kevinkin

Yes, retaining those borders is well huge. But "winning the peace" will require some skill at the table. Russia will still have those damned WMDs to muddy the waters.

Milley did say this today which I missed earlier: “Sooner or later, this is going to have to get to a negotiating table at some point in order to bring this to a conclusion, and that will have to happen when the end state, which is a free, sovereign, independent Ukraine with its territory intact, is met,” he said. “When that day comes, then people will sit down and negotiate an end to this.”

Just checked what I heard on TV. https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3656296-milley-its-very-possible-for-ukrainians-to-run-operationallevel-offensive-operation.html Milley is talking tactical and operational UA offensives, not strategic. He said: “I do think it's very, very possible for the Ukrainians to run a significant tactical or even operational-level offensive operation to liberate as much Ukrainian territory as possible,” the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff said. But: “From a military standpoint, I still maintain that for this year, it would be very, very difficult to militarily eject the Russian forces from every inch of Russian-occupied Ukraine. That doesn't mean it can't happen doesn't mean it won't happen, but it will be very, very difficult,” Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Army General Mark A. Milley said following the Ukraine Defense Contact Group meeting in Germany on Friday, an Ukrinform correspondent reports. No end in sight unless he is just trying to obfuscate while everything unfolds in 2023.

https://news.yahoo.com/putin-secret-attack-plan-ukrainian-094858834.html Will Russian feel compelled to attack before all the new NATO equipment and training are in place? Once in place, would the UA be better off remaining defensive and waiting to counterattack using interior lines? Who needs to attack more? Who is better off on the defensive? Right now, Russian needs to attack from a political POV more than Ukraine. But with their ill trained army, they are better off staying on the defensive. I guess this is good for Ukraine. NATO can't let shear numbers win and up the ante on Russian logistics while they train and equip.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/01/19/inside-urgent-push-arm-ukraine-spring-offensive/?utm_campaign=dfn-ebb&utm_medium=email&utm_source=sailthru&SToverlay=2002c2d9-c344-4bbb-8610-e5794efcfa7d Outside the paywall Post article dated today. No too much other that this: “The impetus for the Patriots . . . a lot of that was driven by current events,” the defense official said, as was “the impetus on getting a lot more infantry fighting vehicles, tanks, whatever capability could enable the Ukrainians to break the World War I, trench-warfare dynamic going on right now and enable them to claw back.” Austin’s goal, reflecting the long months of Pentagon study that now had increasing urgency, was to train entire battalions of Ukrainian troops in “combined arms maneuver”— battle tactics that utilize coordinated advances of armored vehicles, artillery and infantry. The need for that type of maneuver — emphasizing smart tactics and quality of weaponry over quantity — led to what Kahl called the “shift” in approach. Although U.S. and European militaries had long been training Ukrainian soldiers in small batches on how to operate some air defenses and artillery, by December the Pentagon had become convinced that to keep the Russians from advancing, and for Kyiv to mount new offensive operations, the Ukrainians needed to learn how to maneuver in large, combined units. The tactics were tailor-made for the expansive, Kansas-like plains and farmland spread across Donbas. But there was little point in the expanded combat training without providing the weapons — especially tanks and armored vehicles — that the Pentagon’s own study said were necessary for success on the battlefield. Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was hearing the same thing from his Ukrainian counterpart, Gen. Valery Zaluzhny. So was Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security adviser, from Andriy Yermak, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s chief of staff. The plan for training and new armored vehicles moved into high gear. Here come the shirts from the main office with their way of conducting things. Is this a complete move away from light infantry formations something the UA knows well? Can't train without the weapons and can't have the weapons without the training - just the situation to cause traditional delays in the DoD. Meanwhile Ukraine bleeds and can't strike in ways to cause the Russian people a world of hurt.

https://www.the-sun.com/news/7175119/russian-intelligence-ship-hawaii-coast-monitored-us-coast-guard/ Nothing out of the ordinary. But reminds me of the morning we saw a Russian trawler off the coast of Sandy Hook near Earle NWS at day break. This was before the 200 mile fishing limit was enacted in 1976. It's almost a certainty that the ship was fishing for intel, not food for the masses back home.

Normally a feint would have to appear credible in appearance. I mean in the weight of the operation and weapons deployed. But in the case of the RA in 2023, that's not going to be the case. They are so gun shy that any move against them will look like Water Payton deeking the jock strap off Putin. (If he even needs one) Maybe the newer NATO equipment might serve as an initial distraction in the overall maneuver. Not to say they will not be involved in heavy fighting down the line. Normally you might hold off and concentrate the new stuff for a hammer blow. New and used equipment might be married together into even more effective light mech formations.

I wonder which Strykers? Just specialized ones or a large continent of general purpose IFVs? I thought the Brads were it for now. But I see the US Army is: https://www.army.mil/article/246274/army_announces_divestiture_of_the_stryker_mobile_gun_system#:~:text=WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Army,dated cannon and automatic loader.

Moderating and the only chance as well. I don't think the writer discounts Ukraine's desire at all. Or the US's. How could he? He is pointing out that good intentioned desires might not deliver exactly the outcome everyone wants all the time. But he does not understand the west has to get this right. Falling short in Afghanistan and Iraq is one thing, but he is overly pessimistic on Ukraine. I am getting a sense, in a non-statistical way, that his type of sediments are growing among those who don't understand what's at stake or simply don't give a damn and tire of the images. Fortunately, those who understand are starting to pick up the pace of support - AFVs etc.. These foreign policy geeks hate to have their hands tied without having any number of options. They hate it when the waters are clear and choices binary. There is a reason the State Dept. is referred to as Foggy Bottom - it's not only the location.

Not sure how much weight/attention I would pay to any articles penned by Brandon J Weichert ? Just one guy's opinion and opinions are cheap - lives are not. He is noting that the US has wanted complete and clean solutions in recent history damaging the county's interests globally by saying in conflict too long. As been discussed already here, Russia has lost this war even if they hold Donbas and Crimea. We would love to see MORE. It's at our fingertips. We can smell it. But that may require direct western involvement on the ground or in the air i.e. taking the war into the Russia itself. And if we go down that road what a mess. Look, the man is nuts to think NATO will dissolve if the war goes south. It will end way before that. I don't like to discount every opinion just because it's at odds with mine. The writer's opinion paints the walls in Washington, or at least the molding.

The article is way to dire at the end: https://asiatimes.com/2023/01/americas-strategy-of-failure-comes-to-ukraine/ But, At the precise moment that the Americans had achieved their desired goal, though, Washington doubled down and encouraged the Ukrainians to shift their objective from one of realistic territorial defense to an insane attempt to restore Ukrainian control completely over both eastern Ukraine and the heavily fortified Crimean Peninsula. Only time will time if it was insane to think all things Russian could be destroyed via a proxy war. Pretty soon the term quagmire is going to surface. This is going to be one heck of a campaigning season if both sides marshal everything this winter. Maybe one last die roll. Winner take all.

This is the theme of the week: Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda said after visiting Berlin: “I strongly believe that Chancellor Scholz will decide on this and I was a witness of a very important break point or turning point in the thinking or mentality of Germany.” Western rhetoric in support of Ukraine has rarely been as strident. The next few days will show whether the pledges of military aid match that resolve. At the operational level I called it "fish or cut bait". We have patience but don't have to live through the nightmare. So let's ban zombie apocalypse books for a year and get on with it. https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/18/politics/biden-ukraine-new-tipping-point/index.html

This is the theme of the week: Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda said after visiting Berlin: “I strongly believe that Chancellor Scholz will decide on this and I was a witness of a very important break point or turning point in the thinking or mentality of Germany.” Western rhetoric in support of Ukraine has rarely been as strident. The next few days will show whether the pledges of military aid match that resolve. At the operational level I called it "fish or cut bait". We have patience but don't have to live through the nightmare. So let's ban zombie apocalypse books for a year and get on with it. https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/18/politics/biden-ukraine-new-tipping-point/index.html

That describes Hutier tactics in WW1 against the dug-in allies. However, Germany lacked the mobility to exploit where those tactics worked. So the question becomes: what do you follow up your infiltrating groups with? Not concentrations of armor since they are too easy to find, fix and destroy. But the armor can be used to strengthen the follow-on units adding an element of shock action to Hutier formations. A one - two punch. Holding ground will indeed be difficult. RA conscripts might be used to absorb and harass the light Hutier units, while "better" RA formations wait to counterattack. To hold ground, the operational depth of the defense will have to be disrupted long enough to allow the formation of new lines. Ideally, you would break clear and really screw with the RA rear areas. This sounds old fashioned, and it is. But at some point, large sectors of RA front will have to disintegrate either materially or morally. Sniping at supply dumps is part of the overall picture, but eventually the UA will have to abandon the patience they deserve and fish or cut bait. One key to good generalship is the ability to concentrate your forces in time and space long enough to gain your objectives while limiting their exposure to enemy action. The jury is still out on how that will achieved in 2023 given the all seeing eye on ISR.

Another essay that taps the breaks on hell bent for glory enthusiasm entering 2023. https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-russia-war-nato-eu-us-alliance-solidarity/ At the same time, however, the British and U.S. governments have also made it clear that they will not give Ukraine all the weapons it wants or directly enter the conflict by imposing a no-fly zone or deploying troops. That reluctance reflects an obvious divergence of interests between the West’s and Kyiv’s. But if Western stakes were indeed as dire as Ukraine’s, if the future of the world order hung on the course of this conflict and our democracy was at stake along with Ukraine’s, then why wouldn’t NATO be willing to join the fight for it? Crucially, this rhetoric-policy gap could also raise excessive Ukrainian expectations of support. But those insisting the West should give Ukraine whatever it wants ignore that what Ukraine wants partly depends on what the West will give them — or at least what it says it will. And claims of fully aligned interests may fuel Ukrainian dreams of total victory that are probably untenable and only conducive to prolonging war. These guys are from Cato, so take their opinions as such. To say not all interests align, goes without saying. They just don't see this war as a fight on the fields of Armageddon. They can't get past the WMD threat. "Let's take evil, if we can retain good." However, if some in leadership do believe and act as though this is a war of biblical proportions, where is the no-fly? Where are NATO's boots and tracks? There does seems to be a rhetoric-policy gap which Putin probably sees as a sign of weakness or least least a path to use for survival.

Oh my, did all those people have to suffer and die if that's what a victory means to them now? Changing the rules as you go along will not bring them back. Winning was suppose to be all of Ukraine, not just the annexed areas.

Wait a darn second, I thought the RA was deploying robots in the form of conscripts already: https://www.newsweek.com/russia-marker-combat-robot-ukraine-1773878 -- But proofing European security against Russian aggression must include more than just a narrow focus on military hardware: equally pivotal is the improvement and expansion of the continent's critical transport infrastructure. European policymakers have been aware of this need since at least 2017, when a briefing on the need for better military mobility across Europe stated that "European infrastructure that enables connectivity and ensures a rapid response in case of a crisis is a prerequisite" for "a strong and united Europe can protect our citizens against threats internal and external." Often times it "goes without saying". But then nothing is ever said. Appears to be an important strategic program with all sorts of benefits within the EU. https://euobserver.com/opinion/156604 -- Good news on gains in operational arena. Watch for the 47th Assault Brigade: In short, combined-arms teams mixing tanks and fighting vehicles with NATO-type guns and missiles can strike at enemy armor three different ways from around 4,000 yards. That’s a thousand yards farther than a Russian T-72 tank can fire anti-tank shells from its 125-millimeter 2A46 main gun. Mark Hertling, a retired U.S. Army general who early in his career commanded a Bradley crew, stressed the benefits of this range mismatch. The M-2 and other new vehicle types Ukraine is getting from its NATO allies “will allow Ukraine's emerging combined-arms teams to conduct high-tempo maneuver,” Hertling tweeted. -- Appears to be a growing urgency within NATO. But this is a downer. https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/repaired-german-leopard-tanks-for-ukraine-ready-in-2024-at-earliest-armsmaker-101673768856340.html

The armor to UA discussion is interesting operationally. In the past you would want to concentrate mobile firepower at a few key points and not disperse your armor. Today's battlefield continues the trend toward dispersal. So I am not sure what the UA leadership plans to do with packets of armor being delivered. I think they would hold back the best and most uniform types for decisive actions. The early on stuff being used for training I suppose. The temptation is to send packets of armor all over the battlefield to shore up defenses and stiffen local counter attacks. Perhaps the UA's operational thinkers and planning something new. Maybe you can send them to the front for low risk seasoning and concentrate for a hammer blow at a latter date. Late summer.

Nothing large and costly. Even new munitions take the will and time to do so. See below. Ask an engineer once the political class (and in some cases their tax payers) give projects an OK to move forward. Some replacement components might make it to the battlefield new. Otherwise, big ticket items will have to supply the peace effort and not the war effort.

"Holier-than-thou: how the Alpine State fermented as the World passed them by" NY Times best seller January 2024. Anyway: Stanger things can happen. The Giants just beat the 13-4 Vikes on the road for their first payoff win in 11 years. https://www.jpost.com/international/article-728496

I wonder what "reminders" the Swiss can drop on the desk of some brave journalist? Might just involve a few short hairs on lot of big wigs.

Then just keep the capabilities on the ground and you don't have to find pilots. There is a large portion of a population who don't have the where with all to fly at all or even meet the physical requirements. Not to mention the maintenance needed on aircraft and the seemly offensive nature (attacking into Russian proper) that a world class multi-role fighter would bring to the table.

So in the near future most of NATO donates AFVs and Germany ops out - where does that leave Germany? They are in the bull's eye anyway if those tacs go off since a major threshold would have been breeched and would potentially spread across Europe. Withholding equipment will not change the strategic picture and begs the question whether Germany's leaders are beholden to Putin. I don't think they are. But the optics are bad.

Russians bomb Soledar "anyway": https://www.newsweek.com/russia-bombs-soledar-91-times-since-wagner-group-liberation-claim-ukraine-says-1773436 May be the civil war starts here? Just can't push all your chips into the pot when they differ in currency. The game get a little confusing. https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230113-logistical-challenge-looms-for-ukraine-over-promised-tanks Another source talks about the pace of support: https://www.npr.org/2023/01/13/1148970555/armored-vehicle-pledge-to-ukraine-marks-a-change-in-the-war-with-russia Major powers supporting Ukraine could have decided that it is in their interest to allow Ukraine to move faster because the longer war goes, the more weapons will be required. So maybe time is a factor now, not only unpredictability of Russia.

https://news.yahoo.com/russia-tycoons-fear-tightening-kremlin-080014614.html Let's see if this is true and to what degree. Peal away the elites and all P has left is his chef, salt and sadly nukes. some of Russia’s richest now worry they could see their holdings seized by rivals seen as more loyal or even nationalized, according to people familiar with their thinking. The growing fears highlight how the invasion, which the Kremlin initially hoped would deliver a lightning victory, has become a campaign without end that’s transforming all aspects of Russian society irreversibly. The lifestyle that came to be known as ‘dividend aristocrats’ – tycoons who lived richly in recent years on huge profits from their companies – is gone forever, top executives said. The state will take whatever it thinks it needs for the war effort, said a longtime business lobbyist. If in the past, tycoons could work the phones and their contacts in government to protect their interests, those tools now don’t work, he said.