kevinkin

Thanks for the report. I jumped to the conclusion and the writer seems to be advocating pushing Russia to the brink of nuclear war in an effort to call their bluff. 
Only an overwhelming Ukrainian military victory can deliver what Ukrainians themselves reasonably demand. This can only be achieved with external military support, in particular from the US. The arguments against providing Ukraine with advanced weaponry are spurious. What is needed is a greatly enhanced commitment by all of Ukraine’s backers to providing war-winning materiel as swiftly as it can be delivered and absorbed by Ukraine’s armed forces. This should include more air defence systems, long-range missiles, combat aircraft, advanced main battle tanks, and other such weapons systems as may be identified as essential to victory. Half-measures short of this will prolong the conflict, at a continuing cost in Ukrainian lives and also at great cost to the long-term prospects for the security of Europe.
Right or wrong this is a credible position to take and those that are pushing for it should be taken seriously. Unlike other reports, the writer does bring up the key element of time:
Most publications of this nature seek enduring relevance, a ‘shelf life’. Not here. US assistance remains decisive, but America is approaching another momentous electoral fork in the road, with a stark choice between an administration currently doing the right thing – albeit hesitantly and with one foot on the brake – and one that would wish to abandon Ukraine or, if possible, Europe altogether. This, then, is the decisive year in which to give Ukraine the necessary military assistance to win, before the 2024 US election distracts from and constrains Western action – or, in the event of a victory for Donald Trump or his fellow travellers, hands victory to Russia. Far too much time has already been lost to timidity and misplaced fears of Russian escalation.120 This delay could well prove tragic. If the recommendations in this report – principally to ensure Ukraine’s military victory and the reduction of Russia as a future threat – are not taken up within months, all is potentially lost.
The writer seems to be inferring the US election and results could be a factor. Well yes they are. But that should not drive the overall strategy. I don't think the policymakers in DC are going to "abandon Ukraine or, if possible, Europe altogether". There is too much money to be made. So in my view an analysis of time relates more closely to the rate of losses both side are incurring - not who wins next year's election. POTUS says the good guys are running out of ammo. That does not sound a like of ultra partisan statement to me. It's a sad fact. 
 

Thanks for the report. I jumped to the conclusion and the writer seems to be advocating pushing Russia to the brink of nuclear war in an effort to call their bluff. 
Only an overwhelming Ukrainian military victory can deliver what Ukrainians themselves reasonably demand. This can only be achieved with external military support, in particular from the US. The arguments against providing Ukraine with advanced weaponry are spurious. What is needed is a greatly enhanced commitment by all of Ukraine’s backers to providing war-winning materiel as swiftly as it can be delivered and absorbed by Ukraine’s armed forces. This should include more air defence systems, long-range missiles, combat aircraft, advanced main battle tanks, and other such weapons systems as may be identified as essential to victory. Half-measures short of this will prolong the conflict, at a continuing cost in Ukrainian lives and also at great cost to the long-term prospects for the security of Europe.
Right or wrong this is a credible position to take and those that are pushing for it should be taken seriously. Unlike other reports, the writer does bring up the key element of time:
Most publications of this nature seek enduring relevance, a ‘shelf life’. Not here. US assistance remains decisive, but America is approaching another momentous electoral fork in the road, with a stark choice between an administration currently doing the right thing – albeit hesitantly and with one foot on the brake – and one that would wish to abandon Ukraine or, if possible, Europe altogether. This, then, is the decisive year in which to give Ukraine the necessary military assistance to win, before the 2024 US election distracts from and constrains Western action – or, in the event of a victory for Donald Trump or his fellow travellers, hands victory to Russia. Far too much time has already been lost to timidity and misplaced fears of Russian escalation.120 This delay could well prove tragic. If the recommendations in this report – principally to ensure Ukraine’s military victory and the reduction of Russia as a future threat – are not taken up within months, all is potentially lost.
The writer seems to be inferring the US election and results could be a factor. Well yes they are. But that should not drive the overall strategy. I don't think the policymakers in DC are going to "abandon Ukraine or, if possible, Europe altogether". There is too much money to be made. So in my view an analysis of time relates more closely to the rate of losses both side are incurring - not who wins next year's election. POTUS says the good guys are running out of ammo. That does not sound a like of ultra partisan statement to me. It's a sad fact. 
 

A couple of P8s bundled with a flight of F-35s could sink the entire Russian Black Sea fleet if they dared to engage. Not overnight, but quickly. The P8 is wonderful technology. Something ground pounders just can't understand. Why the US is withholding their technological edge is is hard to fathom. This edge is in the air and on the sea. Not the ground. A handful of M1s and Bradleys .. sure that will defeat Russia at it's own game. Window dressing. 

I thought so as well. The expectations for Ukraine are being toned down faster than their body bags pile up. Sorry to be so blunt, but throwing devalued US cash at this war is cowardly.  Especially when some fairly bright minds can't define what a defeated Russia would look like. "Could" "might" "probably" "maybe" do not bring Ukraine any closer to being a safe and happy place to live. Unless the west acts fast, Putin's gangsters will out last Ukraine's. It's simple arithmetic. Let's stop being jerks about it. Putin holds a nuclear option over the world's head and can do as he pleases until Russians say enough is enough. But that's not happening since the elites have purposely created a zombie state - a cancer culture that has to be excised. I suppose 50 years from now when we are all pushing up daisies we can look down and say we did x y and z. Lazy ineffectual efforts and just watch Russia and Ukraine fight again and again as testing grounds for Raytheon and war gamers. 
 
Well that's one hell of a way to fight a war. Thinking like that got McClellan fired. 
"At that point Ukraine will have opportunities of some sort and abilities to capitalize on them to some degree."
Er, what? 
Here is the point: if Russia is weak and ready to fall or break apart (I do enjoy Portugal BTW), why not force them over the cliff now? It will serve as an example to others like Iran and China. Given the trajectory the west in on, now is the last chance. The US will find any reason to back away from this war. Putin will find any reason to stay in it. 

My point is that some in the US think printing and sending money to Ukraine to keep them in a war is cost effective. I have said many times it is cruel. If it's in the world's interest to defeat Russia, get to done. Nuance kills. But it does sell a lot of books and munitions. So why are the good guys titrating down their weapons stocks instead of just getting to thing over quickly with absolute certainty? Books and other sales? Yep. In the west we are more interested in the biopic of addicted rock star than a role model like say Derik Jeter. And I hate the Yankees. But can recognize good vs evil. In the US, the two are blurred.   
 

Surviving in China's hip pocket for one with its old elites still humping underage women. Let's get this correct. All Russians know they are losers. They actually love being losers. But their culture has not been defeated. Until they are humiliated, Russia can always spin something someway and continue pumping energy and remain  a gangster state. There is nothing in this war that will change that unless the US enters in a major way.  
Meanwhile the US is graduating youth who can't add or subtract. If someone want's to think Russia is a loser today on July 31, 2023, go grab a weapon and see how long you, the armchair general, survives on the steppe. I believe there is a big difference in the words loser and defeated. A loser can get up off the mat and fight another day. The defeated can't for generations. So all the enumerations above are as cute as they are meaningless. 
 

Is the Ukrainian use of S-200s as ground to ground weapons terror? I don't blame them at all. But there is that dumb thing called the "moral high ground" that prevents pretty good cultures from defeating very evil ones just because liberal democracies don't want get their hands dirty. BTW, a few of those themes are in the Oppenheimer movie. You just have to pay attention. Anyway, embrace the inaccuracy of the S-200. If Ukraine needs to pull these out the US needs to take hard look in the mirror. 

The RA can not be defeated by manpower. It can be defeated by firepower. The two are not the same. And DC has get off the beach and win before there is nothing left to fight for other than re-building contracts the results of which none of us will see in our lifetimes. 

Thank the lord someone has balls:
https://www.barrons.com/news/ukraine-drones-damage-two-moscow-buildings-no-victims-mayor-e619c5ee

The RA can not be defeated by manpower. It can be defeated by firepower. The two are not the same. And DC has get off the beach and win before there is nothing left to fight for other than re-building contracts the results of which none of us will see in our lifetimes. 

The RA can not be defeated by manpower. It can be defeated by firepower. The two are not the same. And DC has get off the beach and win before there is nothing left to fight for other than re-building contracts the results of which none of us will see in our lifetimes. 

What provides a better defensive position:
Hardened village
Dug in trench lines in grain fields
Or a combination of the two?
I think trench lines offer better overall survivability. Especially if they can't be hidden and not easy to spot from outer space. Villages are static targets. Hedgehogs for sure. But I would defend ground in a more flexible manner where the enemy can't discern where you are and use ambush tactics to delay and attrite the attacking force.
Many don't think the RA is capable of this. I am not convinced. Many are using stereotypical analysis that the RA are incompetent barbarians. They are prejudging future results based on the past. If the US thinks they can attrite Russia using Ukraine as a proxy, they are the incompetent barbarians. If the US thinks the UA can be taught western operational concepts in a period of mouths, they are delusional.  If the US is just is just throwing the dice, hoping for the best and a Russian collapse, I want my taxes back.
If the UA is on the verge of a breakthrough - surge NATO surge. Let's stopping being so cruel to Ukraine. If this becomes a analogy of NK vs SK, please acknowledge those that predicted it a over the winter. There will be no winner or loser, just an uneasy peace and another Cold War. Much to NATO's and Ukraine's disadvantage. But the three martini lunch will prevail in DC.
 
 
 
 
 

Continuing with the societal crack up theme:
https://www.the-sun.com/news/8719447/putins-troops-return-from-ukraine-violent-zombies/
We can pray that UA soldiers are being treated like professionals at the front and receive all the help the west can give when they return. But it has to be hard on Ukraine even under the best of circumstances. 

Tangible evidence that Russia is cracking up?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-dystopian-plan-post-mutiny-024538791.html
Tucked away in a new law aimed at raising the draft age for Russia’s military are several mysterious amendments that are designed to create new armed groups or paramilitary companies throughout the country.
The military companies, also known as “special enterprises,” would be there to maintain public order, protect Russia’s borders, and counter sabotage efforts, according to the text of the bill.
As the proposal is currently framed, the new military companies would be armed and run by governors, but would obtain weapons from the Russian Ministry of Defense. They would ostensibly operate at the behest of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Tangible evidence that Russia is cracking up?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/putin-dystopian-plan-post-mutiny-024538791.html
Tucked away in a new law aimed at raising the draft age for Russia’s military are several mysterious amendments that are designed to create new armed groups or paramilitary companies throughout the country.
The military companies, also known as “special enterprises,” would be there to maintain public order, protect Russia’s borders, and counter sabotage efforts, according to the text of the bill.
As the proposal is currently framed, the new military companies would be armed and run by governors, but would obtain weapons from the Russian Ministry of Defense. They would ostensibly operate at the behest of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Don't forget pausing is not good within the enemy's defensive network. The UA would be better off leaving any small tactical gains and returning to their own original lines if forced too. They need to break clear of those networks so their advantages can be brought to bear against the enemy in the open. That means operational gains where fully rested armed to the teeth exploitation formations can be directed beyond the Russian dug-in defenses into a pursuit toward a politically significant Russian holding. 

If the UA knows where the Russian MLR is based on doctrine, it should be pulverized. I thought the RA was too stupid to maneuver? Or their static lines are too rigid. Outflanked etc.. We can't have it both ways.  I grant the point that the UA does not have the means to pulverized the MLR or even the forward positions. They don't have the deep strike ability to cut off RA supplies. But that is on the US, not the the UA. Just hoping an army is going to retreat when challenged by an inferior force is not a sustainable plan. We all know soldiers fight more for their squads than their country. Why would the Russian kid not do likewise after basic training and political indoctrination? I think people in the Pentagon think too highly of the RA, while those here think to low. It's somewhere in between and we will have to wait and see. 

And every day it's a great question. The conventional "wisdom" is that the RA can trade space for time. Meaning they can fall back on somewhat prepared positions and find a unit here or there to counterattack UA penetrations. Attritional war of movement. I don't buy this completely. However, without the ability to attack on a board front or deeply using airpower, the UA can't impose it's will on their enemy across many KMs of front meaning Russian defeats are local and can be contained. There is also the issue that UA operational advances are predictable. They need to throw a change up now and again so the poorly led RA defender can't lay in ambush along channelized approaches and then run for the hills. So the question becomes not if the RA is brittle, but does the UA have the combat power and operational tools to take advantage of it? BTW, I am noticing a trend now that it's become about taking ground, not killing Russians. As many have stated, maneuver's first aim is to kill the enemy, then ground is fait accompli. My concern is if the UA has enough power to run down fleeing Russians before they can dig in like they did over the winter. Battles of encirclement are not in Ukraine's wheelhouse. However, threatening their combat services is. Sort of like the bouncer ushers someone out the door with a storm shadow to their head. 

Don't forget pausing is not good within the enemy's defensive network. The UA would be better off leaving any small tactical gains and returning to their own original lines if forced too. They need to break clear of those networks so their advantages can be brought to bear against the enemy in the open. That means operational gains where fully rested armed to the teeth exploitation formations can be directed beyond the Russian dug-in defenses into a pursuit toward a politically significant Russian holding. 

Don't forget pausing is not good within the enemy's defensive network. The UA would be better off leaving any small tactical gains and returning to their own original lines if forced too. They need to break clear of those networks so their advantages can be brought to bear against the enemy in the open. That means operational gains where fully rested armed to the teeth exploitation formations can be directed beyond the Russian dug-in defenses into a pursuit toward a politically significant Russian holding. 

All those brewing AFVs reminded me of the time CM introduced that graphic (CMAK or BB) all those years ago. If I recall, screenshots were withheld until the final release went out. Was a big surprise to players. Cool for a wargame; horrible for a real life friend of the west. 
Tactically, when a company sized unit gets hit that hard, does the parent battalion have to halt operations until the situation is understood and medical service come in under protection of the rest of the parent formation? 

One way to look at combat and warfare is it is a long series of interconnected ambushes. The right intel and firepower at the right place and time across multiple domains. 

One way to look at combat and warfare is it is a long series of interconnected ambushes. The right intel and firepower at the right place and time across multiple domains. 

One way to look at combat and warfare is it is a long series of interconnected ambushes. The right intel and firepower at the right place and time across multiple domains. 

Great maps you just posted. Thank you.