The_Capt

It is not the frontage in contact, it is the mounting. You have to get that Battalion with enablers to the front line on visible LOCs. So vertical density, not horizontal. It is what killed the RA last summer. As to UA capability, I have heard similar tactical anecdotes but the UA has already demonstrated an ability to conduct large scale manoeuvre last fall at Kharkov. They also used the "Coy - bites" approach at Kherson, which also worked in the end. I know they have senior officers on some pretty high level courses in the US and Canada, so they have the command skills being taught. I am not sure how anyone is supposed to cram several coys through minefield belts kms deep while their opponent has eyes all over the sky, long range ATGMs that cannot be cleared and artillery. Toss in a few helicopters able to hit out to 10kms and I think the "NATO perspective" may be the problem. The act of driving such a force to the front is going to set of all sorts of alarms and counter-fires...and this is the RA we are talking about. It also answers the question as to why the RA has not been able to conduct massed formation manoeuvre even though their doctrine is built on it. This whole NATO "everyone is doing it wrong except us" is a really bad way to go in my opinion.

Why UA is not massing? Well it may also be for the same reason the RA has avoided it, mass is dangerous. The few times last year the RA tried massing they got severely damaged doing so. We saw the UA go through the same thing earlier this summer. The reason is that massing dramatically increases ISR signatures and opens one up to counters. There has been a drive towards higher distribution of forces this entire war and I do not think it is a question of coordination or ability as much as it is that concentration of forces is a good way to lose them. The UA’s current “small bites” is not that different from the RA’s over the winter, albeit delivered via different tactical capability. I suspect they are small-biting until the RA are eroded to a point that UA massing cannot be countered, then we may see a larger concentrated break out. For now I am not even sure traditional air superiority would do it as ISR is everywhere and unmanned/PGM cannot be countered by conventional air systems. I have heard this “well why are they not just doing X?” from western military experts and the answer is likely “because they tried that and it does not work”. I also am starting to believe that “not working” is not due to UA shortfalls in C2 or training after 18 months of western support and lessons learned from this war. Instead it is likely due to shifts in warfare itself.

Not heresy in the least. The lines have not moved much despite all the action, no disputing that. We have not seen an operational breakthrough, largely tactical pulses which have not added up yet. So a couple thoughts/questions: - If this whole offensive is a road to nowhere…why is the UA still pushing? The UA has a lot to lose and knows that they must preserve their forces. They cannot afford the human wave wastage Wagner and the RA demonstrated last winter. Yet they are still pushing…why? My only guess can be that they still see achievable objectives and their picture of the RA supports this. - We have seen a lot of indications that the RA war machine is in trouble. To the point that I am not even sure what is still holding it together. This may be an example of that Russian steel everyone was going on about at the beginning of this war. Right now the RA appears glued together by pure stubbornness. Their losses have been historic and a lot of capability is simply gone. The central question is, “are they close to tipping?” No idea but I am pretty sure the UA and western military support “inside the box” have a much better bead. - Ok, the UA offensive of 2023 fails…now what? Well, we might have to start thinking about frozen lines and a much longer conflict. So what does that look like? How do we support that? There is no “cutting and running” on this one yet, our sunk costs are too high and the opportunity to continue to cripple Russia too good. One thing we do need to get out of our heads is the idea that “not retaking every inch of pre-2014 Ukraine = losing”. That was a dangerous binary position to take and it will not serve well moving forward. Losing is an Ukraine no longer able to decide when and where to prosecute this conflict. Losing is an Ukraine no longer able to be independent of Russian Will. Losing is western powers surrendering strategic initiative. All war is negotiation. With the other parties, with oneself and with the situation as it evolves. My read is that Ukraine is continuing to negotiate from a position of strength and no matter how this year’s offensive turns out, if they can sustain that then we still have options.

https://www.amazon.com/lamp-oil/s?k=lamp+oil https://store.steampowered.com/app/1480560/Lawn_Mowing_Simulator/ For the average “I just want things to go boom” player, perhaps. If you want a serious realistic wargame simulation then obstacles and breaching ops are clearly a requirement.

A major strategic implication is on escalation. Recall at the beginning of this war there was a lot of concern about a Russian “red line”. Putin dropped all sorts of threats and the info-sphere lit up. We continually see Ukraine strike deeper, higher and harder into Russian territories - Crimea definitely counts in Russian books. The question now is “ok, so where is the Russian red line?” Some will say “there isn’t one”. I do not believe that, however, it is clear that it is also not hair trigger either. This speaks to the myth of Russian escalation dominance. They do not own the ladder, we do. Now a concern is narrative and tipping points. My sense is that Putin et al are really crisis managing right now. Playing all sides as best they can. To some the loss of these two ships in a high profile strike is a catastrophic loss. To others it is justification that Russia is indeed standing on its own against NATO and the US. How these strikes are playing out inside Russia is definitely something worth watching out for. Second is tipping points. I do not get the sense that “clear strategy” is on the menu at the Kremlin right now. So if there is a red line it is probably blurring and moves around. It is also likely very relative. Hit another 5 ships, no problem…hit the 6th and hell breaks loose because…Russia. And then there is a solid theory that Russia has run out of escalation room. They have fired all the missiles. They have blown all the dams. Nuclear power plants are all upwind. WMDs are a non-starter unless they want WW3. What is really left in the chamber? Mobilization? Maybe but it would have to be national…all industry and manpower. That is a big step and they have shown no indications of doing it, let alone being able to do it under the current conditions. What can Russia do now except make quacking noises and lob more missiles at apartment buildings? Plant more mines? This whole thing has a boiling frog strategy feel to it.

Really two points to unpack here but excellent discussion: Warrior vs Killer - The traditional indigenous definitions do stress the act of direct killing of an enemy. They had traditions of taking trophies and "counting coup". This is a major problem with the adoption of the concept without a modern re-definition. (And trust me when I say, the troops are going to do it regardless of what anyone thinks.) A modern definition must recognize the role of homicide and collective burden an entire military organization must bear in its conduct. So it is not about "sticking the knife in and watching the lights go out" or other such nonsense often postured by front end operators. It is about recognition of the weight and responsibility to kill righteously. And that ethos must be shared by all members of the organization. Popular imagination is a major issue as Hollywood has done us no favors in this venture. In the end we may very well need a new word; however, there are examples of it being done correctly. The NZ forces and recognition and celebration of their Maori roots is an excellent example. Disciplined vs Individualism. This is a major myth...all stop. On a couple levels: Brutalities: The level of undisciplined...and even disciplined atrocity conducted by "soldiers" dwarfs any labels put upon warrior cultures. Warriors could be (and were) brutal; however, they were a product of their times. They also held onto deeply nuanced and balanced approaches to honor. it is particularly hurtful to look to the Roman Empire and its military as a shining example of discipline we should aspire to when one reviews their conduct. https://www.britannica.com/event/Third-Punic-War The terrifying reality is that soldiers commit genocide in shifts and in straight lines because their agency is by definition is removed. Warriors retain levels agency and independence. Of course neither side of this debate can really claim high ground in all honesty. Effectiveness: The secondary myth in all this is that "soldiers win" because of discipline built into the system. This is historically more a question of mass, not culture. Mongols won, and won big. The Germanic Tribes won at Teutoburg Forest. In reality actual results had more to do with the right tactics at the right time and place than one cultural framework over the other. The fact that a tribe of 150 natives got wiped out by 2000 US cavalry is not a cultural equation - it is Guns, Germs, Steel etc. As to overall effectiveness, well again the Mongols likely cracked the code of blending a warrior culture with a more conventional military organizational culture and the results were pretty impressive. As we look forward we talk a lot about empowerment and giving troops more agency to act which is interestingly more in line with warrior methods. Further, one can play with idea that warriors handle uncertainty much better than soldiers because their mindset is designed to embrace chaos through retention of agency. This is more likely the reason why "warrior" has taken root in SOF than any bloodthirsty sentiment. SOF, by its nature, has very high levels of agency. To the point it may be considered a negative capability. In the modern era I suspect we will need a hybridized system, like our command approaches, that balances the requirements for uniformity and discipline with agency and independence of thought in the face of chaos. Further, there is nothing saying that a "soldier" can not embrace honour or righteousness either. I honestly suspect we are dancing around a word that does not exist yet in the English language. No matter what we call it, the definition that recognizes the challenges of the military culture as it balances purpose in war with alignment within society in peace will remain a critical requirement.

Not that far off the bubble…but if I wanted to make money that would be the way to go.

Thanks, I am writing and will likely publish in the next 12-18 months but it will be the last thing people expect. I will get back to warfare and theory but am going to take a break to do other things. As to your experience. Again, we have not defined the term. It is not about combat or how close on gets to the bullets. It is an idea, an identity. A drone operator that is willing to sacrifice themselves in the service of a righteous cause is just as much a warrior in the modern sense as a door kicker. We all want bragging rights but at the end of the day, I do not care if one sits in a cubicle back at HQ for the entire war, the ethos is universal. Some organizations get it, the Marines are a good example. Everyone is a Marine first. Well I want everyone to be a Warrior first, but again we need to define a universal definition of what that really is.

Former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan.

These terms have caused pretty significant debate among western militaries, especially in Canada. The issue is really one of identity and culture, which of course has come under significant scrutiny in the post-Afghanistan, post-Iraq era. For some it is no doubt a bit of macho flexing, for others it is holding onto core identity for very important purposes. Up front, I personally fall into that latter category - but also recognized people are going to have differing positions. So to try and break it down more simply: - The term "warrior" [aside: 'warfighter' is in reality an attempt at compromise on warrior and largely has no other point of reference], has been mal-adopted and appropriated into toxic sub-cultures within modern militaries. Of this fact there is little argument. The most recent scandal in the Australian SASR and many examples of a warped or toxic use of that term are well documented. People adopt all sorts of crazy ideas as to what a warrior means and how they behave. This has to do with the fact that a modern warrior concept has yet to truly evolve so people look at history which was an entirely different context (eg we don't scalp anymore). - The actual term of "warrior" has deep roots within indigenous cultures around the world. In many it was a class of citizen with a clearly defined purpose. You can read a lot on this but the most common and prevalent definition was in line with "One Who Does War" on behalf of their people. A person whose role within a society is the function of warfare. In most cases it became part of a cast or class system. In some cultures this was seen as a sacred duty-to-protect bordering on a pseudo public service. The recent bashing of the term has drifted into colonial insensitivity in some cases as it really reads like "white folks screwed it up, so now all 'warriors' are bad" when in fact indigenous cultures have employed the concept for millennia and many, like North American natives, still hold it sacred. - The term is important because it incorporates a key pole of the two-worlds problem. Militaries are not armed humanitarian aid agencies, or slightly better armed police forces. Some nations have tried to go that way but they tend to be geopolitical anomalies. The role of any military is state sponsored and legitimized homicide. Dress it up anyway one likes, call it "self-defence", "use of force" or whatever helps one sleep at night but the core role is "murder for effect. The second a military culture, or the society that pays for them, forgets that reality very bad things happen. - Militaries that get watered down for various social or political sensitivities tend to do several very dangerous things: 1) They forget themselves. This can lead to significant collective shock when war actually happens and generations of military officers and NCOs have basically become bureaucrats. When that culture runs head long into warfare it is never pretty. I lived through such a time in the 90s and trust me it is really bad. 2) Societies go into armed conflict with eyes closed. Sanitization of war and its consequences becomes very easy when one scrubs out what it actually means. This can not only dangerously shape political calculus, it can create major flaws in military advice to policy. The reality is no matter where you may be in the kill-chain, there is blood on your hands. That is a serious burden. Those that forget it can start to make very poorly informed decisions quickly. 3) You cannot order identity. Troops in combat or preparing for combat are going to adopt an identity and culture that will provide them survival advantage and cope - find me a war where that did not happen. Problem is that if leadership does not define that identity, troops will do it themselves and sub-cultures form. Those sub-cultures can become dangerously toxic very quickly. So bottom line is, ignoring warrior reality comes with significant risks. - Many like the term "soldier" better. Feels more civilized. The term it self actually comes from solidus or coin and refers to mercenaries. The major historical difference between a solider and warrior is that a soldier stops fighting when they don't get paid. Warriors keep fighting because they don't need to get paid, they believe. There is an element of righteousness (and I do not mean in the religious sense) in the role of a warrior. Righteousness being a higher ideal held sacred (all war is sacrifice..."to make holy") by the people who sent you to fight for them. Soldiers by definition live on a more transactional contract with society. These are deep and important distinctions that often get lost in the noise. - To your point, "machoism". The problem we have with "warrior" is that we never actually define it. It gets tossed around because it sounds cool but as an identifier we do not unpack it and then teach it to people when they enter the service. It is all over the place, the US Army uses it all the time: https://www.army.mil/values/soldiers.html. Likely the closest I have ever seen is the US Army's Warrior Ethos: I will always place the mission first. I will never accept defeat. I will never quit. I will never leave a fallen comrade. https://www.army.mil/values/warrior.html Not bad, but not quite there either as it lacks definition of role as an extension of American society and elements of righteousness. So without a clear definition, the term gets hijacked into a macho "ra-ra" tag line. The reality is far deeper in speaking to balancing our two worlds - war and peace: home and away. As military we live within and are part of our own societies. I have kids, bills and go to the same grocery store. I watch the same shows and play the same game. But that is only half of my existence. The other side lives out in a place of conflict and warfare. In many ways I did not get this until after my first war. When I got home I realized that part of me would always be in those hills (and then years later, in the desert). As I see these young guys fighting and dying in Ukraine, I see them all fighting and dying in the tradition of the warrior. They are the Ones Who Do War on behalf of their people. To them it is more than a tag line and will be for the rest of their lives. So we definitely need to develop a modern definition and concept here and build a concept that not only better fits modern society but resonates. If we, as modern militaries do not, then we will get hijacked. I have already been in discussions where terms like "aggression" are being scrubbed out of our ethos by academics and civilians. If a modern military cannot define itself, someone is going to do it for us. And they will very like not understand the two-worlds problem. We are The Ones Who Do War and we need to get much better at explaining what that means in 2023.

Hessian mats for camouflage.

C’mon the climate change answer was just too adorable. Anyone who can face an impending human bottlenecking crisis with “ya but the rain still waters my grass and washes off the deer”…I mean how can you stay mad at that? S’ok, I think Steve took our new pet out behind the barn on his first day. Guess we will just have to wait for the next one.

"Boys only want love if it's torture!" (last one for today, promise)

Immature?! Meow. How about a highly satirical theory that 1) attempts to lighten the mood of a pretty brutal war, and 2) highlights the total absurdity of what actually happened, or appeared to happen during the whole Putin-Prig drama. The events were so bizarre that we are reduced to Taylor Swift in trying to explain the levels of dysfunction within the Russian power hierarchy. It is ludicrous but also probably the best theory I can come up with for that whole insane chapter.

Hey man don’t knock it. I personally think that Prigy is at the lake house trying on different beard and wig combos until Vlad makes weekend getaways. Now it is truly a forbidden love that must be kept away from the world, spiced with a hint of danger. It will be fun for awhile but it is doomed. Prig will get bored and Putin will eventually have to let him go…likely into the lake with a cinder block to keep him warm. But for now:

Don’t sully a wonderful thing. No we are not there yet but ISW dropped its daily: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-september-10-2023 Interesting comment here: ”Ukrainian Main Military Intelligence Directorate (GUR) Head Kyrylo Budanov stated on September 10 that Ukrainian forces will continue counteroffensive operations into late 2023.[4] Cold and wet weather will affect but not halt active combat, as it has done in the first 18 months of the war. Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley stated on September 10 that Ukrainian forces probably have 30 to 45 days of “fighting weather” left.[5] Seasonal heavy rains and heavy mud in late autumn will slow ground movements for both sides, and low temperatures impose a variety of logistics challenges. The start of such seasonal weather is variable, however.[6] While weather considerations will affect Ukrainian counteroffensive operations, they will not impose a definite end to them. A hard freeze occurs throughout Ukraine in the winter that makes the ground more conducive to mechanized maneuver warfare, and Ukrainian officials expressed routine interest in exploiting these weather conditions in winter 2022–2023.[7]” I was wondering at this last winter - what are the UA winter warfare capabilities? A winter breakout offensive once the ground freezes would be awesome. The RA likely struggles the most in the cold due to logistical strain so the opportunity could be there but there are definitely challenges. We assumed the offensive would pause with the weather but maybe the UA has other plans?

I have never gone from disliking to outright love so quickly in my entire life.

Just keeps giving. Seriously, we should do a podcast. You definitely won buddy. Hey, what do you think about climate change?

See what I mean…adorable.

So this is what you got? I teach “young warriors” and have led dozens in combat while you likely sat at home and yelled at the tv - you are no vet I can tell that from your first post. Let’s stop the BS and call this what it really is - political platforming. Your position is not all that difficult to read, pretty transparent. Basically everything the current US presidential administration is doing is “wrong”. “Right” is whatever “our guy would do as opposite”. So President Biden is pursuing a deliberate incremental strategy to compress Russia, so your position is “more firepower” and “hard staring”. Or you jump on the “this war is stupid, we must negotiate”. Basically anything President Biden is doing is “wrong” and anything they are not doing is “right”. That has been the sum total of your contributions to this entire discussing since you showed up (oh, and some bizarre social commentary on women and social justice for good measure). That is it. One long “very stable strategic genius” diatribe anchored on a single viewpoint. If President Biden declared the US was going to “end this thing in 4 weeks” you would be here yelling that “this was the dumbest thing ever” and probably quote my points as why. You know it is ok. You are just another in a very long line of segments of the population that surrender their own agency in the face of uncertainty. We invented the Church which has lasted over 2000 years on exactly that principle. Agency and independent thought is to embrace uncertainty and most people really don’t want to do this, it is scary. Problem is you wandered onto the wrong forum. This place has been home to a lot of independent thought since before this war started. We have pursued the facts as we can find them and then conduct collective analysis and synthesis to try and establish a clear picture of what is happening. No one here has surrendered independent thought to a political position. We all have opinions, I for one think President Biden’s administration has done very well in managing this crisis. Not perfect but considering we are well off the strategic map here, they have done as well as reasonably possible. I am not an American, I do not participate in your political process so I do not share your baggage. I cannot fix you or even try to change your mind, you clearly have it all figured out. But you are not going to find friends here. Your missionary work on this forum is a waste of time. But it is ok. With this last, I promote you to Hot Thread “crazy guy”. It is a honorary position that has been vacant since John Kettler left us (rest in peace John). You can go on and on but we all know it is for entertainment purposes only. I am even going to un-ignore you because I am going to be first to rub your unruly mop of hair and just smile at your incorrigible rapscallion ways. Your are a stump thumping looney kevinkin, but you are our looney. Try not to get banned because then we will have to find another.

I am a veteran of two wars and have likely forgotten more about war and warfare than you based on your contributions to this thread. I see that you are taking a “self-imposed” vacation and will come back “when proven right”. Well problem with that is that you have never really taken a clear position on anything. At one moment you talk about “diplomacy and negotiation” the next “4 weeks to victory”. You have not demonstrated any real research or citations in your contributions nor any level of recognizable expertise on the subject matter. My, and other attempts, to explain are “too complicated” so you dismiss them. Then when I sit down and actually try to unpack your position and why your assumptions are flawed, I get insults and name calling. No facts. No counter analysis. Just “be quiet”. So when you come back (and I am sure you will), what exactly constitutes you “being proven right”? Have the courage to take a position and clearly define it and stop these politically motivated drive-bys. The way you have ambiguously framed your position does not allow for you to be wrong. If the war is still going on you can declare “I told you we should have negotiated/stated/invaded”. If the war ends, you can claim it is because the US finally did whatever you were saying all along. So I am calling you out. Clearly give us three strategic “must dos” in order for this war to end. Clear and measurable strategic actions the US and West must carry out in your deeply informed opinion. Don’t weasel around it or try to build in wiggle room. Here let me show you how it is done: 1. Commitment to win the war. The US/West must continue to own the escalation ladder in this war. They must continue steady, predictable and clear pressure on Russia through programmed support to Ukraine. This commitment must be unambiguous and apolitical, we are in it until this is done. No back doors or side deals. No renormalization until Russia is out of Ukraine completely. This is a slow steady path with no sudden movement as we thread a needle between uncontrolled escalation and stagnation/freezing conflict. This is a long war of attrition and must be navigated as one…it will go slow until the RA collapses militarily or there is a major political shift in Russia. Either way direct confrontation between US/West must be avoided at all costs - no hard fast win. Further, victory must be clear and unambiguous as well. No soft-wins for Russia just to end this. Russian defeat must be clear. 2. Commitment to win post-war. Reconstruction and post conflict defence and security mechanisms are a must. No grey areas or open clauses. We commit to rebuild Ukraine and pull it into a real security alliance that will guarantee long term security and investment. 3. Engineer Russian negotiations with its own defeat. Russia cannot become a failed state, yet it requires regime change. That is very tricky to manage at the best of times. A path to renormalization must be developed but it cannot ignore the egregious warcrimes and violations Russia has committed. This will lead Russia out of being pulled entirely into a Chinese power sphere and provide some multipolar power manoeuvre room. There you go. I am on record with my position and advice. Now if the US goes in hard next week and Russia withdraws with its tail between its legs I will be proven wrong. If we can suddenly negotiate an end to this war that makes everyone happy, I was also wrong. So what have you got?

I think you missed the main thrust of my entire post. Fantasy frameworks happen all the time. Putin did it in Ukraine and rational people in the West did it for COVID. In both cases reality did not care on wit when it came crashing on either. People invent all sorts of frameworks is my central point. Religion is one of the biggest ever invented. People may laugh at you in one room but in the one down the hall they will celebrate you, which one do people tend to stay in?

I have largely ignored you because it is pretty clear that you are not in fact interested in actually learning anything on this forum. However, in reality this is an honest question that some lurkers may also be asking. Why can’t the US, or NATO or an alliance in between “win this war in 4 weeks and just end this brutal war?” Don’t need an essay really: - Put the nuclear escalation to the side for arguments sake but we will come back to it. - A US direct incursion into Ukraine or this war is going to drive a massive amount of support into Putin’s arms, to the point he might actually get full mobilization support. A fully mobilized and galvanized Russia is a scary beast particularly since they will likely be heavily backed by both China and Iran as they will see the entire expansion of the war as a chance to defeat the US by proxy. So now the US has four weeks to push Russia out of Ukraine, could they do it? Probably? Would it end the war…no way. It would likely expand it as Russia gears up for a serious fight because now it has reason to have one. The totality of your position is that you are in fact pointing madly at a “limited war” but your solution is “more limited war”…oh wait maybe you are not talking about a limited war. - ok, to defeat Russia, truly defeat them, it means not simply driving them out of Ukraine. It means total defeat of Russia as a nation. The destruction of Russian Will to fight. This means going into Russia itself and removing its ability to generate that Will. So we are talking invasion, defeat in detail and occupation…of Russia. The military force the US would need to do that is well outside the US military current envelope, we are talking millions of troops. Let’s pretend Russia can be occupied, it is a big country (look at a map). You now need to hold it until you can install a friendly government…and remember you brought up total war. So the US and most of NATO would now need conscription to sustain a force that large…you feeling strong? - “But we will stop at the border”, sure and Russia will now simply reload and incite as much violence and discontent in Ukraine…now filled with US troops. What possible negotiated end-state is there where Russia can still function while massing for WW3? No, you cannot give Russia time to reload…that would be really dumb. So now you would need to contain Russia…in the 21st century…with China on one of its borders…and Iran. That is a massive problem. The state sponsored terrorism issues alone will be intense. Again, this is limited measures that won’t “end” anything but risk a lot worse. - Back to occupation, the risk of a resistance from hell is incredibly high. See the many lengthy posts on that issue. Very angry and well supported by various powers an occupied Russia could make Iraq look like a weekend outing. Oh wait, there is more, - Russia might fly apart while you are trying to occupy it. Not known for its shining unity, occupation could see Russia itself fly apart and the the US is trying to manage a civil war…and a possible insurgency. - Ok, now the obvious one…WMDs. Let’s pretend that Russia won’t use them on good old “Merican” boys as they counter attack into Ukraine and encroach on the Russian border. They sure as hell will if the US invades Russian soil, which we have to now. And even if they don’t there is no way in this universe we can guarantee we can secure them all. Now we may have lose WMDs of many flavours lose in this mess. To put it more simply and in words with as few syllables as I can: To defeat Russia and end this war in 4 weeks the US would need to break Russia. To break Russia is to engage in a major war, possibly global. It would break the UN, it would shatter NATO because I can think of at least a dozen nations that would get off that train quickly. Economically it would break the system as we are talking markets staring down the barrel of nuclear Armageddon. Anything short of that is just more limited war with even slimmer margins than we are already on. So when you declare that “the US could end this thing in 4 weeks” all you are doing is loudly announcing just how much you do not understand. If you honestly want to learn, maybe stop typing and start reading more.

In my opinion Putin made the same fatal error many in the US (and this board, at times) are making: seeing and hearing only what they want to, not what is actually there. Putin grossly oversimplified the problem of a major invasion of Ukraine. He and his cronies built a framework of weak and dangerous assumptions, willed them into facts, and refused to consider any facts that did not fit the house of certainty they had constructed. Problem is we are seeing the same weakness in strategic thinking/ understanding within our own populations and some political players are simply exploiting that. The real danger is when that flawed framework hits reality, which does not care about human fictions no matter how hard we may believe them. We saw it during COVID, we see it in Ukraine - flawed strategy colliding with reality.

Fully concur on this point. In fact the more dangerous course of action was to simply ink blot out from areas Russia already controlled. Use a combination of hybrid forces and subversive warfare to just start taking bites in small escalations. We likely would have talked ourselves out of doing much as long as there was deniability. Small steady pushes instead of a big grand show was a far better strategy. But Putin was clearly looking for a grand gesture of Russian dominance and went for the bold hairy chested gesture…whoops. Now we are talking about significantly larger footprints in the Baltics, and if Ukraine does get into NATO it will be ridiculously armed with NATO troops and formations. By screwing this up so badly Putin just gave permission for NATO to expand dramatically into Eastern Europe.