kevinkin

Everything we are seeing coming from the West stems from the first principle of their post WW2 grand strategy: prevention of nuclear war and today the use of WMDs in general.
I think the assumption is not that large. While not saying so exactly, the writer is concluding that those Russians with the most to gain by regime change can not overcome those that have the most to lose in the foreseeable future. The writer sees the elites as resilient in the face of a horrible war. They have no choice and are unwilling to yield their life styes to better Russia a generation from now. With WMDs and mounting Ukrainian casualties, it can't surprise too many that Milley is tapping the breaks. The West has its elites too. And even at a million to one, a nuke would upset their morning latte and investment positions. God forbid. The West can't figure out how to live without the region's grain and oil. Asking its populace to risk Armageddon is not going to fly. So Ukraine bleeds head to toe, while elites in Russia are largely OK. And those with most to gain in Russia are being hunted down and killed off at the front. They are too busy staying alive to revolt. I don't even think a successful version of Claus von Stauffenberg would matter right now. Is Putin the puppet or the puppeteer of the elites? If the West is not going to cross a self imposed red line and provide more lethal assistance, a strategy of long term conventional military pressure causing Russian society to slowly evaporate might be the only option. Both sides think time is on their side which makes for more death and destruction. The West can't budge and neither can Ukraine. 
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/case-against-negotiations-russia
From the article above:
The West should help Ukraine liberate the areas that are strategically vital to its security and economic well-being and then build up the Ukrainian military and economy to a point that deters future Russian invasions. Moscow will continue to pursue means short of invasion to undermine pro-Western Ukrainian governments and coerce Ukrainians to surrender their independence. Success for Ukraine and the West lies in turning this hot war into a cold war on terms that leave Ukraine strong enough to survive and ultimately win it. 
Been thinking along those lines for a while now. Win it without any long term term threat to day to day life in the US and the rest of western democracies. This can be achieved with the precious commodity  - time. Milley knows more than anyone outside Ukraine its manpower. Maybe that's why he seems hesitant. He know Russia is screwed but wants to leave Ukraine intact and a give it a start on rebuilding. 
 

And one opinion of the overall situation:
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russian-federation/russias-missing-peacemakers
A pessimistic outlook since the "realists" are not on board nor are willing to rise up against the "conservatives". A large part of the article is quoted below. But you have to ask: elites, either conservative or realists, are still just a fraction of the country. Can the rest of Russia's society peel away enough realists to make difference? And would freezing the kinetic war buy them time? I am afraid not. That status quo will not last long enough. The two nations will go back it again after the West pays more attention to things like inflation, climate change, and who will make the payoffs. Careers and money will be made. How many cycles can go on? The West thinks time is on their side and will advocate stopping to rest and rearm Ukraine. Russian thinks the West will become distracted and time is on their side. Is a new iron curtain being establish far to the east of the old one. And how many years did that one last? Not that surprising that it's becoming a war of wills. Perseverance is key.
NO WAY OUT
In Putin’s Russia, there are many ways to define defeat. For its military leadership, defeat is an accumulation of battlefield setbacks; for the nationalist hard-liners, it entails allowing Ukraine’s “anti-Russia” state to exist at all; and for the security services, it means losing a major Russian confrontation with the West. For the regular elites, it means anything that threatens their personal and political security. But for almost all of Russia’s main constituencies, including the realists, withdrawing Russian forces to their pre-invasion lines of control would meet their criteria. Such a move would not only mark the end of Russian influence over Ukraine but also usher in a humiliating new geopolitical reality for Moscow.
On Russian telegram channels, many Russians have implied that the West would insist on dismissing Putin as a part of possible agreement. Many conservatives believe that if Putin fell as a result of such a deal, his regime would eventually be followed by a more pro-Western government that would betray Russia’s strategic interests and allow the country to physically disintegrate. To put it simply, the Russian elite sees the war against Ukraine not as expansionary but as a war for self-preservation.
Many Russians believe that the collapse of the state would be followed by international criminal investigations, perhaps even a war crimes tribunal. This prospect frightens even Russian elites not involved in the fighting.
Despite the different interests in play, technocrats, security operatives, conservative nationalists, and business leaders are largely united in believing that Russia cannot lose, lest it result in the collapse of the regime on which they all depend.
But Moscow is becoming deeply divided on how to accomplish that task.
The growing chorus of realists, by contrast, has come to see that Moscow does not have the resources that it needs to win. Instead, they favor an approach in which Russia avoids more defeat by freezing the war where it is, digging defensive lines around their current positions and using reinforcements to stop the Ukrainian advance.
There is no one in the Russian elite who will support a Russian withdrawal to the country’s February 24 positions. It is possible, however, that the realists could publicly push for freezing the conflict in a temporary agreement with the West (sealed with Ukraine). First, however, they would need to overcome the radical hawks, who are ready to fight in Ukraine until the bitter end and who remain dominant in domestic political discourse. To do so, they will have to convince Putin to personally acknowledge reality and opt for a more sober approach to the conflict. But even if Putin gives up and admits that the best Russia can do is freeze the war, it will not assuage elite fears about Russia’s survival and territorial integrity in face of the West, which even the realists believe wants to subjugate Russia.
And unlike many of Russia’s elites, Putin believes that Ukraine is still doomed. His present personal goal is tactical—stopping Kyiv’s attacks, holding the line, and then waiting until the Ukrainian state collapses, which he believes is just a matter of time. Putin could even escalate, turning to nuclear weapons. Signaling to the realists that peace with Ukraine will not inevitably cause Russia to collapse is a dramatically challenging task. But it may be the only way to get the Kremlin to end its catastrophic invasion. Until then, even the realist elites have no choice but to bet on the strong state and the strongman.

And one opinion of the overall situation:
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russian-federation/russias-missing-peacemakers
A pessimistic outlook since the "realists" are not on board nor are willing to rise up against the "conservatives". A large part of the article is quoted below. But you have to ask: elites, either conservative or realists, are still just a fraction of the country. Can the rest of Russia's society peel away enough realists to make difference? And would freezing the kinetic war buy them time? I am afraid not. That status quo will not last long enough. The two nations will go back it again after the West pays more attention to things like inflation, climate change, and who will make the payoffs. Careers and money will be made. How many cycles can go on? The West thinks time is on their side and will advocate stopping to rest and rearm Ukraine. Russian thinks the West will become distracted and time is on their side. Is a new iron curtain being establish far to the east of the old one. And how many years did that one last? Not that surprising that it's becoming a war of wills. Perseverance is key.
NO WAY OUT
In Putin’s Russia, there are many ways to define defeat. For its military leadership, defeat is an accumulation of battlefield setbacks; for the nationalist hard-liners, it entails allowing Ukraine’s “anti-Russia” state to exist at all; and for the security services, it means losing a major Russian confrontation with the West. For the regular elites, it means anything that threatens their personal and political security. But for almost all of Russia’s main constituencies, including the realists, withdrawing Russian forces to their pre-invasion lines of control would meet their criteria. Such a move would not only mark the end of Russian influence over Ukraine but also usher in a humiliating new geopolitical reality for Moscow.
On Russian telegram channels, many Russians have implied that the West would insist on dismissing Putin as a part of possible agreement. Many conservatives believe that if Putin fell as a result of such a deal, his regime would eventually be followed by a more pro-Western government that would betray Russia’s strategic interests and allow the country to physically disintegrate. To put it simply, the Russian elite sees the war against Ukraine not as expansionary but as a war for self-preservation.
Many Russians believe that the collapse of the state would be followed by international criminal investigations, perhaps even a war crimes tribunal. This prospect frightens even Russian elites not involved in the fighting.
Despite the different interests in play, technocrats, security operatives, conservative nationalists, and business leaders are largely united in believing that Russia cannot lose, lest it result in the collapse of the regime on which they all depend.
But Moscow is becoming deeply divided on how to accomplish that task.
The growing chorus of realists, by contrast, has come to see that Moscow does not have the resources that it needs to win. Instead, they favor an approach in which Russia avoids more defeat by freezing the war where it is, digging defensive lines around their current positions and using reinforcements to stop the Ukrainian advance.
There is no one in the Russian elite who will support a Russian withdrawal to the country’s February 24 positions. It is possible, however, that the realists could publicly push for freezing the conflict in a temporary agreement with the West (sealed with Ukraine). First, however, they would need to overcome the radical hawks, who are ready to fight in Ukraine until the bitter end and who remain dominant in domestic political discourse. To do so, they will have to convince Putin to personally acknowledge reality and opt for a more sober approach to the conflict. But even if Putin gives up and admits that the best Russia can do is freeze the war, it will not assuage elite fears about Russia’s survival and territorial integrity in face of the West, which even the realists believe wants to subjugate Russia.
And unlike many of Russia’s elites, Putin believes that Ukraine is still doomed. His present personal goal is tactical—stopping Kyiv’s attacks, holding the line, and then waiting until the Ukrainian state collapses, which he believes is just a matter of time. Putin could even escalate, turning to nuclear weapons. Signaling to the realists that peace with Ukraine will not inevitably cause Russia to collapse is a dramatically challenging task. But it may be the only way to get the Kremlin to end its catastrophic invasion. Until then, even the realist elites have no choice but to bet on the strong state and the strongman.

And one opinion of the overall situation:
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russian-federation/russias-missing-peacemakers
A pessimistic outlook since the "realists" are not on board nor are willing to rise up against the "conservatives". A large part of the article is quoted below. But you have to ask: elites, either conservative or realists, are still just a fraction of the country. Can the rest of Russia's society peel away enough realists to make difference? And would freezing the kinetic war buy them time? I am afraid not. That status quo will not last long enough. The two nations will go back it again after the West pays more attention to things like inflation, climate change, and who will make the payoffs. Careers and money will be made. How many cycles can go on? The West thinks time is on their side and will advocate stopping to rest and rearm Ukraine. Russian thinks the West will become distracted and time is on their side. Is a new iron curtain being establish far to the east of the old one. And how many years did that one last? Not that surprising that it's becoming a war of wills. Perseverance is key.
NO WAY OUT
In Putin’s Russia, there are many ways to define defeat. For its military leadership, defeat is an accumulation of battlefield setbacks; for the nationalist hard-liners, it entails allowing Ukraine’s “anti-Russia” state to exist at all; and for the security services, it means losing a major Russian confrontation with the West. For the regular elites, it means anything that threatens their personal and political security. But for almost all of Russia’s main constituencies, including the realists, withdrawing Russian forces to their pre-invasion lines of control would meet their criteria. Such a move would not only mark the end of Russian influence over Ukraine but also usher in a humiliating new geopolitical reality for Moscow.
On Russian telegram channels, many Russians have implied that the West would insist on dismissing Putin as a part of possible agreement. Many conservatives believe that if Putin fell as a result of such a deal, his regime would eventually be followed by a more pro-Western government that would betray Russia’s strategic interests and allow the country to physically disintegrate. To put it simply, the Russian elite sees the war against Ukraine not as expansionary but as a war for self-preservation.
Many Russians believe that the collapse of the state would be followed by international criminal investigations, perhaps even a war crimes tribunal. This prospect frightens even Russian elites not involved in the fighting.
Despite the different interests in play, technocrats, security operatives, conservative nationalists, and business leaders are largely united in believing that Russia cannot lose, lest it result in the collapse of the regime on which they all depend.
But Moscow is becoming deeply divided on how to accomplish that task.
The growing chorus of realists, by contrast, has come to see that Moscow does not have the resources that it needs to win. Instead, they favor an approach in which Russia avoids more defeat by freezing the war where it is, digging defensive lines around their current positions and using reinforcements to stop the Ukrainian advance.
There is no one in the Russian elite who will support a Russian withdrawal to the country’s February 24 positions. It is possible, however, that the realists could publicly push for freezing the conflict in a temporary agreement with the West (sealed with Ukraine). First, however, they would need to overcome the radical hawks, who are ready to fight in Ukraine until the bitter end and who remain dominant in domestic political discourse. To do so, they will have to convince Putin to personally acknowledge reality and opt for a more sober approach to the conflict. But even if Putin gives up and admits that the best Russia can do is freeze the war, it will not assuage elite fears about Russia’s survival and territorial integrity in face of the West, which even the realists believe wants to subjugate Russia.
And unlike many of Russia’s elites, Putin believes that Ukraine is still doomed. His present personal goal is tactical—stopping Kyiv’s attacks, holding the line, and then waiting until the Ukrainian state collapses, which he believes is just a matter of time. Putin could even escalate, turning to nuclear weapons. Signaling to the realists that peace with Ukraine will not inevitably cause Russia to collapse is a dramatically challenging task. But it may be the only way to get the Kremlin to end its catastrophic invasion. Until then, even the realist elites have no choice but to bet on the strong state and the strongman.

And one opinion of the overall situation:
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/russian-federation/russias-missing-peacemakers
A pessimistic outlook since the "realists" are not on board nor are willing to rise up against the "conservatives". A large part of the article is quoted below. But you have to ask: elites, either conservative or realists, are still just a fraction of the country. Can the rest of Russia's society peel away enough realists to make difference? And would freezing the kinetic war buy them time? I am afraid not. That status quo will not last long enough. The two nations will go back it again after the West pays more attention to things like inflation, climate change, and who will make the payoffs. Careers and money will be made. How many cycles can go on? The West thinks time is on their side and will advocate stopping to rest and rearm Ukraine. Russian thinks the West will become distracted and time is on their side. Is a new iron curtain being establish far to the east of the old one. And how many years did that one last? Not that surprising that it's becoming a war of wills. Perseverance is key.
NO WAY OUT
In Putin’s Russia, there are many ways to define defeat. For its military leadership, defeat is an accumulation of battlefield setbacks; for the nationalist hard-liners, it entails allowing Ukraine’s “anti-Russia” state to exist at all; and for the security services, it means losing a major Russian confrontation with the West. For the regular elites, it means anything that threatens their personal and political security. But for almost all of Russia’s main constituencies, including the realists, withdrawing Russian forces to their pre-invasion lines of control would meet their criteria. Such a move would not only mark the end of Russian influence over Ukraine but also usher in a humiliating new geopolitical reality for Moscow.
On Russian telegram channels, many Russians have implied that the West would insist on dismissing Putin as a part of possible agreement. Many conservatives believe that if Putin fell as a result of such a deal, his regime would eventually be followed by a more pro-Western government that would betray Russia’s strategic interests and allow the country to physically disintegrate. To put it simply, the Russian elite sees the war against Ukraine not as expansionary but as a war for self-preservation.
Many Russians believe that the collapse of the state would be followed by international criminal investigations, perhaps even a war crimes tribunal. This prospect frightens even Russian elites not involved in the fighting.
Despite the different interests in play, technocrats, security operatives, conservative nationalists, and business leaders are largely united in believing that Russia cannot lose, lest it result in the collapse of the regime on which they all depend.
But Moscow is becoming deeply divided on how to accomplish that task.
The growing chorus of realists, by contrast, has come to see that Moscow does not have the resources that it needs to win. Instead, they favor an approach in which Russia avoids more defeat by freezing the war where it is, digging defensive lines around their current positions and using reinforcements to stop the Ukrainian advance.
There is no one in the Russian elite who will support a Russian withdrawal to the country’s February 24 positions. It is possible, however, that the realists could publicly push for freezing the conflict in a temporary agreement with the West (sealed with Ukraine). First, however, they would need to overcome the radical hawks, who are ready to fight in Ukraine until the bitter end and who remain dominant in domestic political discourse. To do so, they will have to convince Putin to personally acknowledge reality and opt for a more sober approach to the conflict. But even if Putin gives up and admits that the best Russia can do is freeze the war, it will not assuage elite fears about Russia’s survival and territorial integrity in face of the West, which even the realists believe wants to subjugate Russia.
And unlike many of Russia’s elites, Putin believes that Ukraine is still doomed. His present personal goal is tactical—stopping Kyiv’s attacks, holding the line, and then waiting until the Ukrainian state collapses, which he believes is just a matter of time. Putin could even escalate, turning to nuclear weapons. Signaling to the realists that peace with Ukraine will not inevitably cause Russia to collapse is a dramatically challenging task. But it may be the only way to get the Kremlin to end its catastrophic invasion. Until then, even the realist elites have no choice but to bet on the strong state and the strongman.

Some back peddling from Milley's comments and "principle vs bodies" come up in this one today:
 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/11/14/u-s-ukraine-milley-negotiations-00066777?utm_campaign=dfn-ebb&utm_medium=email&utm_source=sailthru&SToverlay=2002c2d9-c344-4bbb-8610-e5794efcfa7d

Panzer Leader was not nearly as accurate as the follow on PC games like CMBO. If interested, the there are web sites that will show the board game map and units. That's all we had in those days. During the pandemic, board games of all sorts, game back. They are pretty expensive to publish. I think there are web sites where you can request professional looking playing pieces and maps to combine with your own rules to publish your own game. Players still like the look and feel of board games. I can't go back. FOW and PBEM email mean to much and was the holy grail in the late 80s. I still remember my first PBEM in the early 90s using Wargame Construction Set ... Tanks. We used a bulletin board to post saved game files. Those days really paved the way. 

I believe the map and scenario were inspired by the Panzer Leader scenario Road to Wiltz. Many of the older guys played that one many times and it became a favorite. 

Well you can have an opinion based on the same data other people have and be proven wrong. Is the writer an advocate of Putin? I would have to see the rest of their writings. I would doubt it. It's nearly impossible come down on one side of an issue and not be call a lacky by the other these days. The world lacks any nuisance. 
Here's the data:
"Russian nuclear threats seem to be working. According to U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, the U.S. won’t provide Ukraine with long-range missiles (i.e., over 300-km which are hardly long-range) because, “…while a key goal of the United States is to support and defend Ukraine, another key goal is to ensure that we do not end up in a circumstance where we are heading down the road toward a third world war.”
The writer's info is coming from the Biden Admin. A conservative sort of agreeing with Jake. Maybe refreshing. 

While not a sexy topic, after this war is over, I will be interested in how Ukraine adapted their TO&E and built various formations given the influx of western support. Some of the most agile thinkers can take a seemingly chaotic situations and turn it to their advantage. This seems to apply to all walks of life and this aspect of the current war will probably be inspiring to those that study organizational effectiveness under stressful conditions. The RA is just throwing pasta against the wall. The UA is sharping knives first and then piercing the joints that hold up the wall. 

While Sunday sped by, this excellent summary came out. Sets up the rest of November from an operational POV and is just just written. 
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-november-13
From ISW, so many may have already seen it. Throwing a bone(s) to Putin? So much for any shred honor left in Moscow. 
They are far from operationally significant locations apart from Bakhmut and were launched during a difficult muddy time by inadequately prepared mobilized servicemen before Russian commanders in the area had amassed enough combat power for decisive operations.[14] Surovikin likely ordered them to start when they did as an earnest sign of his commitment to Putin.
Read further down and see that the UA must be chomping at the bit. 

Sorry if this was posted before, but Milley's comment are being picked up by every news source:
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-zelenskyy-europe-army-joint-chiefs-of-staff-688e99d37f25ac8340b6a96a79a89abf
He said as many as 40,000 Ukrainian civilians and “well over” 100,000 Russian soldiers have been killed or wounded in the war, now in its ninth month. “Same thing probably on the Ukrainian side,” Milley added.
“There has been a tremendous amount of suffering, human suffering,” he said at The Economic Club of New York.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Tuesday he was open to peace talks with Russia to end the war but only on the condition that Russia return all of Ukraine’s occupied lands, provide compensation for war damage and face prosecution for war crimes.
Perhaps the focus has been on Zelenskyy's heroic statement and not on the quoted Ukrainian casualties. Is the US giving Zelenskyy a (not so) gentle tap on the shoulder? 

If that is the case we can all sleep tonight since Russia has zero chance alone to set the "course our species will chart for the rest of the century" using their conventional forces. And if Russia goes nuclear there is nothing homo sapiens sapiens could do other than duck on a global scale anyway. But, we have mostly concluded using nukes is not in the cards for Russia. I guess that means we focus on conventional operations until the lights go out. 

I little from 10 miles high:
https://www.realcleardefense.com:/articles/2022/11/09/do_not_underestimate_ukraines_resilience_to_bombing_863906.html
Russian President Vladimir Putin is indeed correct that the Russo-Ukrainian War is a competitive test of wills, but he has misidentified the respective centers of gravity. It is not a trial of resolve between the Ukrainian and Russian people, the latter of whom are largely insulated from the horrors of war, if not most of the economic sanctions. Rather it is a test between the Ukrainian nation, which is committed to independence, versus the far more limited motivation of the conscripted Russian army, which, when its will is eventually broken, will lead it to overthrow Putin in a coup. The Russian bombing of Ukraine is an act of political desperation. 
PS: the writers are new to me. But the essay is pretty complete. 
 

Analysis on the next possible escalation:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/an-iranian-ballistic-missile-storm-is-on-ukraines-horizon
"One possibility I mentioned a few weeks ago is to draw a line in the sand so to speak and tell Russia if they import and use Iranian SRBMs, the U.S. would supply Ukraine with ATACMS. While this sort of brinksmanship would be seen as clearly unfavorable by some, it could influence Russia's calculus and it would provide a clear pretext for supplying ATACMS to Ukraine. "
"No matter what, like the delivery of Iran's Shahed-136 suicide drones before them, these missiles’ use will mark a new phase of a war that so far has no end in sight and the devastation they could bring may change the calculus of the conflict on all sides."
Preemption, the ultimate form of maneuver warfare, is required before Putin turns this war into one of exchange ratios. Some will get through even advanced air defenses. How NATO can preempt the transfer of the short-range ballistic missiles is the question. Perhaps something needs to happen internally to distract Iran's mullahs away from Russia in the short term, while the Russia itself bleeds to death over the winter. The West seems to have a pretty good network in side Iran. Maybe now is the time to go all out. How about quietly playing the IDF card? Iran may try to be a choir boy in this publicly. I would not trust them a far as I can throw a church organ and plan accordingly. 

Analysis on the next possible escalation:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/an-iranian-ballistic-missile-storm-is-on-ukraines-horizon
"One possibility I mentioned a few weeks ago is to draw a line in the sand so to speak and tell Russia if they import and use Iranian SRBMs, the U.S. would supply Ukraine with ATACMS. While this sort of brinksmanship would be seen as clearly unfavorable by some, it could influence Russia's calculus and it would provide a clear pretext for supplying ATACMS to Ukraine. "
"No matter what, like the delivery of Iran's Shahed-136 suicide drones before them, these missiles’ use will mark a new phase of a war that so far has no end in sight and the devastation they could bring may change the calculus of the conflict on all sides."
Preemption, the ultimate form of maneuver warfare, is required before Putin turns this war into one of exchange ratios. Some will get through even advanced air defenses. How NATO can preempt the transfer of the short-range ballistic missiles is the question. Perhaps something needs to happen internally to distract Iran's mullahs away from Russia in the short term, while the Russia itself bleeds to death over the winter. The West seems to have a pretty good network in side Iran. Maybe now is the time to go all out. How about quietly playing the IDF card? Iran may try to be a choir boy in this publicly. I would not trust them a far as I can throw a church organ and plan accordingly. 

Analysis on the next possible escalation:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/an-iranian-ballistic-missile-storm-is-on-ukraines-horizon
"One possibility I mentioned a few weeks ago is to draw a line in the sand so to speak and tell Russia if they import and use Iranian SRBMs, the U.S. would supply Ukraine with ATACMS. While this sort of brinksmanship would be seen as clearly unfavorable by some, it could influence Russia's calculus and it would provide a clear pretext for supplying ATACMS to Ukraine. "
"No matter what, like the delivery of Iran's Shahed-136 suicide drones before them, these missiles’ use will mark a new phase of a war that so far has no end in sight and the devastation they could bring may change the calculus of the conflict on all sides."
Preemption, the ultimate form of maneuver warfare, is required before Putin turns this war into one of exchange ratios. Some will get through even advanced air defenses. How NATO can preempt the transfer of the short-range ballistic missiles is the question. Perhaps something needs to happen internally to distract Iran's mullahs away from Russia in the short term, while the Russia itself bleeds to death over the winter. The West seems to have a pretty good network in side Iran. Maybe now is the time to go all out. How about quietly playing the IDF card? Iran may try to be a choir boy in this publicly. I would not trust them a far as I can throw a church organ and plan accordingly. 

Would add fear, lack of hope, unfed, under supplied, no training and just wanting to receive a million-dollar wound. As 10 year old kids playing Cowboys and Indians we used better tactics naturally. There is something amiss with these guys that defies an explanation. Maybe a Commissar is forcing this suicidal behavior which lacks any sense of self preservation. 

This report today mentions something that is or could become the elephant in the room:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukraine-live-briefing-us-nudges-kyiv-to-ease-negotiation-stance-zelensky-calls-out-iran-on-drones/ar-AA13N5kK
Ukraine fatigue.
There were military expediencies for sweeping the RA out of Ukraine as fast as possible during the late summer. But there are public relations/policy reasons as well. Did the US drop the ball here? Patience is key right now, but tell that to John Q Public who likes to see their money behind immediate winners. Given their attention span is as limited as their understanding of how important this war is, support for Ukraine has to be maintained through effective communication about the stakes involved. And this does not have to be propaganda. Polls don't capture US long term commitment to Ukraine. Ask about the World Series yesterday and the polls would show a lot of support for the upstart Phils. This morning those people are just moving on to something else entertaining. Support for Ukraine in the US boils down to those polled feeling sorry for Ukraine and their suffering as they watch horror unfold in 30 sec news clips. It is not a bedrock type of support. But it could be. Putin does a good job positioning himself as evil. The West has to do an outstanding job. Then I think the poll numbers will reflect positive public sediment for long term support of Ukraine including re-building. Right now the positive polls could change in a heart beat. 

Would add fear, lack of hope, unfed, under supplied, no training and just wanting to receive a million-dollar wound. As 10 year old kids playing Cowboys and Indians we used better tactics naturally. There is something amiss with these guys that defies an explanation. Maybe a Commissar is forcing this suicidal behavior which lacks any sense of self preservation. 

This report today mentions something that is or could become the elephant in the room:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukraine-live-briefing-us-nudges-kyiv-to-ease-negotiation-stance-zelensky-calls-out-iran-on-drones/ar-AA13N5kK
Ukraine fatigue.
There were military expediencies for sweeping the RA out of Ukraine as fast as possible during the late summer. But there are public relations/policy reasons as well. Did the US drop the ball here? Patience is key right now, but tell that to John Q Public who likes to see their money behind immediate winners. Given their attention span is as limited as their understanding of how important this war is, support for Ukraine has to be maintained through effective communication about the stakes involved. And this does not have to be propaganda. Polls don't capture US long term commitment to Ukraine. Ask about the World Series yesterday and the polls would show a lot of support for the upstart Phils. This morning those people are just moving on to something else entertaining. Support for Ukraine in the US boils down to those polled feeling sorry for Ukraine and their suffering as they watch horror unfold in 30 sec news clips. It is not a bedrock type of support. But it could be. Putin does a good job positioning himself as evil. The West has to do an outstanding job. Then I think the poll numbers will reflect positive public sediment for long term support of Ukraine including re-building. Right now the positive polls could change in a heart beat. 

Yep, Putin's trump card. Unfortunately, I think he knows it. Fortunately, Russian palace intrigue will probably screw up how it's played. 

https://www.reuters.com/world/turkey-says-sweden-finland-not-yet-done-enough-under-nato-deal-2022-11-03/
At this point, maybe we should be more upset with an unpredictable NATO member than the all too predictable Swiss.

Let's hope "late stage" applies to Putin as well .. 😉

Let's hope "late stage" applies to Putin as well .. 😉