I have never said Russia can't be beaten on the battlefield. Only an idiot would say that. Russia has probably lost more tactical engagements than it has won during this war. For instance, Russia lost badly at Kyiv, Kherson, and Kharkiv earlier in the war. Try to hear me this time. What I said was, Ukraine will not be able to win the war by driving Russia from its territory, even if that were tactically possible. Russia would not quit just because it has lost ground. Ukraine can only win by effecting a domestic change in Russia. Ukraine's best strategy for doing that (absent the entry of allies, which looks a lot more possible today than it did when I first made this assessment) is to maximize Russian casualties and prioritize that above holding or regaining ground. This was all in the context of last year's counteroffensive, which in my opinion was too focused on taking (later holding) terrain at the expense of a larger strategy. Ukraine is playing its best ball when it trades space for time and enemy casualties, only hitting back with a counteroffensive when it can achieve local superiority. The evidence against what you are arguing is overwhelming. If you refuse to see it, then I cannot help that. But it might help explain why all of your other dire predictions for Ukraine (how long ago and how many times was Odesa supposed to fall to Russia?) have not come true. This is just a bizarre thing to say for someone who wants credibility on a military topic. Every military is limited by what it can logistically support in the field over a given time and distance. Some are better than others, but all are limited. "Weakness" has nothing to do with it. Russia's plan was based on what it thought it needed to capture Ukraine in a two-month window (in order to support the Chinese by May) based on what it thought it could support in the field over that time and distance. Its assumptions were all wrong, and its plan failed. There is not much more complexity to it than that.
more oil depots up in flames Ukrainian Precision Strike on Russian Oil Depot with ATACMS Missile Signals Escalation (msn.com) In a strategic move that has drawn international attention, Ukrainian forces have targeted a Russian oil depot with a US-made MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), according to multiple sources. The strike, which occurred late in the evening on May 10, 2024, reportedly caused multiple explosions at the targeted site, located approximately 115 kilometers east of the front lines. Social media videos and preliminary reports from the area suggest that the ATACMS missile used in the attack was equipped with cluster munitions, a choice of weapon particularly effective against sprawling targets such as oil depots.
Russia suffers 'worst day yet' in Ukraine with 1,740 troops killed and 72 tanks destroyed (msn.com) Russia sits on the precipice of disaster as Vladimir Putin's armed forces experienced their worst day of casualties since the invasion began in 2022, with a staggering 1,740 soldiers lost in a single day, according to Ukrainian sources. In addition, Ukrainian officials have asserted that Russia saw the destruction of 30 tanks and 42 armoured vehicles within the last 24 hours. Despite the contesting accounts of casualty numbers and military losses from both sides, the overall death toll and damage to hardware are nonetheless challenging to ascertain. The Ukrainian Armed Forces estimate that Russia has suffered an astonishing number of over 484,030 servicemen since combat operations commenced. Earlier this month, a ballpark figure provided by the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) approximated Russian casualties nearing 465,000, reports the Express. Meanwhile, French Foreign Minister Stephane Sejourne hinted that the true tally could be closer to half a million. The BBC reported at least 50,000 confirmed Russian soldier fatalities.
Putin got 53% of the vote vs 10 other candidates in 2000. 2000___53% 2004___58% 2012___63© 2018___76% 2024___88% A pattern is emerging Electoral history of Vladimir Putin - Wikipedia
The problem here is that you are a professional career military man trying to explain strategy to someone who believes crappy sources and their entire military experience revolves around playing call of duty.
Understandable. In Call of Duty, the ammo, medicine, and fuel just shows up like magic. No one has to stage it, bring it to you, maybe risk being ambushed on the way. There just aren’t a lot of fun games out there where you get to see what a pain in the ass logistics are.
Wars of attrition are for countries that are lacking in military leadership and brilliance in warfare tactics. All they have is lots of soldiers, and lots of guns and ammo. Those are important things to have in battle, but usually cannot overcome a well-supplied and motivated military with brilliant (or even capable) leaders and superior technology. And that's what we've seen in Ukraine, when Ukraine is well-supplied.
. . . when there is a gun held to their heads. I assume we are talking about foolish Americans. I, myself, am not impressed by Russia.
On cue: precisely what I’d expect from Americans who gaze wistfully at countries which hold their leaders in high regard. FYI: I earlier posted the analysis of the Russian polling organization Levada Center. listed as a “foreign agent” by the Kremlin, the center nonetheless assessed the election as legitimate. Back to your wistful gazing.
Who is this hypothetical country brilliant leaders superior technology ? Note: I think I know who you’re going to say and am prepared to laugh boisterously.
I am no military historian but isn’t this the Russian wave. Use your superior numbers and use them as bullet catchers? I remember Catherine the great. And Peter the not so great using that tactic and it seemed to be the Russians tactic in ww2 also.
It is true that like WWII, the Russians view this war as existential. The difference between the two is that in WWII, Russia was willing to absorb casualties, whereas they’ve been able to minimize casualties in this war. It is the Ukrainians who have been the meat puppets.
