The_Capt

That is because the M18 is an “area weapon system”, not an AP mine. In fact the Ottawa treaty does not cover booby traps or other “static explosive devices” so who knows what the troops are up to out there in the wild. I expect IEDs of all sorts are in play because teenagers and explosives are like love, they will find a way.

Hardly a "dressing down" - I do have to keep in mind civies have a different definition of this. It was a discussion on political cost versus battlefield gain. I seriously doubt those were UA AP minefields - if they were the clock is ticking on the PR blowback. Of course the Russians are using them, they are 1) dumb and 2) the bad guys). We in the west need a clear definition between the "good guys" and "bad guys". We can tolerate some grey in there but not too much. Of course for anyone that has been to war, we know this distinction is just dumb. It is "bad guys" (normally us) and "worse guys" (them). There is little "good" in the thing. I don't tell war stories because of any internal trauma - I stopped because everyone looks at you differently afterwards and I got pretty tired of that.

Gotta be honest given how the UA have played this Fall, I half expect Kherson to fall tomorrow because we are all looking around Lyman.

Oh my how the worm turns. And we are back to identity crisis… Putin replaced by another autocrat that promises “peace with honour”?

I really like Perun but he is a civilian that appears to work deeply on the corporate side of things. Sometimes when he wanders into military operations he gets a little off-menu - he has stated this multiple times. So in order for the Russia mobilization to become “extremely significant” the Russian military needs to overcome much more than it mobilization challenges - it would have to rebuild a better military than it had on 23 Feb. The RA is demonstrating it lags significantly in the stuff that really matters at this level of warfare - C4ISR, logistics and joint capabilities. I have watched the RA repeatedly conduct unsynchronized and uncoordinated operations, while the UA does the opposite. The Russian missile campaign should have been able to cut up Ukrainian infrastructure, both physical and information, if it was coordinated and armed with comparable ISR - they have not done this, instead leaning on terror strikes like this was 1940. The closest we have seen was the strikes on those dam-locks but I am still not sure of the military value of that action. If the UA managed to pull off two river crossings it is also a sign that the RA is lagging. As we saw last spring, a major river obstacle crossing in an environment where ISR is everywhere should be next to impossible, yet the UA appears to have done it. So what? The RA can’t see them, or if they can, they can not act on it. It will not matter if Russia can get 1 million men in uniform with rusty AKs on the line, if they cannot command, support and coordination those troops they are just going to die - pretty efficiently based on what we have seen from the UA. I suspect that this war will go down as “the last war of the 20th century versus one of the first of the 21st”. We have had the preludes in Iraq, Ukraine in 2014 - where the symmetry was reversed, Ukraine fighting like it was 1989 and the Russians fighting like it was 2005, and Armenia. If the RA suddenly started to demonstrate a 21st century C4ISR architecture, I would be shocked and frankly we would have to rethink this war. However, despite attempts (see Iranian drones), this is not about sensors, it is about boring things like All Source Intel Fusion and communications. - that takes years to build, years that Russia does not have. Finally the fact that Russia thinks that mobilization of mass is a solution demonstrates that amateurs on the Russian side are running their war.

Just to chime in on this, I think we are suffering from “other shoe-itis” in the west on this war. We have spent over 6 months now waiting for the “other shoe to drop”, and frankly I do not think Russia has any shoes left. We have discussed the nuclear card at length - I still think it is a possibility but still remote. Most likely a demonstration in an empty field p, if at all. Unconventionally, the cyber-information warfare apocalypse never showed up - I think we way overestimated Russian capability here, at least in a traditional warfare sense. Conventionally the term used is “trained effective strength”. This is manpower that can integrate into an operational system at equal or better quality. The major problem with the 300k conscript push is that is will lower the overall quality of the RA operational system — which was not in great shape after Phases I and II. The Russians are clearly going for mass, likely because it was the only thing that came close to working in the Donbas. I suspect they, and we, are about to get a further lesson on the utility of dumb mass in modern warfare. The UA has gotten past the “throw anyone at the problem” and are in fact the side that is actually being deliberate in operations. They have the initiative and are biting and slicing while the RA bleeds out, as they have pretty much done this entire war. Nothing in the Russian defence looks deliberate at this point. I see no Putin-line, nor is the UA giving them time to build one. Big defensive belts take months and years to build, time the RA does not have. And they also likely do not have the expertise at this point either as they have been killing off a lot of their highly trained and ready troops. So I expect the UA will continue it campaign of slow and methodical corrosive warfare until the RA collapses (again)…rinse and repeat until one hits the border.

Toss in a global pandemic shock and all we are missing is rivers turning to blood.

Ok, back on the nukes. My concern here is it would be within Putin’s playbook to fire off a battlefield nuke as a demonstration. He could even target an empty grid square and fire off a warning shot. This is right in line with Russian liminal warfare - edge up to the line and stick a toe over it, and hope we move the line. My bet it would be if Crimea is threatened as losing that would likely trigger what Putin fears most - a Russian identity crisis. I am getting the sense that after all these months that so long as Russians see the world as it was before Feb 22 - and again thanks to Haiduk for crystallizing that - then they will happily keep him in power and try to get on with the lives actively ignoring this war. If things hit a point where the Russians have an identity crisis, very bad things will likely happen to Putin. I am half way convinced that this is in fact the Russian centre of gravity (or at least one of them). Russians will take the losses, they will even take mobilization but based on how Haiduk outlines what Russians need to “unlearn” about themselves, I suspect their internal trigger point lies there. And in this war, my guess is that trigger is Crimea.

Ok, hold up. Is this confirmed? Has the UA managed two river crossings? In this environment?

Dear gawd, I cant keep up with this thread while on the road. Ok back to war fighting - ok, so, when I talk about an “operational system” this is what I am talking about. We employ a different one but they all have common elements. The system is built around operational functions, we use: Command Act Sense Shield Project and Sustain Generate These functions can be mapped against capabilities in both a quantitative and qualitative sense. Together they creat a system that creates decisions (of all types) on the battlefield. The sum of decision directly influence the strategic options spaces - along with political context and other forms of power. So when The_Capt says “The UA stressed the entire Russian operational system” I am really talking about this. Right now Russia is behind and failing on almost every function, nor are those functions coordinated or synchronized. Back in Phase 2, there is an argument that they still had advantage in Act, and we all feared the Generate boogeyman. They are now behind on that. They are really only left with a defensive capability set, unless they have a magic rabbit somewhere. The Generate spectre is turning out as expected - a hot mess of cannon fodder. Question on the table is how long will the Russian system be able to function defensively - it failed offensively in Jul and has not recovered. As to the conduct of the war right now - unless I missed something - we have a lot of offensive pressure being applied by the UA. This is a clear demonstration that their system is healthy and likely getting healthier. Regardless of nuclear sabre rattling, we are headed for a conventional warfare decision point(s) before the weather turns, and then I would not be surprised to see the UA stage a winter offensive. Let Russian conscripts sit the cold for a bit and then hit them. I expect the UA to keep chewing until the RA system fractures again, and then we will likely see some fast gains: goes slow…until it’s fast.

God love you Haiduk you are making all sorts of sense. I apologize for grouping you into the genocidal narrative, as I was taking your position as being caught up in some previous rhetoric. I think I have a bead on what you are saying now. This is directly connected to the prosecution of this war during and after all we are really unpacking Russian Will - this is central to the questions such as: possible nuclear response, the depth of Russian resistance and the viability of a lasting security for Ukraine. Based on a read of your definitions it would appear that Russian Will is in fact brittle. They have built an edifice of self-importance; however just how invested how each Russia is on this point appears highly variable. All war is sacrifice - and one question that has bugged me is “what are Russians willing to sacrifice?” We all know Putin and the power system has almost zero room to negotiate with their own people right now because they sold them a false narrative in line with a lot you are outlining. This was is existential to Putin and his cronies, but what is the sacrifice calculus for the Russia people and what is the best way to influence it? This will likely be variable but my sense is in fact one of apathy resting on long held assumptions. So long as Putin can validate those assumptions they mostly more passive than active - with obvious exception on different poles. This is interesting and lines up with the whole “we would rather lose to NATO than Ukraine” lines.

The prosecution of the Second World War - which killed about 100 million people for starters. And then there is the thorny reality that international law, which underpins the western world order has been put in place since. There is ample evidence that the occupations influenced both German and Japanese culture; however neither was a wide scale attempt at social engineering. Even if attempts were made at a local level, they were dropped quickly as we did not spend the 80s running re-education camps in Hamburg. You are drawing on a flawed historical example and advocating for something that is never going to happen. We did the occupation dance for 20 years in Afghanistan and Iraq and never came close to what some are proposing - which look more like Cambodian or Chinese Peoples Revolution. We are not going to occupy a country of 140 million for 50 years to try (and fail) to force change at that level. We will work indirectly to induce change, so Russians can decide for themselves and perhaps see a better way.

Sorry for the delayed response but am on the road. Your effort deserves an answer. Couple points: ”Wokism” is not being enforced by a central authority, at least not in my country. It is a social movement made be people free to do so. Governments are getting onboard because in a democracy they need to in order to remain in power” Japan was successful in expunging its imperial ambitions, which is clear evidence that a nation of people can reinvent itself. The picture that you and others paint of Russia and all Russians make that impossible. By the metric you are employing in your very detailed post Russians are irredeemable, all of them. In fact that has been a central argument on this topic. Now if you are arguing that Russians can change themselves over time, then we are now talking solutions and not revenge fantasies, which is excellent. I would argue the best strategy is to pull Ukraine into collective defence and security mechanisms that Russia has never directly challenged. Rebuild your nation. Compress and contain Russia and its influence. Leave sanctions and restrictions in place until Russia finds a leadership that is willing to cooperate in prosecution of war crimes and payment of reparations. Then influence and encourage an internal Russian government that can conduct and support an effort to reduce the imperial impulse the nation has demonstrated - along with corruption, oppression and lack of democratic freedoms. However in my vision, it need be accepted that Russia is not irredeemable, nor is every Russian a heartless invader nor active participant in this, or any other war. One must accept that that are people of varying ideology and beliefs - they just keep turning to the wrong ones as their leadership.

Well finally a well written explanation - thanks for that. Big problems, very big problems though - you are talking about social engineering on an extremely wide scale for 140 million people. Beyond the ethical issues - for example, how can we conduct this action and avoid erasing Russian identity and risking cultural genocide? What you are describing sound a lot like a larger version of the indigenous re-education attempts here in North America and frankly no good came of that as the system was far to open to abuse and we were basically erasing a culture, which is expressly illegal. I would give you the benefit of the doubt on some assessments, although they really risk one-sizing 140 millions people (e.g. cruelty and inner aggression), I mean Europeans did some brutal stuff to indigenous people all over the world because of similar narratives. To even try to sell that concept you would need a lot of science behind it and then would have to live with result if they do not align with what you may think. Lastly, and it is a doozy, assuming you have framed the problem correctly and even come up with the perfect social engineering plan - the cost of doing this is insane. We are talking a total defeat of Russia, followed by a 50 year occupation where we would need to rule these people as strict dictatorship. I mean based on your logic no Russian could opt not to be re-educated. So you want to fully occupy and govern a nation of 140 million of nothing but irreconcilable trouble. Right off the bat we are talking a security operation well beyond post WW2 Germany or Japan. Very likely insurgency from hell as we take casualties year after year while leaving ourselves open to every security operation going sideways. Seriously, even if I did accept the initial premise - which I do not and broad stroking any nation/race/ethnicity to this degree would constitute blatant racism were it pointed at anyone else - the execution is pure fantasy. This isn’t nation building it is nation deconstruction. Finally, my honest advice to all of the Ukrainian posters here who seem to be forming up on these solutions is to take it off the air and keep it to yourselves. Reason: because you come off as dangerous racists and extremists who are going to accomplish nothing but turning off the audiences you need for support. Were I to honestly believe that your government support what you or kraze outline, I would also have serious second thoughts about support to greater military capability. Why would I risk giving ATACMS to people who appear to refuse to recognize non-combatants, which is enshrined by international law? I would be risking arming people who are looking to break those laws, making me culpable in the commission of warcrimes. Now for the record, I am very sure your government does not support this narrative. They have instead been fighting an honourable and legal war against an opponent who refuses to do the same. However, by representing you nation here like this, you are hurting that record with this audience. Finally, before anyone tries the “but you do not understand”, I have been on the ground for a genocide, I know exactly what it looks like. It wasn’t soldiers who marched men, women and children into shallow graves at places like Bakovici - it was their neighbours and they were talking a lot like what I am hearing here.

Ok, so again, what exactly are you saying. It appears that it is that Russia has a history of genocide - both cultural and physical? And that somehow justifies...something? You seem to be in line with kraze's direction, or are you just FYI-ing? I can pretty much read between the lines - not a lot of nuance here, so let me respond: Ok, I am going to call you out on this because this is just dumb, and frankly a bad direction this thread has been going since you and few others got particularly vocal. 1. You are being pointed and vague at the same time - you pull out weird "facts" but place no context nor really any conclusions. This is the playbook of many extremist organizations - "I am not saying anything racists but here are some statistics about [insert whoever], just saying" 2. The "facts" you do pull on are a) pulled from Twitter echo chambers, and b) taken in isolation. For example, if we are going to reach back into the early 20th century, or 19th century, find me a European power that did not have a history of genocidal behaviour. By your logic we need to scrub Belgium because of the Congo, Spain for South America, UK, France and the US for North America, and more than a few other really bad examples of behaviour that Europeans outgrew - including the Ukrainians themselves - https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/the-1919-pogroms-ukraine-and-poland-one-hundred-years-later. Cherry picking facts and stringing them to somehow make you argument for you is a long standing tactic by extremist organizations. 3. You dance around it but you are in fact setting up conditions and in effect lobbying for a Russian genocide - as a solution to a genocide. That is beyond a bad idea - it is phenomenally immoral. I am sure as you are a Twitter expert on genocide you know the pre-conditions really well. - Treat an entire society as a homogenous group. "They are all the same, no exceptions" - Reinforce narratives that re-frame that society as culpable and non-human - plenty of that going on here. Main effort here is to assign blame on a society, which you have now frames as homogenous and less than human. - Frame a problem that can only be solved through the removal of the now-subhuman, blamed, homogenous society. - Pretend to pursue policies that attempt to find way to do this with less violence, largely to reinforce a veneer of legitimacy - "we should deport them all". - Find reasons why that won't work "they will still want to invade us in 5-10 years, no matter what" - Deductively lead yourselves to the Wannsee Conference solution set - but hey you tried. WTF?! Firstly none of what you, or anyone that seems to be promoting line this is supported by international or humanitarian law - we can (and should) hold a nation state responsible for warcrimes and illegal invasions. We do not arrest every Russian who crosses a border after the war and charge them for it. Second, this narrative is monumentally stupid to promote, knowing that it will never gain traction - in fact it will do the exact opposite with respect to western support to Ukraine. It will sour support to Ukraine when they need it most. Nor does this nonsense reflect what we have been seeing from the Ukrainian government itself. Three, it is monumentally immoral because to go through with whatever the hell this "de-something" is, which according to kraze includes the complete destruction of the Russian state - without a safety net, very likely leading to humanitarian crisis - but "who cares:, denying democratic rights to anyone who sniffs of pro-Russian indefinitely, the erasing of a Russian culture (if there is one, oh ya I forgot a sub-strategy of setting up a genocide is to try and pretend that "they are not really a people"), and a punishing the Russian people individually for the rest of time by the sounds of it. Why? Because the effects of the actions you are promoting are going to negatively impact children who have not even been born yet. It is why we do not do this, the effects ands stakes are that high. Oh but Russia did this to Ukraine!! Yes, they did, or at least tried. And those directly responsible will be held to account. Russia as a state must be made to pay reparations. Further Russia will continue to suffer sanctions and the full extent of legal punishments until the make up for this useless war. However, nothing supports the full spectrum punishment of the entirety of the Russian people for decades - that is not how this works. Do you honestly think that the mainstream western public are going to join you on whatever revenge fantasy is being cooked up here? One shot of a starving Russian child and all that good will will evaporate, because people in the West want Russia to pay, but not kids who can't vote, nor pay taxes - I will note that kraze or anyone else spewing this nonsense have offered zero ideas on how to avoid Russian children also being held accountable for actions they literally have no say in - oh, wait don't answer that, I have a pretty good idea what you want already. I am past asking you guys to stop - I am asking you go somewhere else. Internet is big and full of other places where you can sell this drivel.

Define that term. What are you proposing exactly? What does derashizied mean? And how would you propose doing it?

Disagree. I also get his impulse, we have all had it. However, his "only good Russian, is a dead Russian" rhetoric is: - Promoting hatred and violence of an entire society - he has never discriminated for or against non-combatants in this conflict, in fact in his last post he has basically openly declared that there are no non-combatants. - Rarely if ever providing any new facts - it is just a steady stream of the same hatred note that has frankly gone on far too long in my opinion. - His attitude is apparently pulling in other like minded folks, which risks us sliding into polarized discussion forum - the hints of which we have already seen. - His narrative actually will erode support to Ukraine from the audience, largely western, by representing his nation this way - the less informed may believe that all Ukrainians are thinking like him. This will have the exact opposite effect he appears to be looking for as we begin to wonder if all Ukrainians are genocidal - which they clearly are not. - To the point, Russian counter-IO would be employing exactly these sort of over the top narratives using false identities to try and sour western support: "See Ukrainians are really all a bunch of extremist Nazis!!!" - an attempt to re-shift the narrative, something the Russians are very adept at. I am not saying that this individual is actually working for the Russians; however, his narrative is.

That is being better than the Russians. Masterclass in how to gain the upper hand and dominate the strategic narrative. And just fighting so smart.

Oh I had to go back for this one, cannot resist a theory discussion. So the reality is that attrition and manoeuvre are not diametrically opposed ideas and you are outlining a clear demonstration as to why. They are in fact complimentary and intertwined concepts - our myopic, near cult-like adherence to manoeuvre in the west is like waging war “by only turning left”. In your first example we see manoeuvre-to-attrition, which is really what we mean when we say manoeuvre warfare. It is less about actual positioning and more about tempo and synchronicity of that positioning. The aim is to dislocate your opponent through leveraging higher tempo to strike system nodes and effectively breaking that system apart. Once broken we always conduct attrition in some form to render the fragments into annihilation. This is very much what happened at Kharkiv. At Kherson, the cycle is going the other way - attrition-to-manoeuvre. This sees detailed and sustained pressure applied to the front end on an enemy’s system. Tempo and synchronization still matter but the efforts here are on directly erode an opponents combat capability, vice nodes. Tempo becomes secondary, although important as one want to attrit faster than an opponent can react. Synchronization moves into primacy in order to maximize combat effects. This leads to a fracture or collapse within the enemy system that opens up opportunities for manoeuvre, which is then done to support further attrition - it is a cycle. Both systems require a different emphasis on C2 approaches, as well as tactics and techniques. Both approaches should be employed and the art of warfare is understanding when and where to employ them better than you opponent. Further, how to employ them within a campaign context - a series of linked actions - that employ positive, negative and null decision points to compress and collapse your enemies options spaces while sustaining and expanding you own. This war has been a brilliant example of doing exactly that - well for one side anyway. Weirdly we have seen examples of manoeuvre within deep strike, and attrition thru hybrid warfare as well.

Well thanks for this to start. I firmly believe you are correct. Ukraine has waged this war well within the law of armed conflict, frankly demonstrating admirable restraint with respect to POWs and especially targeting within Russia itself - a master class in precision strikes against legitimate military targets. Further, if any Russian picks up a weapon and deploys to Ukraine, he has earned the right to be engaged until he is dead or no longer a combatant - all stop. Further those responsible for the egregious Russian war crimes must be prosecuted. Finally, reparations must be made by Russia to pay for this war. Russia needs to definitively lose this war and frankly has already. I personally do not like the idea of a collapsed and fractured Russia, too many unknowns and risks; however, if it the only way this goes, so be it. Ukraine needs to definitively win, and will. At least to pre-war borders and they are fully entitled to re-taking the pre-2014 lines, we have talked about the risks there too. However, one thing I have learned over the last three decades is that winning means more than on the battlefield, it means whatever comes next. I have zero doubts that there is a minority in Ukraine that share the same sentiments, and I really do get why. But as a nation Ukraine needs to rise above it and become the regional counter-power it has already demonstrated it can be. Kraze is entitled to his opinion and all; however, I will not leave his calls for more atrocity and crimes on the table unchallenged. Anymore than if a Russian poster came here trying to justify the same.

I am going to ignore most of your rant, frankly if anyone were to push that kind of hatred towards any other group they would get tossed off this forum pretty quickly; however, we live in odd times. The Russian military and political system are responsible for this war. I have no doubt some of the population does as well; however to blame an entire people - who you don’t recognize as a people, yet point to them as an evil homogeneous empire that has been a threat for hundreds of years - down to many who have nothing to do with this or actively opposed it, nor had a say in it because Russia lacks a democratic system, is wrong on so many levels. If in your fractured Russian scenario - the one you are promoting, and I notice no denial of you promoting cultural genocide either btw- Russian elderly, women and children show up on on your borders in a humanitarian crisis I expect you and your nation to be better than the a$$holes we are currently supporting your nation against. If you cannot do that - and for the record I really do not believe you represent your nation - then why are we even bothering with this whole war? If a post-war Ukraine is suppressing democracy in re-taken regions, actively supporting civil strife in former Russian fragments (which would have to be in your plan), and let potentially thousands of people die because of their ethnicity (oh wait Russian isn’t a thing, so, how will you tell who to keep out) - the what the hell are we defending here? If we wanted a brutal regime in Ukraine to ignore human rights and suppress freedoms based on pseudo-ethnicity then why we didn’t we just sit back and let Russia take the damn place? I stand with Ukraine in this war, but I do not stand with you on this. We want a Ukraine with a fully functional democracy for all its citizens, a Ukraine that recognizes and operates under international law and respects human rights, regardless of who is suffering. That is the Ukraine that gets into NATO/EU - with Hungarian arm twisting if need be. That is the Ukraine we invest hundreds of billions in reconstruction. That is the Ukraine we support and enforce Russian accountability for. Not whatever nightmare you are selling here.

Absolutely not re: Germany and Japan. In fact the US and the western allies poured billions into the reconstruction of both these countries (West Germany obviously) in order to secure a strategic position within their regions. American culture rubbed off but at no point was there a stated goal to unmake either German or Japanese culture. In fact in Japan they left the Emperor alone. I can only go by what @kraze types here and his logic and position appear very clear.: All Russians, down to children are responsible for this illegal war in Ukraine. All Russians are culturally wired to invade Ukraine, so even a defeated Russia or Ukraine within a collective defensive alliance will protect them. The answer is to unmake Russia and remove it as an entity - to the point it would include compete fracturing of the country, regardless of risk, into smaller factions that would somehow not have the same Russian identity and cultural wiring to attack Ukraine. Further, humanitarian crisis are also acceptable within these fractured states as it keep people there from being able to threaten Ukraine. Ukraine would then become an Eastern European version of Israel (somehow) and be secure in a sea of people that hate them. Pretty clear to me that a removal of the larger Russian identity is the aim here. In fact by the logic presented one has to conduct a cultural cleansing or you just push the problem until these fractured nations, all with the poison root Russian culture still in their societies, re-unite to again attack Ukraine.

So we are pretty much going to have to agree to disagree - I think your view of things is a little overly binary. We seem to disagree on "worse". Your position is that a functioning Russia is worse for Ukraine, of which there is ample evidence. My view is that a reduced and boxed in, but functioning Russia with Ukraine within NATO (we took Turkey for fewer reasons than Ukraine currently has) is the way ahead. Based on your posts, it appears you are arguing that imperial aggressiveness is deeply embedded within Russian culture, which may have some kernels of truth - I personally think you are way over simplifying the Russian cultural construct and are very broadly painting every Russian with the same brush, so to speak. However, where I think we definitely part ways, and frankly I suspect it will also cause a major rift between a post-war Ukraine and the west is your solution: cultural genocide. This is very odd because while I do not believe that Russia has the way and means, or even ends to conduct a physical genocide of Ukraine - even the worst horror stories coming out of the formerly occupied areas pale in comparison to other examples of systemic physical ethnic cleansing, such as demonstrated in Rwanda. However, I do think there is a very strong case that Russia has every intention to conduct a cultural genocide of Ukraine and erase that identity to make the entire population "Russian" in the long run. Much of what you are proposing is the exact same thing back onto the Russian people - a collapse that erases their identity. We can go around the trees on this but in the end, my opinion does not matter - what does matter, very much is reconstruction of Ukraine after at this wat that will run well into the hundreds of billions. Now asking western liberal democracies to invest in a nation that is actively supporting and working towards a counter-cultural genocide - even of a nation as problematic as Russia - is a non-starter. Your cold-blooded quote here is very telling: "Russian "refugees" are already not welcome in any EU country that borders them and I don't see much drama about it - I think we will manage just as well. Especially since not letting in proven rapists and murderers that happily did genocide on us is "moral high ground"-free card in itself." So many of those refugees are going to be elderly and women/children. It would appear your position is to group them in with the "murders and rapists" and let them freeze to death along the Ukrainian border. This is very tough talk but you can see my point here (or perhaps cannot, which is the problem); however, in my experience, more atrocities do not make things better. I do not support your position on a Russian cultural genocide, and I am pretty sure very few in the western political halls of power, nor the voters will either. Ukraine has gained enormous positive momentum on the strategic narrative, your government has brilliantly dominated this arena and it is seeing returns in massive support. Your narrative that you are putting on this forum only serves an end state that will wash all that good away - likely when you need it most.

Ok then, well good luck with that then. So you plan is for the west to support until Russia shatters and then Ukraine ride it out as a lone state? Unfortunately Ukraine does not appear in the Bible so I am not sure western support will last. “A shattered Russia with an unsecured nuclear arsenal vs a lone state in a sea of people who can only agree on the fact that they hate you.” Is not a geopolitical solution. Neither is hoping that making their dysfunction worse or them being pushed deeper into crisis will somehow lead to them forgetting you. Your proposed strategy will have set conditions for long term direct threats to your nation without any real mitigating mechanisms against increasing regional insecurity. This is extremely bad for business, so western economic investment is going to be very difficult. Reconstruction is also at risk, as you note terrorism will be a significant threat in your country. If these conditions create enough significant humanitarian crisis you could waves of former-Russian refugees try and get into Ukraine - which you can of course turn away by force, completely losing any strategic narrative high ground you have. About the only way you approach would work would be for all Russians to cease to be at all, a strategy of extermination, but of course I know you are not proposing that. I have to say that your isolationist entirely uncompromising view of the future sounds a lot like the narratives coming out of Russia itself, just pointed in the other direction.

Didn’t we note many pages back that Russia had gutted their military school houses? And here is why that is a last gasp of a professional military - any specialists are sitting in a classroom teaching themselves from a textbook right now because the training staff are dead in a field near Kherson.