LongLeftFlank

I did some quick research on Google, and found out Boris Johnson is way ahead of us.😄

Maybe BoJo should /sarc embrace the whole Global Criminal Mastermind shtick to fuel his political comeback.  Comedians seem to be playing well in politix these days, after all 🤡
One day leading black hooded SAS speedboat commandos to hit the nuke plant, the next 'sploding the Nordstream pipeline from the deck of his luxury yacht.
...Maybe post some TikToks while stroking a Persian cat.

In 2008, the doors of NATO were opened for Ukraine. In 2014, there was a coup. They started persecuting those who did not accept the coup, and it was indeed a coup. They created a threat to Crimea, which we had to take under our protection. They launched a war in Donbas in 2014 with the use of aircraft and artillery against civilians. This is when it all started. There's a video of aircraft attacking Donetsk from above. They launched a large-scale military operation, then another one. When they failed, they started to prepare the next one. All this against the background of military development of this territory and opening of NATO's.  -- V.V. Putin
*****
It was Gimli the dwarf who broke in suddenly. 'The words of this wizard stand on their heads,' he growled, gripping the handle of his axe. 'In the language of Orthanc help means ruin and saving means slaying, that is plain. But we do not come here to beg.'

The_Capt's line about the collision of certainties comes to mind. Just because it is total bleep doesn't mean they don't believe it. It is probably worth mentioning that the textbooks say that because some pet pseudo historian that Putin likes wrote them. It would fascinating to compare what they say now to what they said in 1985.

https://n.opnxng.com/kamilkazani/status/1756091654262477152#m

In 2008, the doors of NATO were opened for Ukraine. In 2014, there was a coup. They started persecuting those who did not accept the coup, and it was indeed a coup. They created a threat to Crimea, which we had to take under our protection. They launched a war in Donbas in 2014 with the use of aircraft and artillery against civilians. This is when it all started. There's a video of aircraft attacking Donetsk from above. They launched a large-scale military operation, then another one. When they failed, they started to prepare the next one. All this against the background of military development of this territory and opening of NATO's.  -- V.V. Putin
*****
It was Gimli the dwarf who broke in suddenly. 'The words of this wizard stand on their heads,' he growled, gripping the handle of his axe. 'In the language of Orthanc help means ruin and saving means slaying, that is plain. But we do not come here to beg.'

In 2008, the doors of NATO were opened for Ukraine. In 2014, there was a coup. They started persecuting those who did not accept the coup, and it was indeed a coup. They created a threat to Crimea, which we had to take under our protection. They launched a war in Donbas in 2014 with the use of aircraft and artillery against civilians. This is when it all started. There's a video of aircraft attacking Donetsk from above. They launched a large-scale military operation, then another one. When they failed, they started to prepare the next one. All this against the background of military development of this territory and opening of NATO's.  -- V.V. Putin
*****
It was Gimli the dwarf who broke in suddenly. 'The words of this wizard stand on their heads,' he growled, gripping the handle of his axe. 'In the language of Orthanc help means ruin and saving means slaying, that is plain. But we do not come here to beg.'

In 2008, the doors of NATO were opened for Ukraine. In 2014, there was a coup. They started persecuting those who did not accept the coup, and it was indeed a coup. They created a threat to Crimea, which we had to take under our protection. They launched a war in Donbas in 2014 with the use of aircraft and artillery against civilians. This is when it all started. There's a video of aircraft attacking Donetsk from above. They launched a large-scale military operation, then another one. When they failed, they started to prepare the next one. All this against the background of military development of this territory and opening of NATO's.  -- V.V. Putin
*****
It was Gimli the dwarf who broke in suddenly. 'The words of this wizard stand on their heads,' he growled, gripping the handle of his axe. 'In the language of Orthanc help means ruin and saving means slaying, that is plain. But we do not come here to beg.'

In 2008, the doors of NATO were opened for Ukraine. In 2014, there was a coup. They started persecuting those who did not accept the coup, and it was indeed a coup. They created a threat to Crimea, which we had to take under our protection. They launched a war in Donbas in 2014 with the use of aircraft and artillery against civilians. This is when it all started. There's a video of aircraft attacking Donetsk from above. They launched a large-scale military operation, then another one. When they failed, they started to prepare the next one. All this against the background of military development of this territory and opening of NATO's.  -- V.V. Putin
*****
It was Gimli the dwarf who broke in suddenly. 'The words of this wizard stand on their heads,' he growled, gripping the handle of his axe. 'In the language of Orthanc help means ruin and saving means slaying, that is plain. But we do not come here to beg.'

I'm trying to avoid talking about "that guy", but some of these twitter memes related to the interview are hilarious.
For the record I did not watch it, I don't want to spoil the Super Bowl weekend with that trash.
 

To be fair, I do not know how much of this defense was up to him and how much it came politically "hold at all costs". Same with the counteroffensive which I think after week 2 should/would have been called off but I am 100% certain this was politically not seen as an option.
As for Bakhmut there are many reasons why street fighting evened the playing field between wagner convict mobs and defenders. Personally I have never seen so many dead defenders in russian channels than during the city fighting, especially including Soledar and afterwards, even if I 'account' for this being the biggest battle of the war, towards the end I would say it was 1:1 dead for both sides (not overall)
Trying to supply this nightmare over a road that several times fell into enemy hands and caused dozens of vehicles to be picked off didnt help. Maybe associating him with this is wrong, as it may have been a political decision to hold but I dont see how this grinder and his repuation in any way makes him a better candidate to solve the issues under shell shortage, russian ewar, fortifications/minefields, endless russian assaults and lack of vehicles/...
We will see.

Is that in fact what happened? (Tatarigami seems to agree with you, btw, but he wasn't there either. And his primary gripe AIUI seems to be that Bakhmut should have been ceded about a month earlier once it encountered diminishing returns).
...or were there now and then some positions that simply had to be retaken? and the guys who got shot up doing that are unhappy.

 
Hurtgenwald has been mentioned before, but the sad travails of the 'Bloody Bucket' don't extrapolate to the 'average' GI experience in NWE.

Amateur historian chiming in, so take it for what it's worth: yes with a but.
I'd suggest that there are two kinds of war, the second of which is relatively uncommon. I'd distinguish them based on what the victor gets at the end of the war.
The first kind of war is a war-for-things. The aggressor wants to take some things (which can be abstract things) from the defender. The victor gets to keep the things. For example, when the United States fought Mexico in the 1840s, that was a war for things. The victor kept Texas and California. Or the Roman conquest of Gaul: Caesar plundered everything that was not nailed down, and functionally annexed modern France to Roman rule. These are pretty common, and World War II was, from one side, a war for things: Germany wanted Lebensraum, Japan wanted the rich resources of the indo-pacific region (particularly oil). Note that I'm defining wars-for-things in terms of the spoils, not the rhetoric that surrounds the spoils. I'd note that modern war is so mind bogglingly destructive that rational actors have concluded that protracted war-for-things is a suckers game. There are no things you can get that are worth the destruction on the things you want!
The second kind, which is relatively rare, is a war-for-rules. The aggressor wants to impose (or maintain) a particular rule set on a collection of polities. The ancient examples of this would be Roman expansion in Italy (which ended with the defeated state bound into a treaty structure rather than obliterated) and the inter-Polis wars in Greece (which were by and large prestige competitions). The victor incorporates the defeated party into a particular rule-set. The objective is not to take things away from the defeated party.
We've also seen asymmetric combinations of the two. For example, Gulf War I. Iraq was fighting a war-for-things against Kuwait, but the Coalition was fighting a war-for-rules against Iraq (we did not annex Iraq at the end of the war, we said, "no annexing neighbors, bad Iraq").
So the war in Ukraine is a combination of these two. Russia is fighting a war-for-things against Ukraine. They are attempting to take the whole of Ukraine's territory, and stealing grain and people. Simultaneously, Russia is fighting a war-for-rules against the Status-quo Coalition. The rule change they're attempting to effect is a return to the "annexing-neighbors-is-ok" rule set that preceded WW2. Ukraine is fighting an existential war-for-things against Russia, and wins if they exist as an independent state at the end of the fighting. The Status-quo Coalition is fighting an existential war against Russia as well: the absolute lynchpin of the status quo is that annexing neighbors is not OK. If that rule falters, it will blow up the international order and allow a renegotiation of lots of the status quo by actors not enamored of the status quo (the Baltics, Taiwan, Africa, the Middle East, &c.). Victory of the Status-quo Coalition is deterrent: showing everyone that attempting to violate the international rule set is *just not worth it*.

Well, I can't claim to be an expert in military history, world or any one nation's, or anyone's generals, but I do have the sense wars 'won' through exhaustion, tend to start up again as soon as one side or the other decides it is no longer exhausted. In the era of mobilized nation states, a ceasefire negotiated peace tends to leave the issues that caused the war in the first place unresolved. On the other hand, wars in which one side is utterly devastated, occupied and dictated a new form of government, those wars tend to be 'over,' the issues causing them being permanently removed.
So, if current fighting in Ukraine stops with a cease fire, possibly a negotiated 'peace,' show of hands, who here thinks that's the end of it, IF, what's left of Ukraine isn't brought into NATO and protected by article 5 before Russia reconstitutes? 
Do diametrically opposed political ideologies typically peacefully coexist for centuries, especially if they share a border? Is it worth differentiating between great power wars, minor power wars, minor power participation in great power wars and wars followed by a century or more in which the entire world geopolitical and technological situation changed?
Did the Allies really win WWI if they had to fight Germany/Axis in a much more destructive war 20 years later?
If NATO service chiefs are saying they need to be ready to fight Russia in 3-6 years, did the west really win the Cold War? Can a Cold War really be in the same conversation with a shooting war? Is deterrence the same as war? Is economic collapse without war the same as in a war?
I don't know but would guess the experts on any major power's national military history and past Generals are people having spent their professional lives (30+ years) making a career of it, in or out of uniform.
Again, I am no expert. I am interested in other's thoughts on above in relation to Ukraine.

Found a transcript for the Putin-Tucker interview:
https://www.happyscribe.com/public/the-tucker-carlson-podcast/vladimir-putin-ad58097b-f616-47d8-8bb8-1cbfe9aba16c
Among the contents was this juicy nugget:
Putin - "Before World War II, Poland collaborated with Hitler, and although it did not yield to Hitler's demands, it still participated in the petitioning of Czechoslovakia together with Hitler, as the Poles had not given the Danzig corridor to Germany and went too far, pushing Hitler to start World War II by attacking them. Why was it Poland against whom war started on first September, 1939? Poland turned out to be uncompromising, and Hitler had nothing to do but start implementing his plans with Poland."

Any chance there’s a transcript? I can’t even sit down and watch a GOOD two hour movie in one sitting these days, let alone a conversation between two of the most detestable living humans in the entire world.

I'm troubled by this, and here is why....
As an ordinary (non-professional class) Ukrainian man under 35, choosing between:
1. your patriotic duty to enlist as an frontline combat soldier in an increasingly (?) lethal conflict of unknown duration and
2. fleeing to the EU (or elsewhere), where you might start near bottom economically but keep your life and limbs, and over time may well live better than you would back in even a post-ceasefire Ukrainian armed camp / 'okrajina' ( borderlands) -- also, your more patriotic relatives will forgive you in time if you send money home.
... how many are choosing 'b' these days?
For 1916 poilus, landser and Tommies, there was no realistic 'b'.
Tatarigami....
 
 

I'm troubled by this, and here is why....
As an ordinary (non-professional class) Ukrainian man under 35, choosing between:
1. your patriotic duty to enlist as an frontline combat soldier in an increasingly (?) lethal conflict of unknown duration and
2. fleeing to the EU (or elsewhere), where you might start near bottom economically but keep your life and limbs, and over time may well live better than you would back in even a post-ceasefire Ukrainian armed camp / 'okrajina' ( borderlands) -- also, your more patriotic relatives will forgive you in time if you send money home.
... how many are choosing 'b' these days?
For 1916 poilus, landser and Tommies, there was no realistic 'b'.
Tatarigami....
 
 

I'm troubled by this, and here is why....
As an ordinary (non-professional class) Ukrainian man under 35, choosing between:
1. your patriotic duty to enlist as an frontline combat soldier in an increasingly (?) lethal conflict of unknown duration and
2. fleeing to the EU (or elsewhere), where you might start near bottom economically but keep your life and limbs, and over time may well live better than you would back in even a post-ceasefire Ukrainian armed camp / 'okrajina' ( borderlands) -- also, your more patriotic relatives will forgive you in time if you send money home.
... how many are choosing 'b' these days?
For 1916 poilus, landser and Tommies, there was no realistic 'b'.
Tatarigami....
 
 

I am reminded of the American Civil War, the criticisms of General Grant (also called a butcher incidentally) and General McClellan. The Army of the Potomac needed multiple commanders cycled in until victory.

That is a very good analogy.  McClellan was a brilliant force generation general.  He built a modern army out of a tiny start up.  That was an enormous task with many critical systems essentially beginning from nothing - logistics, C4ISR, training and doctrine.  He was in fact exactly what the Union needed at the beginning of the war.  But when it came time to fight, he was sub par and dangerous.  The political level had to replace him and find the right general for the right time: Grant.
Grant would have been a disaster in the first half of the war.  He would have fought like Lee and likely broken the north.  Lee was arguably the wrong general for the South too.  Aggressive to a fault. Slavish adherence to the offensive.  He took an incredibly motivated military and basically broke it without achieving victory.  Now a strong argument can be made that he knew he was up against the clock and was essentially trying to destroy the Union before they inevitably grew too strong but there are holes in this.  However, the Confederacy never solved for stuff like logistics or C4ISR over the same period - that is a major strategic shortfall.
Regardless, generals are very often terrible in a moment other than their own.  Most of the wartime generals of WW2 would have been horrible in small dirty wars.  Good generals in low intensity or peacetime often fail in wartime.  The trick is to put the right general in the chair at the right time. I do not know what the dynamic is with the UA but clearly the politically level has decided they need someone else for what comes next…we will have to see if they are right.

https://frontelligence.substack.com/p/on-the-brink-examining-ammo-shortages?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1565454&post_id=141397066&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=22ez99&utm_medium=email
"For several months, our team avoided discussing publicly internal issues to prevent potential Russian exploitation for propaganda. However, as these problems become increasingly visible and publicly acknowledged, we've chosen to openly discuss them."
"As Russian forces persist in pressuring Ukrainian troops in Avdiivka, it is becoming evident that the fall of Avdiivka is not a matter of if, but when. "
"The suggested plan for Ukraine in 2024 is to dig in and construct fortifications to minimize territorial and human losses. Unfortunately, this appears to be the only viable, albeit "forced," plan for Ukraine in 2024 unless substantial foreign aid is received and radical mobilization measures are implemented. While this plan is logical, it is not an ideal option."
"The problem of adequately staffing military units has existed for a long period. Most individuals have been engaged in combat for nearly two years, undergoing rare and non-systematic, short rotations that are insufficient for a full restoration of their physical and, more importantly, mental well-being."
"Although Ukraine urgently needs mobilization efforts to not only replace hundreds of thousands of individuals engaged in combat but also to establish new offensive capabilities, multiple problems are undermining these efforts that many media outlets and analysts prefer to avoid discussing."
"The reputation of certain Ukrainian generals has plummeted to the point where they are now likened to Russian counterparts known for deploying careless frontal assaults. This situation is exacerbated by the lack of accountability for such failures or misguided approaches."
"Our team has been informed about escalating tension between the Presidential office and the Commander-in-Chief, Valerii Zaluzhnyi, for over a year, although it has only recently come to public attention."
 

Armenians, and many many many other groups (too many to list) whose historical lands got 'solved' by war, progressively or all at once, might differ with that assessment.

This, all damn day: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00396338.2024.2309068

Armenians, and many many many other groups (too many to list) whose historical lands got 'solved' by war, progressively or all at once, might differ with that assessment.