I would have to withhold judgment until the western tanks, at the very least, see the battlefield. It's obvious that Ukraine is planning something big, but what and where? I would wait and see what that counter-offensive looks like first before declaring one side or the other as having the war go their way.
Ukraine spent most of the spring gathering new equipment and getting trained on it. They didn't want to unleash the equipment on Russia piecemeal--they want to hit Russia with a sledgehammer: "Everything, everywhere, all at once" in a manner of speaking. Hopefully, they don't need to wait for F-16's to start their offensive.
Russia is hiding their tanks to keep Ukraine from destroying them, but they aren't doing them much good if they keep them too far from the action, according to this writer. Russia's being more cautious with its tanks and trying to hide them after heavy losses in battle, but it's shooting itself in the foot
And it’s even worse because Ukraine cannot accept a settlement without assurances for its long term safety, and Russia is proven to be wholly untrustworthy on every level.
Also, let's not forget that it is still very much spring. Spring has not come and gone. As someone that lives in a very similar climate, our trees have just become fully leafed in the last couple of weeks (which is what is required to dry the ground)
Well, that’s a nice excuse, but Ukraine has known for a long time they wouldn’t have the Western tanks and artillery in time to train with them by the spring. A few posts back, you talked about how giddy the Ukrainians were to fight regular Russian military, as though a band of prisoners with a few weeks of training were a tougher match than regular (and mostly younger) military regimens who have been training together for nearly two years now at the border of Ukraine. Just as Ukraine has been holding back some of their better assets for the counteroffensive, so has Russia. And when you consider most of Russia’s casualties have been prisoners who had a few weeks of training and that almost all of Ukraine’s casualties have been regular military personnel, there is plenty cause for concern. Yes, Ukraine has been and is acquiring much upgraded weaponry, but realize you need men out there to fight with that weaponry. I think the article is pretty accurate. Ukraine did the unthinkable in fending off Kyiv and then later Kharkiv. They took back Kherson, but then the wins stopped coming. And all that time Russian military have been recalibrating and learning as they took up defensive positions and have held their ground for the past 6+ months, even making some incremental gains during that time. I still believe the West is reluctant to go full scale with the weapons shipments, so as to not provoke Putin into doing something even more vile than he already has. The $300 million packages Biden is sending are nice, but $300 million a month doesn’t go too far these days in modern warfare. Not against a country as large as Russia. Biggest concern for me is number of Ukrainian personnel left to fight this battle. Russia is very happy to slowly take villages over a span of years. They can replace the bodies more easily. The delay in the counteroffensive is not good, no matter how you spin it. It gives an army who was seemingly in disarray (Russia) more time to reorganize. Not to mention the inherent advantage of having more men at their disposal. We’ll see how it turns out. But I think Ukraine will have to get a lot more help than they currently are for there to be any swift resolution to this war.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Russia has the manpower, and they are (slowly) learning from their mistakes. Ukraine cannot afford to get into a war of attrition with Russia, unless it is an extremely favorable situation, like defending a fortress city like Bahkmut and causing 5X casualties. The Wagner Group is primarily mercenaries (well-trained and experienced) who are supplemented by prisoners, not the other way around. That's why they are more effective than the Russian military. Putin screwed the pooch by sacrificing his elite military units (special forces) trying to capture Kiev early on in the war. Ukraine also targeted military headquarters early in the war, killing large numbers of generals. The Russian army has been a mess ever since--no leadership, no coordination of actions, no cohesion. The prisoners are probably more effective than the army conscripts on average because prisoners are usually in better physical condition, used to hardships and deprivation, and they are more willing to be violent as compared to people who worked a desk job or drove a taxi cab when the war came calling. I just don't think modern warfare allows for too much patience (like, years) in achieving an objective, especially if the other side is highly motivated and has a technological advantage. However, I don't think the delay of a couple months to get all of the equipment and training ready and in place helps Russia set up defenses (along a 900-mile front) all that much compared to how much it helps Ukraine. And, yes, on a pure numbers basis, Russia can continue to send in bodies for a long time. Practically, that's not the case. It gets very dangerous for the Russian government if they lose enough young men that they cannot man the factories and the farms. Once Russia can't feed itself, the people will revolt. That's what happened in 1917.
I wonder how long training will take. More to it than a himars - just get into position, input into computer and hit enter.
I read the article. Lot to unpack here. It’s very short on any of the persuasive details I was expecting. His argument is essentially that Russia has a massive resource and manpower advantage. We knew that already. He states that Russia has traditionally started wars poorly and then figures it out, eventually translating its enormous resource advantage into battlefield success. That is true. And those of you who have been reading my posts since the war started will recall that I’ve stated the same multiple times. The exceptions to that trend, of course, are the ones he fails to mention: where Russian domestic turmoil undermined the military’s ability get its act together in the field. Namely, this occurred in 1905, 1917, and 1985. In all three cases, tactical success in the field came too late. The writer also fails to take into account the factors that have undermined and continue to undermine Russia’s advantages. Among these are Ukraine’s growing strength in the air, Russia’s inability to mass logistics without being targeted, its inability to mass armor for a breakthrough because of Ukrainian technological advantage, and worst of all the relatively low morale and motivation of the Russian armed forces. The only evidence the writer puts forward of Russia turning the tide is the Battle of Bakhmut, which we already knew about. He cites the Russian propaganda numbers for casualty rates and Russian firepower advantage, which are probably the least reliable of available statistics. The Russian numbers might be correct, I don’t know. But from my perspective it looks like Ukraine continued to give battle in Bakhmut strictly because the Russians were willing to trade massive casualties of their own for inches of low-value terrain. And since Ukraine’s primary measure of success is not land held but casualties inflicted (for the political goal of turning up the heat in Russia) they would be foolish not give battle under those circumstances. The writer cites no other circumstances where Russia seems to be turning the tide on land, air, or sea. Instead, all I see is more examples, such as this article, where words stand as a substitute for deeds: “Never mind what you see; Russia is winning.” I will withhold judgment until we see how well Ukraine’s next move goes, but at the moment this article looks like something Russia wants us to believe in order to get the Western aid turned down or turned off. Nothing more than that.
Lukashenko says that there are enough nuclear weapons for everyone, if everyone would just join in an alliance with Russia. He eats nuclear weapons for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. They are delicious. And he heats his home with nuclear weapons in the winter. In fact, his house is made of nuclear weapons. And if you want to drive somewhere on vacation, why not drive a nuclear weapon? It's everything a growing country could want. Belarus's Lukashenko says there can be 'nuclear weapons for everyone'
Even if this was totally accurate, that was well over a year ago. What makes you think Russian commanders haven't trained up replacement elite military units in that time? After all, they couldn't have been that "elite" based on their performance and quick retreat at Kyiv. I don't buy it for a second. I think Russia saw Kyiv wasn't going to fall overnight as they had assumed and quickly retreated to avoid a catastrophe. This stands in stark contrast to what Ukraine has done. (Bakhmut for example). And in any event, why would we assume Russia hasn't retrained several thousand special forces in that time? Especially, given the swift kick in the ass they received last spring in northern Ukraine? I'm going to guess they likely doubled-down on special ops units. You seem to assume all the worst for Russia and all the best for Ukraine. Again, I'll repeat, I want Ukraine to be free and to get Russia out of there as badly as all of you. But I am very leery when I start seeing overly optimistic assessments, more propaganda than actual updates and outright lies. We've been down this road too many times helping a foreign power fight communism/dictatorship/authoritarian takeover only to find out too late that we were being lied to by the government we were aiding. Given Ukraine's long history of corruption, I'd prefer to tread with caution. Not that Russia is trustworthy. F**k Russia, but keep Ukraine honest. That means keeping America honest. My disliking for Biden is well-known, but this is setting up to be a potential foreign policy disaster for him. Piece-mealing a war where so many people are dying, so many families are displaced and not having anything to show for it. A few months of that -- okay, but if this drags out another year or so, there's going to be more and more questions as to what exactly the plan is for Ukraine. Those questions have already began from some, but give it a little more time and you'll start seeing those questions from the talking heads of the major networks as well. Wars that don't age well typically aren't tolerated by the press too well. The delayed counteroffensive is the first sign of a strategy that is unraveling. It's pretty obvious to me Biden is resigned to piece-mealing this unless Putin does something crazy like tactical nukes or mass genocide of civilians. I don't think that strategy is going to work. Perhaps other countries such as Poland or Germany will step up and fill the void, but that's doubtful considering they almost always take America's lead on these things.
It takes over 3 years to train a U.S. Navy Seal. And that's assuming that you can find volunteers, which is probably a lot easier in peacetime than in wartime, unless you are fighting an existential war, which Russia is not. And, of course, that training is not cheap--it takes a lot of money. Something Russia does not have too much of these days. Besides, if the first group of special forces soldiers was not all that special, are you going to spend a ton of money on training the next group? You might decide that there is something wrong with your training program, and work on that after the war. U.S. Navy SEAL Careers | Navy.com I hear ya. But for the short-term future, all indications are that Ukraine will have a very successful counter-offensive, and Russia will have to re-group. Russia's army has under-performed every step of the way so far. It is not a foreign policy disaster for Biden if Ukraine loses the war. We're not fighting the war, unlike in Afghanistan and Iraq. No U.S. troops have fired a shot, and none have been injured. The war has been a complete disaster for Putin, to the point that he might not survive it. Even if Russia wins the war, they lose. Their military will be decimated, their economy is a dumpster fire, and no other nation with a functional economy is willing to trust Russia. And their military equipment, one of their biggest export items, is proven to be crap compared to the U.S., so no one will want to pay full price for it. Even if Ukraine loses the war, the U.S. investment in weapons for Ukraine has paid for itself. Russia is one of the biggest reasons that we spend trillions of dollars on the military. With Russia being neutered (both militarily and economically), we won't have to spend as much on the military (especially land-warfare) for another decade or two. It will be easier to balance the federal budget, invest in infrastructure, education, fight global warming and deal with other problems.
I’ve done a little research on the author of that earlier article. He has gravely predicted Ukrainian disaster at every stage of this war, has recommended that Ukraine quit now at every stage, and has implored the West to stop the madness of supplying Ukraine with military aid at every stage. Well, we know he hasn’t been right yet. Is he right now? And beyond what might well be a Pyrrhic victory at Bakhmut what evidence does he offer of being right this time? An example follows of his dire predictions of Ukrainian catastrophe in last year’s counteroffensive in the south: Ukraine Needs a Miracle to Drive Russia's Military Out of Kherson Note that in his latest piece he casually reinvents the Russian disorganized withdrawal under pressure from Kherson as some kind of guile. I think we can fairly interpret this article and future articles from him as the story the Kremlin wants us to believe.
You and I agree on much when it comes to this war, but we don’t agree on this. If Ukraine loses, then it is manifestly another foreign policy disaster for the President and his worst by far. And, yes, in the event of Ukrainian defeat, President Biden does have to answer for it, both politically and to history, given the number of dumb decisions he is responsible for (which I have pointed out in this thread) both before the war began (somewhat forgivable) and since (far less forgivable) that have at least exacerbated the situation. If Ukraine wins, he gets to own that as well, he gets all of the accolades, and maybe his bad decisions get buried in a few dissertations here and there. Now, of course, just because it’s a foreign policy disaster to a political administration does not mean it’s an existential crisis for the country. Maybe that’s what you meant, and in that I agree. The U.S. will survive this, whether Ukraine does or not. But I am far more interested in seeing Russia defeated now, so that we don’t have to see what the next steps are.
Well, I guess if your defense of everything you don't like is "propaganda", I suppose it would indeed be incorrect to call you naive. You're simply willfully ignorant. I have no illusion about Russian objectives in the war, it sure as hell ain't to de-Nazify anybody. That doesn't mean that Ukraine doesn't have a Nazi problem, however.
Yes, I would be selective when I already have the most powerful and wealthiest nations behind my back. I'd eschew help from Nazis, particularly when it can endanger help from said wealthy and powerful nations.
Haven’t we given/sold them close to60 billion dollars of stuff? It is strange how seemingly normal people think Russian propaganda is true.
