tell us a lot about what the future holds. So far, it seems to be moving very slowly and it is unclear what their new focus will be. We are not seeing a quick effort in the Donbas. The slower Russia actually moves (if they do), the better the Ukraine can respond.

Supply lines across a friendly country are very different than across an enemy territory where all of the inhabitants want you to fail.



I agree that in the east the Russians might take some territory.  But they have shown no ability to take cities of really any size.  Controlling some farm land isn't exactly compelling.



Once again, every day Putin's leverage is going down.  The only question is how aware he is of the situation and when he is willing to face his issues....

Controlling all the farmland that surrounds a city of some size is actually very compelling. That is one of the few things Russia has done correctly. Stay out of urban warfare as much as possible. It is a meat grinder for the attacking force. Russia has already experienced enough of that to know they don't want to go there. Surrounding cities, cutting off their supplies is as old as history. The problem is horrible PR and the amount of time it may take to starve out the defenders. Russia has so far not been in a great hurry to occupy Mariupol. That says to me they understand the issue and are just going to wait them out. If we see a full scale assault against a defended large to medium sized city, I will be surprised.
Ukraine has actually done a pretty good job preventing cities from being encircled (and relieving them when they are encircled). Kiev is the poster child for that, as now apparently is Kherson.
I don't see Putin losing leverage by the day. Both Russia and Ukraine are in situations that are not stable. The status quo is not sustainable for either party. Something has to give. The question is who can sustain the effort the longest or who can change the narrative in their favor. My concern all along has been that Ukraine lacks the combat power to change the narrative in their favor. They have to rely on Russia being unwilling/unable to persist. Russia can, in theory, project enough power Ukraine can't stop them. So far, they have not been able to do that, but the more attempts they get, the more probable it is they will succeed.

[Goose]

The Ukrainians view this as a fight for their existence.  Their economy is on a total war footing.  Their people believe that their only option to servitude is to pick up a weapon and fight.  And they fully believe they are going to win.  They can put up with an immense amount of suffering.  OTOH, the Russian army doesn't know why they are fighting.  Morale makes a of immense proportions difference.

Indeed it does. Russia has big problems in that area and they will get bigger as casualties mount and the troops figure out their leaders don't know what they are doing. The success (or not) of the current replenishment and reorganization of the Russian attack will tell us a lot about what the future holds. So far, it seems to be moving very slowly and it is unclear what their new focus will be. We are not seeing a quick effort in the Donbas. The slower Russia actually moves (if they do), the better the Ukraine can respond.

Supply lines across a friendly country are very different than across an enemy territory where all of the inhabitants want you to fail.



I agree that in the east the Russians might take some territory.  But they have shown no ability to take cities of really any size.  Controlling some farm land isn't exactly compelling.



Once again, every day Putin's leverage is going down.  The only question is how aware he is of the situation and when he is willing to face his issues....

Controlling all the farmland that surrounds a city of some size is actually very compelling. That is one of the few things Russia has done correctly. Stay out of urban warfare as much as possible. It is a meat grinder for the attacking force. Russia has already experienced enough of that to know they don't want to go there. Surrounding cities, cutting off their supplies is as old as history. The problem is horrible PR and the amount of time it may take to starve out the defenders. Russia has so far not been in a great hurry to occupy Mariupol. That says to me they understand the issue and are just going to wait them out. If we see a full scale assault against a defended large to medium sized city, I will be surprised.
Ukraine has actually done a pretty good job preventing cities from being encircled (and relieving them when they are encircled). Kiev is the poster child for that, as now apparently is Kherson.
I don't see Putin losing leverage by the day. Both Russia and Ukraine are in situations that are not stable. The status quo is not sustainable for either party. Something has to give. The question is who can sustain the effort the longest or who can change the narrative in their favor. My concern all along has been that Ukraine lacks the combat power to change the narrative in their favor. They have to rely on Russia being unwilling/unable to persist. Russia can, in theory, project enough power Ukraine can't stop them. So far, they have not been able to do that, but the more attempts they get, the more probable it is they will succeed.

[dabigv13]

We need to stop talking about theoretical Russian capabilities when we have over a month of real evidence to look at.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/Nrg8000/status/1509518391362859015?s=20&t=8uMtMsC0_Q5jyOGPgtaGxQ[/tweet]

[dabigv13]

We need to stop talking about theoretical Russian capabilities when we have over a month of real evidence to look at.

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/Nrg8000/status/1509518391362859015?s=20&t=8uMtMsC0_Q5jyOGPgtaGxQ[/tweet]

[Goose]

We need to stop talking about theoretical Russian capabilities when we have over a month of real evidence to look at.

I don't disagree. What this map shows is that Russia has captured a land bridge from Russia to Crimea, a major war aim presumably. It also shows that Russia has captured the mouth of the Dnieper river, which in theory secures a water supply for Crimea, which is a major war aim. What the map also shows is that Russia has not captured Odessa and the entire Southern coast of Ukraine. It also shows Russia has not secured the majority of the Donetsk and Luhansk, which is a major war aim not accomplished. Supposedly, that will be Russia's new focus. The map however also shows some areas as Russian controlled that are still to some degree disputed by Ukrainian forces.
However, this map clearly shows Russia occupies lots of critical Ukrainian territory, much of which they aren't going to easily give back. Ukraine has make it clear they don't intend to surrender any territory. There are good reasons for this other than just pride. The areas Russia has captured are important to Ukraine's transport system and economy. Russia obviously has failed at it's major aim, which was to overwhelm Ukraine and destroy it as a nation. However, they have succeeded at several important war aims. Now, how does Ukraine reverse that success? That is question one. Question two is can Russia complete their control of the Donbas?
Russia has clearly under-performed. Historically, that has often been the case early in wars. Sometimes the Russians have recovered and corrected their deficiencies, sometimes they have not. Ukraine OTOH is running out of critical ordinance supplies that date back to the Soviet system. We can't supply replacements, and it is unclear other NATO nations can or will. Ukraine also lacks capability to attack "in depth". That makes the Russians problem a lot simpler.
As much as all of us would like to see Ukraine push Russia out, right now IMHO Ukraine simply can't do it unless the Russian troops simply will not fight. That could happen, but counting on that is a big ask. If Ukraine can acquire replacement/new artillery supplies and some significant MLRS capability then I think it is a different story. Without that, it becomes a stalemate with Russia occupying critical Ukraine territory that they will defend.

[Goose]

We need to stop talking about theoretical Russian capabilities when we have over a month of real evidence to look at.

I don't disagree. What this map shows is that Russia has captured a land bridge from Russia to Crimea, a major war aim presumably. It also shows that Russia has captured the mouth of the Dnieper river, which in theory secures a water supply for Crimea, which is a major war aim. What the map also shows is that Russia has not captured Odessa and the entire Southern coast of Ukraine. It also shows Russia has not secured the majority of the Donetsk and Luhansk, which is a major war aim not accomplished. Supposedly, that will be Russia's new focus. The map however also shows some areas as Russian controlled that are still to some degree disputed by Ukrainian forces.
However, this map clearly shows Russia occupies lots of critical Ukrainian territory, much of which they aren't going to easily give back. Ukraine has make it clear they don't intend to surrender any territory. There are good reasons for this other than just pride. The areas Russia has captured are important to Ukraine's transport system and economy. Russia obviously has failed at it's major aim, which was to overwhelm Ukraine and destroy it as a nation. However, they have succeeded at several important war aims. Now, how does Ukraine reverse that success? That is question one. Question two is can Russia complete their control of the Donbas?
Russia has clearly under-performed. Historically, that has often been the case early in wars. Sometimes the Russians have recovered and corrected their deficiencies, sometimes they have not. Ukraine OTOH is running out of critical ordinance supplies that date back to the Soviet system. We can't supply replacements, and it is unclear other NATO nations can or will. Ukraine also lacks capability to attack "in depth". That makes the Russians problem a lot simpler.
As much as all of us would like to see Ukraine push Russia out, right now IMHO Ukraine simply can't do it unless the Russian troops simply will not fight. That could happen, but counting on that is a big ask. If Ukraine can acquire replacement/new artillery supplies and some significant MLRS capability then I think it is a different story. Without that, it becomes a stalemate with Russia occupying critical Ukraine territory that they will defend.

[dabigv13]

Regarding morale, artillery-

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/phildstewart/status/1509587852409151492?s=20&t=uI-jttAtFhCsD1VEroBDlw[/tweet]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/NeilPHauer/status/1509277843628466180?s=20&t=8uMtMsC0_Q5jyOGPgtaGxQ[/tweet]

And again, Russia is presently, a month into the war, losing territory to the Ukrainians. I don't think anybody would have predicted that at the start, but those are the facts on the ground.

Putin certainly did not start a war that will cripple his military for years in order to secure a land bridge to Crimea or take Mariupol or gain some more gas fields or coal mines. Calling those things war aims really buys into the shifting propaganda from Russia.

[dabigv13]

Regarding morale, artillery-

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/phildstewart/status/1509587852409151492?s=20&t=uI-jttAtFhCsD1VEroBDlw[/tweet]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/NeilPHauer/status/1509277843628466180?s=20&t=8uMtMsC0_Q5jyOGPgtaGxQ[/tweet]

And again, Russia is presently, a month into the war, losing territory to the Ukrainians. I don't think anybody would have predicted that at the start, but those are the facts on the ground.

Putin certainly did not start a war that will cripple his military for years in order to secure a land bridge to Crimea or take Mariupol or gain some more gas fields or coal mines. Calling those things war aims really buys into the shifting propaganda from Russia.

[Treefence]

Regarding morale, artillery-

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/phildstewart/status/1509587852409151492?s=20&t=uI-jttAtFhCsD1VEroBDlw[/tweet]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/NeilPHauer/status/1509277843628466180?s=20&t=8uMtMsC0_Q5jyOGPgtaGxQ[/tweet]

And again, Russia is presently, a month into the war, losing territory to the Ukrainians. I don't think anybody would have predicted that at the start, but those are the facts on the ground.

Putin certainly did not start a war that will cripple his military for years in order to secure a land bridge to Crimea or take Mariupol or gain some more gas fields or coal mines. Calling those things war aims really buys into the shifting propaganda from Russia.

The tweet about the UK providing artillery and armored vehicles is of note, since most countries have provided Manpad's and anti take equipment, but for the most part it's been defensive equipment.  If this is confirmed, and actually takes place, it would represent a significant scale up, and all eyes would be on Russia's reaction, if there is one.  Ukraine is at a significant turning point in this war, as they been taking back back lots of territory in the north and Kherson region.  If they are supplied properly, they could look to take back all their territory they've lost, though that's easier said than done.  Russia has yet to use chemical weapons in this war, but I've always worried that if the west begins sending offensive equipment, then Russia would flip that switch, but this is my personal guess and has not been stated by any major source that I know of.

[Treefence]

Regarding morale, artillery-

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/phildstewart/status/1509587852409151492?s=20&t=uI-jttAtFhCsD1VEroBDlw[/tweet]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/NeilPHauer/status/1509277843628466180?s=20&t=8uMtMsC0_Q5jyOGPgtaGxQ[/tweet]

And again, Russia is presently, a month into the war, losing territory to the Ukrainians. I don't think anybody would have predicted that at the start, but those are the facts on the ground.

Putin certainly did not start a war that will cripple his military for years in order to secure a land bridge to Crimea or take Mariupol or gain some more gas fields or coal mines. Calling those things war aims really buys into the shifting propaganda from Russia.

The tweet about the UK providing artillery and armored vehicles is of note, since most countries have provided Manpad's and anti take equipment, but for the most part it's been defensive equipment.  If this is confirmed, and actually takes place, it would represent a significant scale up, and all eyes would be on Russia's reaction, if there is one.  Ukraine is at a significant turning point in this war, as they been taking back back lots of territory in the north and Kherson region.  If they are supplied properly, they could look to take back all their territory they've lost, though that's easier said than done.  Russia has yet to use chemical weapons in this war, but I've always worried that if the west begins sending offensive equipment, then Russia would flip that switch, but this is my personal guess and has not been stated by any major source that I know of.

[OutsiderFan]

It's one thing for the Executive Branch to release intel saying Putin has been misled and doesn't trust his military. It's quite another to actually know specifics of what he has been told that isn't true and what he believes that isn't true.

I find it curious that Russian forces are shelling and bombing civilian infrastructure while being pushed back by Ukrainian forces. Wouldn't it make more sense to use those munitions on Ukrainian military? I mean it's almost like Putin was told that if they bomb Ukraine into smithereens and otherwise terrorize its people that they would ask the government to stand down.

Another curious thing is Russia has not destroyed or even to my knowledge attacked Ukrainian government buildings. It has razed local government buildings, but not the capital city's government. I see Ukraine parliament has not stopped meeting. Why would Russia not level the parliament building?  Just kind of baffles me. Is there some modest chivalry going on, like you don't bomb the government headquarters for the country?

I don't believe Ukraine's military is planning to stop pushing Russia back until it is out of Ukraine completely, including Donbas and Luhansk, maybe even Crimea. There was fighting between Ukraine forces and Russian separatists before the invasion in East Ukraine, but it's not like Ukraine's military was making a big commitment, or do anything to Russia in Crimea. Now, it seems they have the motivated manpower and resolve to keep on pushing Russia out until it is gone, especially given the damage already done. 

So maybe the "bomb civilians" strategy wasn't the right one?

[OutsiderFan]

It's one thing for the Executive Branch to release intel saying Putin has been misled and doesn't trust his military. It's quite another to actually know specifics of what he has been told that isn't true and what he believes that isn't true.

I find it curious that Russian forces are shelling and bombing civilian infrastructure while being pushed back by Ukrainian forces. Wouldn't it make more sense to use those munitions on Ukrainian military? I mean it's almost like Putin was told that if they bomb Ukraine into smithereens and otherwise terrorize its people that they would ask the government to stand down.

Another curious thing is Russia has not destroyed or even to my knowledge attacked Ukrainian government buildings. It has razed local government buildings, but not the capital city's government. I see Ukraine parliament has not stopped meeting. Why would Russia not level the parliament building?  Just kind of baffles me. Is there some modest chivalry going on, like you don't bomb the government headquarters for the country?

I don't believe Ukraine's military is planning to stop pushing Russia back until it is out of Ukraine completely, including Donbas and Luhansk, maybe even Crimea. There was fighting between Ukraine forces and Russian separatists before the invasion in East Ukraine, but it's not like Ukraine's military was making a big commitment, or do anything to Russia in Crimea. Now, it seems they have the motivated manpower and resolve to keep on pushing Russia out until it is gone, especially given the damage already done. 

So maybe the "bomb civilians" strategy wasn't the right one?

[teejers1]

Regarding morale, artillery-

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/phildstewart/status/1509587852409151492?s=20&t=uI-jttAtFhCsD1VEroBDlw[/tweet]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/NeilPHauer/status/1509277843628466180?s=20&t=8uMtMsC0_Q5jyOGPgtaGxQ[/tweet]

And again, Russia is presently, a month into the war, losing territory to the Ukrainians. I don't think anybody would have predicted that at the start, but those are the facts on the ground.

Putin certainly did not start a war that will cripple his military for years in order to secure a land bridge to Crimea or take Mariupol or gain some more gas fields or coal mines. Calling those things war aims really buys into the shifting propaganda from Russia.

The tweet about the UK providing artillery and armored vehicles is of note, since most countries have provided Manpad's and anti take equipment, but for the most part it's been defensive equipment.  If this is confirmed, and actually takes place, it would represent a significant scale up, and all eyes would be on Russia's reaction, if there is one.  Ukraine is at a significant turning point in this war, as they been taking back back lots of territory in the north and Kherson region.  If they are supplied properly, they could look to take back all their territory they've lost, though that's easier said than done.  Russia has yet to use chemical weapons in this war, but I've always worried that if the west begins sending offensive equipment, then Russia would flip that switch, but this is my personal guess and has not been stated by any major source that I know of.

I've stayed out of the Ukraine discussion because (a) others are far more knowledgeable/astute on the subject, and (b) the entire subject makes me uneasy.  I only post here to say (i) I hope Dabig's analyses of the situation are correct, but (ii) I fear Goose's predictions will prove more accurate over time.

But then again, I fear a lot of things when it comes to Putin and his disgusting (and depressing) foray into Ukraine.

[teejers1]

Regarding morale, artillery-

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/phildstewart/status/1509587852409151492?s=20&t=uI-jttAtFhCsD1VEroBDlw[/tweet]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/NeilPHauer/status/1509277843628466180?s=20&t=8uMtMsC0_Q5jyOGPgtaGxQ[/tweet]

And again, Russia is presently, a month into the war, losing territory to the Ukrainians. I don't think anybody would have predicted that at the start, but those are the facts on the ground.

Putin certainly did not start a war that will cripple his military for years in order to secure a land bridge to Crimea or take Mariupol or gain some more gas fields or coal mines. Calling those things war aims really buys into the shifting propaganda from Russia.

The tweet about the UK providing artillery and armored vehicles is of note, since most countries have provided Manpad's and anti take equipment, but for the most part it's been defensive equipment.  If this is confirmed, and actually takes place, it would represent a significant scale up, and all eyes would be on Russia's reaction, if there is one.  Ukraine is at a significant turning point in this war, as they been taking back back lots of territory in the north and Kherson region.  If they are supplied properly, they could look to take back all their territory they've lost, though that's easier said than done.  Russia has yet to use chemical weapons in this war, but I've always worried that if the west begins sending offensive equipment, then Russia would flip that switch, but this is my personal guess and has not been stated by any major source that I know of.

I've stayed out of the Ukraine discussion because (a) others are far more knowledgeable/astute on the subject, and (b) the entire subject makes me uneasy.  I only post here to say (i) I hope Dabig's analyses of the situation are correct, but (ii) I fear Goose's predictions will prove more accurate over time.

But then again, I fear a lot of things when it comes to Putin and his disgusting (and depressing) foray into Ukraine.

[BigJohn043]

It's one thing for the Executive Branch to release intel saying Putin has been misled and doesn't trust his military. It's quite another to actually know specifics of what he has been told that isn't true and what he believes that isn't true.

I find it curious that Russian forces are shelling and bombing civilian infrastructure while being pushed back by Ukrainian forces. Wouldn't it make more sense to use those munitions on Ukrainian military? I mean it's almost like Putin was told that if they bomb Ukraine into smithereens and otherwise terrorize its people that they would ask the government to stand down.

Another curious thing is Russia has not destroyed or even to my knowledge attacked Ukrainian government buildings. It has razed local government buildings, but not the capital city's government. I see Ukraine parliament has not stopped meeting. Why would Russia not level the parliament building?  Just kind of baffles me. Is there some modest chivalry going on, like you don't bomb the government headquarters for the country?

I don't believe Ukraine's military is planning to stop pushing Russia back until it is out of Ukraine completely, including Donbas and Luhansk, maybe even Crimea. There was fighting between Ukraine forces and Russian separatists before the invasion in East Ukraine, but it's not like Ukraine's military was making a big commitment, or do anything to Russia in Crimea. Now, it seems they have the motivated manpower and resolve to keep on pushing Russia out until it is gone, especially given the damage already done. 

So maybe the "bomb civilians" strategy wasn't the right one?

Be careful about the whole "bomb civilians" narrative.

The Russians are likely focusing on military objectives.  But they are using dumb bombs and artillery.  They are going to hit some other things.  The Ukrainians are also pushing this story.  Remember the mall that was bombed in Kiev?  Turns out it housed anti aircraft batteries and the Russians had videos to prove it.

That is not to say that the Russians aren't hitting civilians.  It also seems like in Mariupol they are just flattening the place.  OTOH the UKR is fighting house to house in Mariupol so what exactly is civilian versus military can get kind of confusing.

Once again, the Russians are clearly capable of war crimes.  OTOH, the UKR are pushing this narrative and in the west we only really here the UKR side.

My guess is that reality is somewhere in the middle.....

[BigJohn043]

It's one thing for the Executive Branch to release intel saying Putin has been misled and doesn't trust his military. It's quite another to actually know specifics of what he has been told that isn't true and what he believes that isn't true.

I find it curious that Russian forces are shelling and bombing civilian infrastructure while being pushed back by Ukrainian forces. Wouldn't it make more sense to use those munitions on Ukrainian military? I mean it's almost like Putin was told that if they bomb Ukraine into smithereens and otherwise terrorize its people that they would ask the government to stand down.

Another curious thing is Russia has not destroyed or even to my knowledge attacked Ukrainian government buildings. It has razed local government buildings, but not the capital city's government. I see Ukraine parliament has not stopped meeting. Why would Russia not level the parliament building?  Just kind of baffles me. Is there some modest chivalry going on, like you don't bomb the government headquarters for the country?

I don't believe Ukraine's military is planning to stop pushing Russia back until it is out of Ukraine completely, including Donbas and Luhansk, maybe even Crimea. There was fighting between Ukraine forces and Russian separatists before the invasion in East Ukraine, but it's not like Ukraine's military was making a big commitment, or do anything to Russia in Crimea. Now, it seems they have the motivated manpower and resolve to keep on pushing Russia out until it is gone, especially given the damage already done. 

So maybe the "bomb civilians" strategy wasn't the right one?

Be careful about the whole "bomb civilians" narrative.

The Russians are likely focusing on military objectives.  But they are using dumb bombs and artillery.  They are going to hit some other things.  The Ukrainians are also pushing this story.  Remember the mall that was bombed in Kiev?  Turns out it housed anti aircraft batteries and the Russians had videos to prove it.

That is not to say that the Russians aren't hitting civilians.  It also seems like in Mariupol they are just flattening the place.  OTOH the UKR is fighting house to house in Mariupol so what exactly is civilian versus military can get kind of confusing.

Once again, the Russians are clearly capable of war crimes.  OTOH, the UKR are pushing this narrative and in the west we only really here the UKR side.

My guess is that reality is somewhere in the middle.....

[Goose]

Regarding morale, artillery-

And again, Russia is presently, a month into the war, losing territory to the Ukrainians. I don't think anybody would have predicted that at the start, but those are the facts on the ground.

Absolutely true.

Putin certainly did not start a war that will cripple his military for years in order to secure a land bridge to Crimea or take Mariupol or gain some more gas fields or coal mines. Calling those things war aims really buys into the shifting propaganda from Russia.

No, he didn't. If you can tell me exactly why Putin did start this war I suggest you a genius. However, Putin also didn't think this "war" would cripple his military for years. He thought it would be a walk in the park, it seems. OTOH, the "land bridge" and the need to control the Dnieper headwaters is not "Russian propaganda". These two goals are arguably necessary for Russia to keep control of the Crimea. The were cited by many as critical war aims long before the alleged "Russian pullback". The Donbas is part of that only in so far as it adds depth to the land bridge connection. I also agree that the "coal and gas" argument is at most a "nice to have" for Russia. Ukraine wasn't developing them anyway after 2014 to compete with Russia.

The tweet about the UK providing artillery and armored vehicles is of note, since most countries have provided Manpad's and anti take equipment, but for the most part it's been defensive equipment.  If this is confirmed, and actually takes place, it would represent a significant scale up, and all eyes would be on Russia's reaction, if there is one.  Ukraine is at a significant turning point in this war, as they been taking back back lots of territory in the north and Kherson region.  If they are supplied properly, they could look to take back all their territory they've lost, though that's easier said than done.  Russia has yet to use chemical weapons in this war, but I've always worried that if the west begins sending offensive equipment, then Russia would flip that switch, but this is my personal guess and has not been stated by any major source that I know of.

Unfortunately, it seems the UK offer isn't at all what was advertised to be in the tweet.
Pressed on what specific equipment could be sent, Mr Wallace said: “First of all Ukraine need longer-range artillery and that’s because of what the Russian army has been doing – it has been now digging in and starting to pound these cities with artilleries.



“The best counter to that is other long-range artillery, so they will be looking for and getting more long-range artillery, ammunition predominantly.



“They are obviously looking for equipment to defend its coastline because of Russian activity down there and we will be looking to see what we can do.



“They are also looking for armoured vehicles of some types, not tanks necessarily, but certainly protected vehicles, and more anti-air. All this will be forthcoming as a result of this conference.”



The words "ammunition predominantly" indicates the material isn't even originating in the UK. This is just a reiteration of what was already going on, it would appear. Even if the UK wanted to supply UK made artillery pieces to the Ukraine, there would be significant training periods required. If Ukraine is getting any field pieces, they are probably from Romania and Bulgaria. Hungary has some such Soviet equipment but refuses to participate. Poland probably does have some, but I don't know that for a fact. Pretty sure all the East German stuff is long gone. Much more in country politics than substance I fear.

The basic problem is that no NATO country wants to have their own troops on the ground in Ukraine. Given that, even if NATO was willing to supply "NATO Standard" defensive or offensive weapons, these weapons would need to be operated by Ukrainians. This takes training, and training takes time and training personnel. A Javelin takes relatively little training and can be done fairly rapidly. An artillery piece takes much more training, and an IFV takes even more. Up to now, the training requirement has probably rendered that approach moot. We need to find enough Soviet era items the Ukraine can use and do what it takes to pry it out of it's current owners.

Also, the idea of "all this will be forthcoming as a result of this conference" shows an appalling lack of urgency here. The artillery ammunition problem has been known for weeks at least. The replacement ammunition should already be there/on the way if the effort by NATO was being well led.

[Goose]

Regarding morale, artillery-

And again, Russia is presently, a month into the war, losing territory to the Ukrainians. I don't think anybody would have predicted that at the start, but those are the facts on the ground.

Absolutely true.

Putin certainly did not start a war that will cripple his military for years in order to secure a land bridge to Crimea or take Mariupol or gain some more gas fields or coal mines. Calling those things war aims really buys into the shifting propaganda from Russia.

No, he didn't. If you can tell me exactly why Putin did start this war I suggest you a genius. However, Putin also didn't think this "war" would cripple his military for years. He thought it would be a walk in the park, it seems. OTOH, the "land bridge" and the need to control the Dnieper headwaters is not "Russian propaganda". These two goals are arguably necessary for Russia to keep control of the Crimea. The were cited by many as critical war aims long before the alleged "Russian pullback". The Donbas is part of that only in so far as it adds depth to the land bridge connection. I also agree that the "coal and gas" argument is at most a "nice to have" for Russia. Ukraine wasn't developing them anyway after 2014 to compete with Russia.

The tweet about the UK providing artillery and armored vehicles is of note, since most countries have provided Manpad's and anti take equipment, but for the most part it's been defensive equipment.  If this is confirmed, and actually takes place, it would represent a significant scale up, and all eyes would be on Russia's reaction, if there is one.  Ukraine is at a significant turning point in this war, as they been taking back back lots of territory in the north and Kherson region.  If they are supplied properly, they could look to take back all their territory they've lost, though that's easier said than done.  Russia has yet to use chemical weapons in this war, but I've always worried that if the west begins sending offensive equipment, then Russia would flip that switch, but this is my personal guess and has not been stated by any major source that I know of.

Unfortunately, it seems the UK offer isn't at all what was advertised to be in the tweet.
Pressed on what specific equipment could be sent, Mr Wallace said: “First of all Ukraine need longer-range artillery and that’s because of what the Russian army has been doing – it has been now digging in and starting to pound these cities with artilleries.



“The best counter to that is other long-range artillery, so they will be looking for and getting more long-range artillery, ammunition predominantly.



“They are obviously looking for equipment to defend its coastline because of Russian activity down there and we will be looking to see what we can do.



“They are also looking for armoured vehicles of some types, not tanks necessarily, but certainly protected vehicles, and more anti-air. All this will be forthcoming as a result of this conference.”



The words "ammunition predominantly" indicates the material isn't even originating in the UK. This is just a reiteration of what was already going on, it would appear. Even if the UK wanted to supply UK made artillery pieces to the Ukraine, there would be significant training periods required. If Ukraine is getting any field pieces, they are probably from Romania and Bulgaria. Hungary has some such Soviet equipment but refuses to participate. Poland probably does have some, but I don't know that for a fact. Pretty sure all the East German stuff is long gone. Much more in country politics than substance I fear.

The basic problem is that no NATO country wants to have their own troops on the ground in Ukraine. Given that, even if NATO was willing to supply "NATO Standard" defensive or offensive weapons, these weapons would need to be operated by Ukrainians. This takes training, and training takes time and training personnel. A Javelin takes relatively little training and can be done fairly rapidly. An artillery piece takes much more training, and an IFV takes even more. Up to now, the training requirement has probably rendered that approach moot. We need to find enough Soviet era items the Ukraine can use and do what it takes to pry it out of it's current owners.

Also, the idea of "all this will be forthcoming as a result of this conference" shows an appalling lack of urgency here. The artillery ammunition problem has been known for weeks at least. The replacement ammunition should already be there/on the way if the effort by NATO was being well led.

[martyup]

You would think the Russians would have learned their lesson when they invaded Idaho back in 1984 and then again in 2012.  Locals will protect their homeland with their lives.

[martyup]

You would think the Russians would have learned their lesson when they invaded Idaho back in 1984 and then again in 2012.  Locals will protect their homeland with their lives.

[dabigv13]

Regarding morale, artillery-

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/phildstewart/status/1509587852409151492?s=20&t=uI-jttAtFhCsD1VEroBDlw[/tweet]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/NeilPHauer/status/1509277843628466180?s=20&t=8uMtMsC0_Q5jyOGPgtaGxQ[/tweet]

And again, Russia is presently, a month into the war, losing territory to the Ukrainians. I don't think anybody would have predicted that at the start, but those are the facts on the ground.

Putin certainly did not start a war that will cripple his military for years in order to secure a land bridge to Crimea or take Mariupol or gain some more gas fields or coal mines. Calling those things war aims really buys into the shifting propaganda from Russia.

The tweet about the UK providing artillery and armored vehicles is of note, since most countries have provided Manpad's and anti take equipment, but for the most part it's been defensive equipment.  If this is confirmed, and actually takes place, it would represent a significant scale up, and all eyes would be on Russia's reaction, if there is one.  Ukraine is at a significant turning point in this war, as they been taking back back lots of territory in the north and Kherson region.  If they are supplied properly, they could look to take back all their territory they've lost, though that's easier said than done.  Russia has yet to use chemical weapons in this war, but I've always worried that if the west begins sending offensive equipment, then Russia would flip that switch, but this is my personal guess and has not been stated by any major source that I know of.

I've stayed out of the Ukraine discussion because (a) others are far more knowledgeable/astute on the subject, and (b) the entire subject makes me uneasy.  I only post here to say (i) I hope Dabig's analyses of the situation are correct, but (ii) I fear Goose's predictions will prove more accurate over time.

But then again, I fear a lot of things when it comes to Putin and his disgusting (and depressing) foray into Ukraine.

The truth is that us armchair generals only have a limited view into what's happening in Ukraine. None of us know what the true losses for Russia or Ukraine are, we have limited idea what their stocks of equipment or ammo are like, particularly for Ukraine, and what information we do have is likely going to be biased towards Ukraine. We also don't know the true levels of western involvement and supply- I imagine if Ukraine did get MIGs or S300s or artillery ammo or xyz from the West, that wouldn't necessarily be public right away; the West would probably see benefit in hiding the provision of more offensive or advanced weapons to reduce risk of escalation.

The simplest things to observe are where Russian and Ukrainian forces are and aren't. Open source info can also give a pretty good idea of Russian equipment losses.

Bottom line we're all mostly talking out of our asses, important to recognize that. I happen to think that Ukraine will ultimately prevail, mostly because they are defending home territory with an immense morale advantage and have already sustained the best Russia could throw at them and have already taken the initiative to go on the offensive after only a month.

[dabigv13]

Regarding morale, artillery-

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/phildstewart/status/1509587852409151492?s=20&t=uI-jttAtFhCsD1VEroBDlw[/tweet]

[Tweet]https://twitter.com/NeilPHauer/status/1509277843628466180?s=20&t=8uMtMsC0_Q5jyOGPgtaGxQ[/tweet]

And again, Russia is presently, a month into the war, losing territory to the Ukrainians. I don't think anybody would have predicted that at the start, but those are the facts on the ground.

Putin certainly did not start a war that will cripple his military for years in order to secure a land bridge to Crimea or take Mariupol or gain some more gas fields or coal mines. Calling those things war aims really buys into the shifting propaganda from Russia.

The tweet about the UK providing artillery and armored vehicles is of note, since most countries have provided Manpad's and anti take equipment, but for the most part it's been defensive equipment.  If this is confirmed, and actually takes place, it would represent a significant scale up, and all eyes would be on Russia's reaction, if there is one.  Ukraine is at a significant turning point in this war, as they been taking back back lots of territory in the north and Kherson region.  If they are supplied properly, they could look to take back all their territory they've lost, though that's easier said than done.  Russia has yet to use chemical weapons in this war, but I've always worried that if the west begins sending offensive equipment, then Russia would flip that switch, but this is my personal guess and has not been stated by any major source that I know of.

I've stayed out of the Ukraine discussion because (a) others are far more knowledgeable/astute on the subject, and (b) the entire subject makes me uneasy.  I only post here to say (i) I hope Dabig's analyses of the situation are correct, but (ii) I fear Goose's predictions will prove more accurate over time.

But then again, I fear a lot of things when it comes to Putin and his disgusting (and depressing) foray into Ukraine.

The truth is that us armchair generals only have a limited view into what's happening in Ukraine. None of us know what the true losses for Russia or Ukraine are, we have limited idea what their stocks of equipment or ammo are like, particularly for Ukraine, and what information we do have is likely going to be biased towards Ukraine. We also don't know the true levels of western involvement and supply- I imagine if Ukraine did get MIGs or S300s or artillery ammo or xyz from the West, that wouldn't necessarily be public right away; the West would probably see benefit in hiding the provision of more offensive or advanced weapons to reduce risk of escalation.

The simplest things to observe are where Russian and Ukrainian forces are and aren't. Open source info can also give a pretty good idea of Russian equipment losses.

Bottom line we're all mostly talking out of our asses, important to recognize that. I happen to think that Ukraine will ultimately prevail, mostly because they are defending home territory with an immense morale advantage and have already sustained the best Russia could throw at them and have already taken the initiative to go on the offensive after only a month.

[Goose]

The truth is that us armchair generals only have a limited view into what's happening in Ukraine. None of us know what the true losses for Russia or Ukraine are, we have limited idea what their stocks of equipment or ammo are like, particularly for Ukraine, and what information we do have is likely going to be biased towards Ukraine. We also don't know the true levels of western involvement and supply- I imagine if Ukraine did get MIGs or S300s or artillery ammo or xyz from the West, that wouldn't necessarily be public right away; the West would probably see benefit in hiding the provision of more offensive or advanced weapons to reduce risk of escalation.


The simplest things to observe are where Russian and Ukrainian forces are and aren't. Open source info can also give a pretty good idea of Russian equipment losses.



Bottom line we're all mostly talking out of our asses, important to recognize that.

Absolutely agree.

I happen to think that Ukraine will ultimately prevail, mostly because they are defending home territory with an immense morale advantage and have already sustained the best Russia could throw at them and have already taken the initiative to go on the offensive after only a month.

I hope you are correct. I am not as optimistic, but Ukraine for sure has exceeded expectations so far. What none of us know is how much punishment Putin is willing to inflict on his nation for ends that are unclear. That will have a lot of influence on the outcome.

[Goose]

The truth is that us armchair generals only have a limited view into what's happening in Ukraine. None of us know what the true losses for Russia or Ukraine are, we have limited idea what their stocks of equipment or ammo are like, particularly for Ukraine, and what information we do have is likely going to be biased towards Ukraine. We also don't know the true levels of western involvement and supply- I imagine if Ukraine did get MIGs or S300s or artillery ammo or xyz from the West, that wouldn't necessarily be public right away; the West would probably see benefit in hiding the provision of more offensive or advanced weapons to reduce risk of escalation.


The simplest things to observe are where Russian and Ukrainian forces are and aren't. Open source info can also give a pretty good idea of Russian equipment losses.



Bottom line we're all mostly talking out of our asses, important to recognize that.

Absolutely agree.

I happen to think that Ukraine will ultimately prevail, mostly because they are defending home territory with an immense morale advantage and have already sustained the best Russia could throw at them and have already taken the initiative to go on the offensive after only a month.

I hope you are correct. I am not as optimistic, but Ukraine for sure has exceeded expectations so far. What none of us know is how much punishment Putin is willing to inflict on his nation for ends that are unclear. That will have a lot of influence on the outcome.

[Treefence]

It's one thing for the Executive Branch to release intel saying Putin has been misled and doesn't trust his military. It's quite another to actually know specifics of what he has been told that isn't true and what he believes that isn't true.

I find it curious that Russian forces are shelling and bombing civilian infrastructure while being pushed back by Ukrainian forces. Wouldn't it make more sense to use those munitions on Ukrainian military? I mean it's almost like Putin was told that if they bomb Ukraine into smithereens and otherwise terrorize its people that they would ask the government to stand down.

Another curious thing is Russia has not destroyed or even to my knowledge attacked Ukrainian government buildings. It has razed local government buildings, but not the capital city's government. I see Ukraine parliament has not stopped meeting. Why would Russia not level the parliament building?  Just kind of baffles me. Is there some modest chivalry going on, like you don't bomb the government headquarters for the country?

I don't believe Ukraine's military is planning to stop pushing Russia back until it is out of Ukraine completely, including Donbas and Luhansk, maybe even Crimea. There was fighting between Ukraine forces and Russian separatists before the invasion in East Ukraine, but it's not like Ukraine's military was making a big commitment, or do anything to Russia in Crimea. Now, it seems they have the motivated manpower and resolve to keep on pushing Russia out until it is gone, especially given the damage already done. 

So maybe the "bomb civilians" strategy wasn't the right one?

Be careful about the whole "bomb civilians" narrative.

The Russians are likely focusing on military objectives.  But they are using dumb bombs and artillery.  They are going to hit some other things.  The Ukrainians are also pushing this story.  Remember the mall that was bombed in Kiev?  Turns out it housed anti aircraft batteries and the Russians had videos to prove it.

That is not to say that the Russians aren't hitting civilians.  It also seems like in Mariupol they are just flattening the place.  OTOH the UKR is fighting house to house in Mariupol so what exactly is civilian versus military can get kind of confusing.

Once again, the Russians are clearly capable of war crimes.  OTOH, the UKR are pushing this narrative and in the west we only really here the UKR side.

My guess is that reality is somewhere in the middle.....

I think you are off on this, Russians are somewhat targeting military structures, but they have a long history of shelling cities, indiscriminately, in an effort to cause maximum damage and fear to civilians and military alike.  In Mariupol alone they are proven to have bombed an opera house that was being used as a bomb shelter for civilians, which had the text "children" written in Russian outside.  There was also a building with the Red Cross symbol on it that Russia bombed.  While Ukraine might be emphasizing the loss of civilian lives, it is Russian propaganda that is trying to state they are only targeting military positions.  Like Aleppo and Grozny, in Mariupol and many other places, Russia is going for complete destruction, and we should never give them the benefit of the doubt...

[Treefence]

It's one thing for the Executive Branch to release intel saying Putin has been misled and doesn't trust his military. It's quite another to actually know specifics of what he has been told that isn't true and what he believes that isn't true.

I find it curious that Russian forces are shelling and bombing civilian infrastructure while being pushed back by Ukrainian forces. Wouldn't it make more sense to use those munitions on Ukrainian military? I mean it's almost like Putin was told that if they bomb Ukraine into smithereens and otherwise terrorize its people that they would ask the government to stand down.

Another curious thing is Russia has not destroyed or even to my knowledge attacked Ukrainian government buildings. It has razed local government buildings, but not the capital city's government. I see Ukraine parliament has not stopped meeting. Why would Russia not level the parliament building?  Just kind of baffles me. Is there some modest chivalry going on, like you don't bomb the government headquarters for the country?

I don't believe Ukraine's military is planning to stop pushing Russia back until it is out of Ukraine completely, including Donbas and Luhansk, maybe even Crimea. There was fighting between Ukraine forces and Russian separatists before the invasion in East Ukraine, but it's not like Ukraine's military was making a big commitment, or do anything to Russia in Crimea. Now, it seems they have the motivated manpower and resolve to keep on pushing Russia out until it is gone, especially given the damage already done. 

So maybe the "bomb civilians" strategy wasn't the right one?

Be careful about the whole "bomb civilians" narrative.

The Russians are likely focusing on military objectives.  But they are using dumb bombs and artillery.  They are going to hit some other things.  The Ukrainians are also pushing this story.  Remember the mall that was bombed in Kiev?  Turns out it housed anti aircraft batteries and the Russians had videos to prove it.

That is not to say that the Russians aren't hitting civilians.  It also seems like in Mariupol they are just flattening the place.  OTOH the UKR is fighting house to house in Mariupol so what exactly is civilian versus military can get kind of confusing.

Once again, the Russians are clearly capable of war crimes.  OTOH, the UKR are pushing this narrative and in the west we only really here the UKR side.

My guess is that reality is somewhere in the middle.....

I think you are off on this, Russians are somewhat targeting military structures, but they have a long history of shelling cities, indiscriminately, in an effort to cause maximum damage and fear to civilians and military alike.  In Mariupol alone they are proven to have bombed an opera house that was being used as a bomb shelter for civilians, which had the text "children" written in Russian outside.  There was also a building with the Red Cross symbol on it that Russia bombed.  While Ukraine might be emphasizing the loss of civilian lives, it is Russian propaganda that is trying to state they are only targeting military positions.  Like Aleppo and Grozny, in Mariupol and many other places, Russia is going for complete destruction, and we should never give them the benefit of the doubt...