The_Capt

Ok, my next question then is, what is driving that threshold of Russian volunteerism? Putin knows he can pull 300-400k you dumb young men out of society and push them to go die in a useless war. Why not 500k? Why not 1M? There is a reason there that make the risk too high...what is it? As to precision v mass - well we are back to corrosive warfare. The theory of corrosive warfare is essentially rapid, precise attrition that surpasses an adversary's system resilience, and ability to adapt. So it is not about killing 20 guys in a hole with precision...it is which 20 guys. By hitting key nodes that comprise an operational system - C2, ISR, enablers, sustainment; the entire systems ability to hold up its own weight begins to fail. This is different than front end attrition where we kill 20 guys until they run out of of guys. In corrosive warfare we kill 20 of the right guys in the system chain. We kill them faster than an opponent can deal with. Now does the theory work? Good question. It has in the past but this is a competitive space.

I think we may be missing something important here. If Russia has a bottomless supply of manpower...why the restraint? Why have they not simply mobilized 1 million or 2 million men? Based on attrition rates 325k is enough to keep current manning levels, allowing for some troop rotations. It is not going to fundamentally shift the mass calculus at the front in a direction where dumb mass may actually start to work again. Why? Quality control in the RA? We know that isn't true. The RA is giving these guys pretty rudimentary training and stuffing them in. Replacing trained veh and systems crews is going to remain a core problem - Russia does not have China training 60k troops for them. As to collapse. Loss numbers are likely too low. I am not sure strategic collapse in Russia based on body count was viable, at least not in a shorter term. We went through this before - Russia would likely need to lose around 1-2 million men before everyone in that nation loses someone in their personal circle...and even then that might not be enough. The reason to kill Russian's is to trigger operational systemic collapse, which then sets up for military strategic collapse...or at least withdrawal. People are a core component of military capability, a critical means if you will. Erode that and the system will fail. Operational failures build up and eventually lead to strategic ones. Ukraine's problem right now is engineering another Russia operational failure. We are seeing the collision of Denial and Precision. Ukraine is challenged to upscale enough precision to create positive forces multiplication, while Russia relies on good old dumb mass Denial to sustain theirs. I stand by my theory that the only way may be for Ukraine to open up another offensive in a sector the RA has pulled from in order to sustain the fight in the middle. If they can do that, they may be able to engineer another operational collapse. But can they do this? Can they leverage surprise in a highly illuminated battlefield? Has Russia cut a deal with China to get strategic ISR? - oh my, there is a shoe to drop. Most people are squawking over tactical systems but Russia being plugged into a Chinese C4ISR backbone would fundamentally shift this war. We won't see that on X or any other platform, but we will see its effects. I personally do not see China as that invested. To take capability they have to protect and project in their own sphere would be no small thing and a significant escalation. We ain't done yet but the UA needs to pull something off soon or we are going to see things lock up. RA may try to pretend it is on the offensive again, but I think that part is done. They will dig in harder. Plant more minefields over the winter. And then we may be looking at some hard choices. Or they could break tomorrow, leading to cascade failure in an already mauled and fragile system - it goes slow until it goes fast.

Ah Bahrain….my bad, I read it as “Bagram.” Bahrain was out of theatre. We had a similar base in UAE near Dubai. It was a place we turned our guns in and went shopping. Shouldn’t be giving ammo to anyone in Bahrain unless they are an MP.

I am way better looking.

Two mags in nowhere near enough to get out of a pickle. The standard was the ability to defend yourself for about 20 mins until guns and/or air got into the game. 20 mins of sustained fire, enough to keep their heads down and not advancing on you turned out to be around 8-10 mags per person. So upwards of 300 rounds. Infantry going out on offence carried a lot more. Best line I ever heard : “Where is the front line in this damned war? Wherever one of us is standing.” Outside the wire everyone is infantry…to a point. If you are not, you are a liability.

At least the X guy had the decency to admit he is a novice. His analysis is a bit of a mess. The objectives he lists are really all over the map (literally and figuratively). I think it has been termed “The Death of Expertise”. Social media, and now AI, has lowered the cost of information to the point that one no longer needs to demonstrate proof of work. The problem is that information is not knowledge. The ability to take information, or as we have gone on about - negative information (things that should be seen but are not), and synthesize it into knowledge based understanding is not something one can do with a Twitter account. It takes years of study to create the critical analysis frameworks and foundational understanding that allows one to take new information and understand it in context. We see this “college boy, eh?” type of thinking in vulnerable sectors of society. Those that were not afforded the opportunity to gain expertise can now appeal that condition. Further expertise can be wrong - that should probably be the first rule of experts. In fact an expert will know they are wrong before anyone else. Being an expert is not about being right all the time, it is about understanding what we know, what we don’t know and why. So we have people who are facing enormous uncertainty and are compelled to try and solve that. They form information spheres they trust and then use that to try and understand better…to be more certain. It is what we have been doing here since Day 1 - world went nuts, we seek certainty in community. Problem is when a community is built on biases or skewed perceptions. We have walked that precipice on more than one occasion on this very forum. In the end, it is not about “shut up and take what I say as gospel”, in fact any community that is doing that is probably toxic. It is about clear and objective analysis of facts, due diligence in self-monitoring and correction and proof of work in making analysis and synthesis happen. Everyone and anyone may contribute to this community, but it must contribute. Signal not noise. Not for me to judge noise, the meritocracy of the community (and moderators) do that for us.

You do realize you just violated the principle of my initial post? “Oh hey look everyone, THH149 did ‘national intel selection’!”

Oh goody, that kid showed up. Russia is “still there” because they dug in behind minefields and won’t leave, hardly the high water mark of military performance. The UA defeated the initial invasion. Created conditions for a Russian operational collapse, twice. And are now working on a third. Any chance you could be curious somewhere else if the sum total of your contribution is questionable, incited claims and pointing out that Jesus wasn’t really born on 25 Dec? Asking for a friend.

I am willing to bet half the guys on this forum have, or had clearances. Let's just all agree to not go there in here.

After that last US leak on Reddit I would like to say that professionals know better, but there we go. If you know "stuff" one does not go around saying "I know stuff but can't tell you"...you just don't say anything. Simply saying you have access in a unsecure open forum is risky. Could be window dressing, or maybe the young fella just doesn't know better.

Right?! Neither nation is near a human capacity threshold in this war, so the hands flapping is premature. This is now a force generation and sustainment fight...and I like Ukraine's odds.

Ugh, this whole discussion line is starting to sound like info-nihilism, "we can't possible get any truth." Which is almost always followed up by "so I will insert my own."

Too early. That is a really tough one without being inside the UA staff and knowing the details. Of course there was political pressure, we were talking about a UA offensive months before it happened. But there were also military factors. How long do you let the RA dig in? How long to replace losses from their failed winter offensives? What was the force generation trajectory for UA reinforcements? How are sustainment and enablers holding up? My guess is that 1) the UA knew the RA was pretty badly mauled, 2) was creating a Putin line of defence along their most likely axis of advance, and 3) they were in about as good a shape as they were going to get. Alternatively, perhaps the UA knew the offensive would take much longer to yield results and wanted to get to those benchmarks before Winter. The UA tried a western style larger push at the beginning and they all got blunted pretty badly. So they switched to Kherson style small bites, which also would have been programmed into any options analysis. Finally, the rules of war are all up in the air. I am a broken record on that point. Take any metrics you may have about how war is supposed to work and throw them out the window. We have never had a war operationally like this one since Iran-Iraq in the 80s. We have not had one strategically since Korea. We did learn that minefields, ATGMs and stand-off tac aviation still work for the RA, even if their arty has been degraded. It appears that even basic tac ISR is working for the RA in holding a line. The RA are leaning on what they are good at…lots of troops dug in. What is surprising is RA morale. How on earth they are holding it together after last winter is beyond me - I guess that Russian steel is still out there. They have also managed to keep an operational system floating after horrendous losses. As we discussed, the bar is much lower on defence, but still… So here we are, waiting for something to happen. Or not, which is still something. Can the RA still break? Definitely. Can the UA fail and lose initiative? Definitely. Is you favourite pet platform going to make a difference, probably not, but we should probably keep pushing it anyway.

Not entirely disagreeing with your economic points but before we go down the “Donbas and Crimea are the economic heartland of Ukraine”…they aren’t: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ukrainian_subdivisions_by_GDP_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ukrainian_subdivisions_by_GRP As for coal…well it was kinda on the way out anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_Ukraine As for the rest, see Reconstruction. Winning will mean rebuilding and re-wiring Ukrainian industries. Changing transportation of goods towards the west and that will take new infrastructure. We can prop Ukraine up but the end goal is self-sustainment. But your point is not lost. This war did no good things for the Ukrainian economy.

Gotta have a big globe with a bar inside it. Turkey Thursdays. And on Fri we pay hobos to fight each other for nickels.

The RA has clearly run out of grease.

Hey look, peace on Ukraine needs support. Entirely onboard with that for so many good reasons. Right now I am actually more concerned with the reconstruction support than warfighting. However, militarily Ukraine is not on the raggedy edge...they are freakin attacking and sustaining that offensive for months. This is not a sign of a military machine that is going to collapse next Tues. If the UA switched to defence, they could hold out for years on very little. Especially considering that Russia is a complete mess militarily. Does anyone honestly think the RA could somehow re-invade the North and take Kyiv at this point? US funding levels or no? In fact if they tried, it would probably re-activate US support. US support is the Achilles heel of Ukraine offensive war effort. The UA held off the best the RA had back in Mar 22 with a fraction, of a fraction of what they have been given to date. The only thing that could seriously risk the UA competitive military advantage is US C4ISR support and the US president would have to actively order that shut off. Even that might not do it as Ukraine has built their own JADC2 architecture and still has other support coming in from other nations. As to defence of Ukraine, you do know that landmines work for Ukrainians too? They could create murder fields with what they already have, even if the RA could still string together an operational offensive. Now if we do not fund Ukrainian reconstruction, we are totally screwed as we will definitely lose what happens next. If we fail to support Ukraine to the point they cannot even defend themselves, well then this entire discussion is a moot point because the political landscape will have changed fundamentally, and not just in the US. Should we support Ukraine to the hilt, absolutely. But if the party does end, it does not mean Russia "won" by any stretch. This is the major pitfall of the "Victory means the pre-2014 border or nothing" narrative. No, victory through denial works pretty well too, especially if it means you get to stay an independent nation. We not only need to be ready to accept that but then double down and make sure Ukraine can rebuild itself to the point where its defence is not reliant on western political whims.

Guys, gotta get out of your own heads. Russian strategic aims: - Full subjugation of Ukraine, pulling it in as a puppet state a la Belarus. - Division and weakening of NATO in order to give breathing room within Russia sphere - A united greater Russia under a new Czar I don't care if Poppy Orange gets in and cuts off the taps - that up there is not going to happen without the entire world abandoning Ukraine, and whole lot more to be honest. Could we snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? Sure, but it is a reach to see things failing that badly. Even if we do abandon Ukraine, it is a country of 44 million and really...really...p$ssed off right now. They will dig in and fight like badgers because they have seen what the alternative looks like. After Bucha et al, Ukraine is never going to embrace Russia. NATO has secured unity and defence spending for at least a couple decades because now there is a threat that isn't a few idiots in white Toyotas in countries we didn't even know existed. And Russia is a mess, and will likely remain one. There will be no western normalization with Russia after this, or if there is, shame on us. US Pol is not the driving factor in Russia achieving its strategic objectives (stated or unstated) in this war. It is a driving factor in how badly they lose it.

Funny you should mention it...35 years as a military officer; next 35 as a failing hack fiction writer (and part time game design guy)...that is the plan.

Oh my someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed today. I was more playfully talking about the pearl clutching and hand wringing "the half empty glass is breaking!!" sentiment, which appears to be spreading. Long list of posts with that tone have your name at the top going way back, hence why I "pulled you in"...and you never disappoint! So we have moved from the monolithic invincible Russia specter, to "how long can Ukraine possibly hold out?!" As long as they want/need/have/can? I sense you, and many others, are really struggling with the unknowns in all this. Welcome to war. It is a collision of certainties that create massive uncertainty. The RA is a "shattered shell" of what we feared on 21 Feb 23 - you can debate that one all day but it is done. It will take a decade or more to rebuild what they were shooting for back in the 10s. They broke it all over Ukraine last year; talk about bad decisions. But they can Defend - as the old Prussian also said, that part is easier, but it does not get the business done. So how long can Ukraine "last" really depends on what they are doing. Can they freeze this conflict in place - yeuup, the RA suicide-fest last winter proved that one. Can they re-take all of former Ukraine...well, jury is still out. Can, as a nation, they sustain a war longer than Russia? Well we will see. Are we talking low-intensity "we are all dug in and raiding now and again"? Sure. Are we talking insanely high intensity combat - well probably not, no one really can. My main point is that just because you can't get answers you want does not automatically mean the worst is happening. Based on what I can see (not imagine I am seeing, like fully functioning Russian rail systems pouring thousands of tons of supplies onto fat happy Russian defenders), the West is committed through the Winter at least. If Ukraine can pull off a breakthrough and regain some momentum, they have a good chance at some serious gains- as we have seen in this war, no one cracks like the RA. If no breakthroughs happen and all we get is very expensive leg humping, then I expect some difficult political conversations are on the table late-Winter, early-Spring. Maybe we call it where it stands and everyone wins/loses. Putin can claim the "greatest Russian victory since Bagration" as he retains an extra 6% of now-blasted and mined wasteland, that cost them 100k lives. Russia can go back and lick its wounds while trying to figure out who to fend off NATO, who scored Finland and Sweden out of this deal - Russia got a pretty weak China...and the big stuffy animal filled with asbestos that is Iran. Oh and lets not forget the BFF of North Korea - like being best friends with that weird kid who tortures bugs at recess while touching himself, and everyone tries not to notice. Ukraine gets to stay Ukraine, starts laying mines - hey look they can do it too! And we wind up with a Korean solution. Maybe Ukraine does not even get to enter into NATO or EU, but money and alliances will be created because containing Russia matters now - South Korea made it work pretty well and their capital is under gun range of one of the craziest MFs since his Dad. https://datacommons.org/place/country/KOR/?utm_medium=explore&mprop=amount&popt=EconomicActivity&cpv=activitySource,GrossDomesticProduction&hl=en To my mind, that is about as bad it will get, at least as things stand right now. If the West - especially Europe, cuts Ukraine lose entirely, then this whole show was a complete waste of time as Ukraine will not be able to survive for long without a massive reconstruction/investment effort - we let that happen, well we deserve what happens next. I know this is not the war you ordered, sir, but it is the one we got.

You and LongLeftt should start a club. In other news the RA war machine is pretty much a shattered shell of what it was before the war. Ukraine has regained most of the territory taken at the outset of this war - right now Russia holds about 6% more of Ukraine then it essentially controlled on 21 Feb 22, and back then what it held was not getting shelacked by Storm Shadows. Aid continues to flow, although there are tremors - that part is factual. The UA currently has the operational initiative and continues grinding assaults while RA - wanna talk about horrendous losses. A lot of people in the West treat war like they are ordering dinner: “An attritional war? That is not what I ordered! Waiter!” But this one is what it is. Right now the real question is whether or not the RA can be forced to buckle again like it did at Kherson and Kharkiv (everyone forgets that part). UA keeps trying and we will have to see. Odds of Russia achieving its strategic aims of this war remain at zero. A realistic Ukrainian outcome remains undefined as we seem to swing wildly between “Every Russian out of every inch, forever…or we’ve lost” and something short of that we can live with. That “something” is what all the dying is about I suspect. So “yes with an if” would be the short answer to the original question from my point of view. “No with a but” seems to be the other.

I was a younger more energetic man then. Now I just want to sit in my chair.

Deep breaths, my friend. Going to get worse before it gets better.

See my post above. The RA being forced onto the Defensive is not magically "happening" either. I suspect the UA is hitting their logistics, but it is complicated.