Vic4

The posts of your experience and knowledge are invaluable. Vet of the 82nd, Phd nuclear physicist, kicked cancer to the curb —- you set a high bar few achieve. Much respect $

The posts of your experience and knowledge are invaluable. Vet of the 82nd, Phd nuclear physicist, kicked cancer to the curb —- you set a high bar few achieve. Much respect $

The posts of your experience and knowledge are invaluable. Vet of the 82nd, Phd nuclear physicist, kicked cancer to the curb —- you set a high bar few achieve. Much respect $

The posts of your experience and knowledge are invaluable. Vet of the 82nd, Phd nuclear physicist, kicked cancer to the curb —- you set a high bar few achieve. Much respect $

Do it. I would read it.

Heh, I guess that depends on what scale of history you are using.  Post-WW2, post WW1, maybe.  Before that almost every state on the planet was authoritarian to some extent, the democracies of the US and France were largely experimental.  On a long history look we really have a single point of data - the current era.  Democracies and societies that were more internally dynamic have always been a very small minority and many times they failed and spiralled back into authoritarian regimes (e.g. Rome).
China has sustained multiple global power empires for over 2000 years and largely on the authoritarian model.  As did Egypt, Persia and empires all over the planet.  There is far more historical evidence that humans are attracted to authoritarian power than anything else.
So I would argue we are living either in the beginning of new era (thousand points of light) or an anomaly, and it is far too soon to tell.  My sense is that we fear uncertainty more than anything else and when “dynamism” turns into uncertainty we run back into the arms of a central pack/herd leader - history does back that up.
The subversive warfare I am talking about is all about projecting uncertainty and letting it do damage to us internally.  There is plenty evidence of its success, and even strategic gains by those that employ it.  Uncertainty create confusion and chaos inside our cognitive and conative frameworks and they then leverage that vacuum to push their own interests.
You do make a solid point though, neither China or Russia has been able to offer an attractive idea that makes their gains stick - and that is probably Russias biggest loss in the war; any chance to try and make one.  My bet is that if they keep us disrupted and unstable, their idea may be “certainty we cannot offer”.  And as things have been unfolding the shine was definitely starting to fade on us in he west as well - misadventures like Iraq and Afghanistan really did not help.  I hope that Ukraine acts as a slap in the face and glass of cold water to the west - this is what happens if we remain divided, this is the result of us allowing ourselves to be divided and subverted, this is what happens if we do not push back before a war starts and thousands die, billions wasted.
I do not speak of what happens inside the wire often but I can say the needle is moving and we are starting to see things in a different light on all of this.  We will pivot to China but it will not be solely a conventional military deterrence equation on the table, that would be a major mistake.  Nor can we assume our “attractiveness” as a natural gift, this is a contest of power, ideologies and certainties, and we should never forget that.
The second we do - more Ukraines will happen.

Melitopol seems like a better option in terms of space, time and what we can see of supply. It would also probably force a complete rearrangement of the supply and artillery currently defending Kharkiv from the left side of the Dnieper. But totally guessing. We have less ISR than the Kremlin does (possibly).

Marioupol is faaar. I imagine that will be one of the last places to be reclaimed, given it's nearly right on top of the Russian border, and it's already pretty beat up, and is probably little importance besides being a major population center

Umm…yes.

The only real things that I see as going "right" for Ukraine is the early intel/ISR support from the west and the weapons pipeline getting into place prior to hostilities. The ISR support is probably the biggest game changer and advantage that they had going into this. I don't see where anything special went right for the UA on the tactical/operational side so much as their successes and tactics were just the net result of everything bad the RA did. 
Their overall operational plan. = Too many axis of advance, UA able to fight separate fingers instead of whole fist. Fail to black out comms. = Ukrainian crowd sourced recon and intel. Fail to control information. = Ukrainian government able to garner large amounts of international support by controlling the narrative. Didn't gain air supremacy. = UAF still hitting back, uninhibited UA logistics and no strikes beyond FEBA anymore. Failed logistics chain. = Reduced RA operational tempo, tons of abandoned equipment, low RA morale all result in giving the UA more time and better chances for defense. Failure to implement combined arms. = Easier defense for UA with higher losses to the RA. Poor force structure/lack of infantry. = UA and TD able to operate with lots of freedom behind the lines attacking logistics. Unescorted armor easier pickings.  Timing. = Weather and ground conditions prevented RA from maneuvering off hardened roads making all movements predictable. Kill lists/atrocities/war crimes. = Steeled Ukrainian resolve, concreted international support for Ukraine. Corruption. = Lack of top tier kit, undermanned units, under trained units, cobbled together units, patronage based promotions, etc that resulted in the paper bear of the RA. So really it boils down to the greatest advantage was that they were attacked by Russia and not someone with their poop in a pile. 
This also bleeds into the "Could the US have done better?", "How does this change western doctrine?" and "Does this war mean the death of the tank?" type questions that we see pop up from time to time in the MSM. It is really apples to oranges and the only big thing I can see coming out of this is the UAV numbers/usage/doctrine/etc. 
If you swapped out the Russian forces for US forces you would have pretty much the entire US army and couple Marine Divisions equaling less than 100 battalions or "btg" equivalents. Could the US defeat the UA? Absolutely. This scenario is completely upside down from the list above. Ukraine doesn't get the ISR advantage and is under the microscope itself. 8 out of 10 above suddenly don't apply, we can leave timing and operational plan in place. Apply basically a Desert Storm format with an air campaign that leaves no UAF and mitigated AA with UA units pounded for 30 days or more before ground forces go. Then that degraded force has to fight a real army with real training, top tier gear, effective logistics, good leadership and bunches of planes with JDAMs just waiting for targets. Oh, and pretty much every piece of equipment the UA operates is no longer competitive in range, accuracy or precision.  
I'm not saying it would be bloodless and I'm sure the remnants of the UA would fight like hell, but in the end there is no doubt to the outcome militarily. So is the tank dead and western doctrine outdated? No, Russia just sucks.
Could the US military complete the political objectives of the Kremlin? Absolutely not. As it has been pointed out here any army looking to occupy Ukraine would need millions of boots on the ground and it would still make Iraq 2006 look like a happy quinceanera on a warm summer day. 
I'm sure this war will be studied and picked apart for a long time and there will be a lot of lessons learned, but I see the majority of those lessons will be the what not to do's given to us by the RA. 

@Battlefront.com@The_Capt@Haiduk@kraze et al..
Appreciate any perspective on the following regarding Crimea.
1. Should reacquiring Crimea be a strategic/operational goal at all for Ukraine?
2. If yes, what would you anticipate Russia’s response to be, given the current condition of the RA & political climate?
3. Would a majority of the Crimean population actively support or reject such an endeavor by Ukraine?

Very tough questions and I have no idea on #3 - the region seems to have normalized since 2014 under Russia unless I have missed reports on an insurgency.   More to the point would Ukraine re-taking Crimea trigger an insurgency in itself?  Or has 8 years of Russia love driven the locals in the Crimea away?
As to #1 and #2 - Ukraine has every right to re-take Crimea as it was essentially stolen illegally - UN and most the west agree.  Should they, is trickier.  I would hope that if the Russia front collapses to the point that the UA can seriously look at a Crimean offensive that we are regime change territory because I would be nervous as to what Putin might do out of desperation.  If Russia sees Crimea as part of the motherland then it could escalate things dramatically as this would be akin to an operational offensive into Russia itself.  Of course if the Russian military and political have collapsed then have at it.
And the there is the reaction from the West.  We are pretty united right now and doubling down our bets, I am not sure what a deeper offensive by Ukraine into Crimea would do to that.  Before warcrimes I would have said “doubtful” but a lot of water has gone under the bridge in the last 3 months.  So would a Crimean offensive make the alliance nervous? Likely “yes”, but how nervous.
So to summarize I have to admit that I really don’t know.  My guess is that unless Russia is in military and/or political free fall a Crimean offensive would be an escalation, and with Putin at the helm a significant one.  It would be justice to take back the peninsula and the Black Sea Fleet anchorage/basing at Sevastopol.  However for the UA to get to the point that they could retake Crimea, a whole lot has already gone very bad on the Russian side…would it be enough?  
 

1. of course, Crimea is Ukrainian
2. it won't change. They don't consider Ukraine a country, but their territory that got invaded by Ukrainian untermenschen that must be exterminated and replaced with russians. What are they going to do? Invade us?
3. Crimea is Ukrainian territory. So everybody that came there after 2014 will be kindly asked to leave. Yes we have toilets and yes those are nice, but those aren't yours and they still have their legit owners that had to leave. Just save some money and buy your own back home. The rest may have a say after every single russian soldier is made to not be there.

Some absolute beauts from ISW today. …In some ways it shows that the pen truly can be akin to the sword; shredding/damning/searing, is their assessment of Russia. ...Some personal favs:
The opener: “Russian occupation authorities announced plans to destroy the Azovstal Steel Plant and turn Mariupol into a resort city, depriving Russia of some of the most important economic benefits it hoped to reap by taking the city in the first place.”
Mid: “The Kremlin may hope to offset the loss of revenues from Azovstal and other destroyed infrastructure in Ukraine by profiting from the Zaporizhia Nuclear Power Plant that is forces have seized... Khusnullin added that the Zaporihia Nuclear Power Plant will exclusively work for Russia and will sell electricity to Ukraine."
Finale: “This statement is a clear Russian recognition that there will be an independent Ukraine at the end of this war…”
The rest: "This announcement epitomizes the kind of Pyrrhic victories Russian forces have won in Ukraine, to the extent that they have won victories at all."
Love this thread - Glory to Ukraine$

Some absolute beauts from ISW today. …In some ways it shows that the pen truly can be akin to the sword; shredding/damning/searing, is their assessment of Russia. ...Some personal favs:
The opener: “Russian occupation authorities announced plans to destroy the Azovstal Steel Plant and turn Mariupol into a resort city, depriving Russia of some of the most important economic benefits it hoped to reap by taking the city in the first place.”
Mid: “The Kremlin may hope to offset the loss of revenues from Azovstal and other destroyed infrastructure in Ukraine by profiting from the Zaporizhia Nuclear Power Plant that is forces have seized... Khusnullin added that the Zaporihia Nuclear Power Plant will exclusively work for Russia and will sell electricity to Ukraine."
Finale: “This statement is a clear Russian recognition that there will be an independent Ukraine at the end of this war…”
The rest: "This announcement epitomizes the kind of Pyrrhic victories Russian forces have won in Ukraine, to the extent that they have won victories at all."
Love this thread - Glory to Ukraine$

@The_Capt
No doubt that this is a sobering and disheartening assessment, but perhaps there is a potential upshot.
When this conflict presumably concludes with Russia entirely in thrall to China and isolated from the West, wouldn’t a likely result be that their immediate malignant intent will be diverted to China?
Given that Russia seems to be primarily motivated by (a) delusions of grandeur and (b) envy/resentment, it seems that most of their energy at that point would be directed towards who they view as their immediate oppressor (China) and to the extent that their designs against the West will fall into a tertiary status. This could be advantageous to the West as China will constantly be having to look over it’s shoulder and keep Russia in line, while Russia’s immediate goal will be to throw off the Chinese yoke. Thoughts on this? Appreciate your insight. 

Good question.  My immediate thinking is that China has 1) a more unified decision making structure (at least on the surface) 2) will not get as distracted as the west has been the last decade, so less chance of paralysis of action, and 3) with be ruthless in protecting its investments and interests.  All this adds up to a far more pragmatic and let’s say direct strategy between Russian and China that we have been able to muster in the West.
We are all very happy that Ukraine is kicking ass and winning this thing but let’s not ignore the Western failure in this thing from day 1.  We let things slide after Crimea with weak porous sanctions.  We dithered and eroded NATO and other alliances.  And we kept buying Russian gas, pretending nothing happened in 2014.  And we ignored Russian political and “covert” actions up to and including literally messing with our democratic systems.
I think China will have a much different approach.  But as you say, Russia will be their problem.  A problem that comes with a lot of natural resources, the Arctic fishing rights alone are probably worth Chinese pain on this one.  Of course if we were smart we would be ready to exploit that arrangement…we will see.

It is all good.  If I ever find the time, I need to write up a piece on the phenomenon of this thread itself.  We have a bunch of people who are largely only connected via a small wargame, but who are also a collection of expertise in a lot of different fields.  We coalesced here and have produced assessment and analysis that frankly compares to the paid stuff out there in the world.  We even became self-regulating, without - I hazard - becoming too much of an echo chamber.
And all this time no one has really posted their bona-fides.  I mean a few were already known going in, but a lot of this has really just been the quality of discussion and opinion.  Not sure what to call this "emergent analysis", "organic" but it has been really fascinating to watch and participate in.

I honestly do not know.  Ukraine is in a tricky situation right now. Unless they want this thing to drag on for months they need Russia to have an out (as in "get  the hell out") but at the same time they need to keep up the pressure so that Russia does not get too comfortable.
Second to this I am not sure about UA offensive combat power.  This hybrid/crowd sourced warfare worked very well in basically integrating a bunch of local defence into a living nightmare for invading forces.  If they can somehow point that at something and get it moving we then have to see how it does against conventional troops dug in WW1 style.  My honest bet is this will look like steady chewing until they see an opportunity for an operational move (if they see one).  But again too large a gesture and Russia might dig in a choose the hard way.
UA will definitely pursue c-moves, my bet would be around Kyiv as top priority and then any other major urban centers they can to get the guns out of range.  Then once they do that then it will depend what the political level want to demonstrate.  I am not sure the UA can do large scale offensive actions, it will be Xmas morning if they can take their current approach on the road in a big way.
Donbas (DR/LR) are definitely in play, but I gotta tell you I honestly think Crimea is off the table.  The West was ready to basically live with it, I am sure Ukraine is still pissed but we are talking Sevastopol and the Russians are not going to give that up.  As you point out the Russians might just play the race card and declare it an attack on the homeland, which not only means mobilization but we might still get a chance to see them WMDs we were all worried about.  And I am not sure the West would see a tac nuke on a UA offensive in the Crimea in the same light.  We were definitely not cool with killing civilians but UA conventional troops advancing on Russian soil makes this really awkward and weird because every nuclear power has pretty much declared they will do the same thing.  It probably also explains why we have not seen deep attacks into Belarus and Russia before now, all those railyards are actually in drone range.
So stay strapped in cause it could still get wackier.

My read, worth what you are  paying for it, is that they would cut off Crimea at the most militarily convenient point and push on towards Mariupol. Very strong political/morale pressure to relieve Mariupol if they possibly can. But to do either of those things they have to take Kherson back, which is not trivial, and apparently the Russians have rigged the main bridge at Kherson to blow, so they will have real logistics headache to advance past that point. The Russian air force seems to have an easier time operating around Crimea/Mariupol area as well, which makes offense much harder for the Ukrainians. My vague impression is that theRussians have really good SAM/radar coverage from Crimea, and the southern reaches of the bit of Ukraine they have had since 2014. There may be advantages for the Russian planes to come in from over the Black Sea. They would only have a brief overland exposure to shorter range Ukrainian SAMS.
 

Not sure I agree with this:
- First, the average citizen is not seeing what we are, a total shambles of a Russian military operation that will ring out across the ages.  They see that Russia attacked it neighbor, blew up a lot of buildings that look like where they live and killed a lot of people that look like them.  The public have short attention spans but once something gets stuck in the collective brain-pan it is very hard to get out.  We are already seeing shifts in public opinion and that drives politicians.
- Second, it is not in any NATO nations military interest.  We need a bad guy, a boogie man in order to create political will to arm us.  We are going to play up the Russians as dangerous and a proven threat that we need to really worry about.  Assessments will get slowly ratcheted up from the obvious sh*tshow we see today, towards "the Russians have learned and teamed up with the Chinese!"  It is no secret that larger deployments to Eastern Europe a la Cold War are on the table.
- Third, no matter how badly the Russians did here...and it is bad...collective non-military deterrence failed.  We threatened sanctions, mean looks and strong language, Russia said "screw it" and went anyway.  That means hard power is back on the table one way or the other.  We have entered into a season of Mars (something most of the MENA already knew) and that is going to change the calculus (already has).  We are already getting sweaty questions on the Arctic and NORAD.
- Fourth, crazy bastards still got the bomb.  No matter how ridiculous Russian performance has been, they are sitting on enough nuclear boom-boom to re-set civilization, so we are likely going to see BMD and its like go nuts.
The only thing that makes this all go away is a total regime change in Russia that puts a moderate centrist in power, all the while embracing open liberal democracy...like by Saturday.  I think the Russian have a better chance of a Ukrainian surrender than that happening, so here we are in crazy town.    

Steve made this point with the T-14, but I will reinforce it. You cannot mass produce modern weapons. This is one of the biggest differences from WWII to today. In WWII every side was able to convert factories over from making civilian goods like cars, trains, etc. into making tanks, planes, engines, and rifles. Today you could do that, but the bottleneck isn't how quickly plants can do the work to produce a new weapon. Limitations are more fundamental and are driven by the exotic and unusual components needed to go into you cool hightech toy. Modern fighters wont fly without sophisticated silicone avionics, they cant fight without radars, and then you need to build the missiles which need a similar tech package, but of course have no parts in common. A T-72/T-90 has a sophisticated fire control computer, the APS, and ERA blocks which are wonders of physics and also very delicate to produce. And the tungsten rods needed for the ammo, its not like thats an easy or common material to mine and manufacture. And the armor what with its ceramic inserts and exotic materials. In WWII all this was easy to scale and civilian manufacturing helped provide a foundation which military production could leapfrog off of. But during the Cold War that relationship was broken, you dont really need many steel plates to make an Abrams and you cant go up to Detroit and just ask GM to double its production of Chobham car bodies. 
The same is true of drafted soldiers too, btw. Part of the systemic failure were seeing with the Russian Army today IMO is the use of conscript manpower rather than a more modern long-term enlistment approach. In the same way you really cant just go buy an SU-27 off the shelf, you also cant just go get a pilot for it either. Someone with the experience of the Ghost of Kyiv or other UAF pilots would just eat them alive. This was the experience of USAF pilots in Desert Storm, the USAF had trained so hard in programs like REDFLAG that their pilots knew the capabilities of the enemy planes better than the enemy pilots did. The same is true of tank teams who need constant practice to work their stations, AD operators to use and maintain their sophisticated hardware, and even infantry who have to commit their maneuvers and habits to muscle memory. This training can take a year to make a quality recruit at the short end, 2-3 more typically, and a decade or more in the case of a fighter pilot. 
You see on certain forums (Reddit/Twitter) this fear that the US or EU or Russia will reinstate the draft. That the next war will be WWIII, which coincidentally looks a lot like WWII. It wont. Every nation is now in a situation where they either win the war with what they have on hand, or they wont win at all. Russia, IMO, is more likely to escalate to WMDs than to try and mass produce T-72s like they did the T-34. IMO this is also the biggest reason why we havn't seen conscription or manpower mobilization. Where would these guys go and what would they do? You wouldn't just toss them into the meat grinder, but that means training them for months to get up to speed on any given job. And probably that would produce a worse soldier than even the conscript soldiers who went in on day 1 with at least a year training and a big exercise behind them. The UA, btw, is a bit different because theyre freedom fighters. You dont need as much training to throw a molotov to defend your home. 
This subject has always been a pet peeve of mine. 

It is a long shot but Putin has crossed every line we ever thought he would not, including a full scale invasion scenario that is trying to unfold.  I do not believe that all war is rational, too much history is on side with that, in this Clausewitz missed the boat somewhat, or perhaps to be kinder relative rationality is at play.  So WMDs
- Will it work?  Short of a tactical nuclear weapon or higher, doubt it.  Chemical is bad but places like Mariupole are already a level in hell so gassing civilian is worse but I do not think it will break the resolve of the Ukrainian people, in fact it may very well have the opposite effect.  Hell, at this point I am not even sure tac nukes would do much.  Further the Russian logistics mess will only be made worse by making the battlefield dirty, they thought they were having fun before.
- Is Putin deluded enough to try?  I honestly do not know.  I am starting to align with "he has lost the bubble" here somewhere and is starting to behave irrationally...invasion of another European state was kinda the first hint.  If boxed in and desperate enough, will the same mind that came up with this first nut-job plan start pushing buttons...maybe...gotta go with maybe.
- Will Russian military go along with a WMD.  Oh my, here things do get interesting.  I am not so sure to be honest.  Even the most devoted Russian general, complete with Putin pajamas and teddy bear, is going to think twice before stepping down that path and even if they do not, lower level commanders are going to.  Why...?
- Because the possible response from the west.   A WMD release on civilian centers, or even on a military target might just get the West off the couch.  Sanctions will be permanent and this may even take Russian oil and gas off the table.  A WMD will trigger western military action, the question is how much...and seriously I do not know.  Things get so slippery at that point, that a naval strike group in Romanian waters can turn into WW3 pretty quick.  No fly zone?  R2P cuts both ways and no Russian general wants to face down NATO.

Oh absolutely, these would be purely indicative and reflective of an fait accompli. Public opinion doesn't really matter in Russia. 

I don't think polling figures of support is what will get Putin.  It will be those sycophants around him deciding he is more of a - than a + and causing him to have a "medical mishap" out of a 5th floor window.