Monty's Mighty Moustache

Some news from Zaporizhzhia front
- Hanna Maliar claimed "partial success" near Novoprokpivka and Verbove. I can't say how is her words reliable, because her statements often were objects of criticism, but some OSINT observations show UKR troops have taken enemy position NW of Verbove

... and west from Robotyne toward Kopani

Unofficial TG of 46th air-assault brigade claims:
- UKR troops captured part of strongpoint north from Novoprokopivka. Russian sources also partially confirmed this - that UKR forces siezed eastern part of this strongpoint and now there are clashes for it western part on otehr side of road to Tokmak.
- Russians brought too many infantry to places, where UKR troops broke their first position of main line. Also Russians are withdrawing from minor positions (but fiercely fighting for important strongpoints), when they see they can't stand against UKR assault or arty strtikes, but UKR troops mostly can't take foothold on these positions because of intensive mortar, artillery, airstrikes and FPV/Lancet strikes. 
- despite on some success near Novoprokopivka and Verbove, heights near theses villages still under enemy control, so until they are taken, it will be too hard to capture these villages. 
Video of fight from 47th mech.brigade
 
According to infromation from 47th brigade, thier commander lt.colonel Oleksandr Sak, youngest brigade comamnder in UKR army was removed from duty colonel Oleksandr Pavliy was appointed to command. Recently he commanded by 112nd Territorial Defence brigade of Kyiv. In social networks some people say Sak was removed because he turned out not enough ready to complete so hard tasks, he made several mistakes and lost too many soldiers and value equipment. Other say all is other way round - Sak just was rejecting to acomplish endless "Go-go-go!" from "Tavria" Operative Grouping HQ (or maybe and higher) and didn't want to send soldiers in "meat attacks", so top-brass decided to remove obstinate comamnder. Maybe will be more information soon. Recently chief sergeant of brigade Valeriy Markus sharply criticize brigade command for their vision of brigade usage and was forced to leave the unit.  

Battle for Andriivka is much more than final fight for this 500 x 500 m area. There was hard way through entrenched tree-lines and fierce Russian counter-attacks on far approaches to the village. The same about Klishciivka and Kurdiumivka. 

My day job is developing wargames for the USMC, and I wanted to address the bolded part above. Computer simulations are great, but they do not answer all the objectives of professional wargames, in fact many time the result is not even that important, many times the discussion and insights learned from going through the process are all that we are after. Computer sims also have a way of stifling this conversation, trust me when you have 50 professional Marine, Army, and/or Navy officers in a room, a table top game is the best tool for the job if you want to invite conversation and in-depth topic discussions.
There is also a dopamine hit players get from the tactile nature of a map and counter wargame and rolling dice that you rarely get from a computer simulation. That also has a value to get player buy-in, interaction, and enjoyment.  
Simulation based professional wargames are great when the results are important, testing a new tactical organization, weapon system integration, etc., but they usually turn into a series of in-depth planning sessions with a simulated vignettes occuring for flavor. There is also a stovepipe mentality with these types of games with different player cells huddled around their machines that is absent in table top games.
I've seen it all and there is value for all types of wargames in the professional setting and which is used depends on the objectives and research questions we are trying to answer. Table top games in professional wargames will not be going away anytime soon.
Bil

Not heresy in the least.  The lines have not moved much despite all the action, no disputing that.  We have not seen an operational breakthrough, largely tactical pulses which have not added up yet.
So a couple thoughts/questions:
- If this whole offensive is a road to nowhere…why is the UA still pushing?  The UA has a lot to lose and knows that they must preserve their forces.  They cannot afford the human wave wastage Wagner and the RA demonstrated last winter.  Yet they are still pushing…why?  My only guess can be that they still see achievable objectives and their picture of the RA supports this.
- We have seen a lot of indications that the RA war machine is in trouble.  To the point that I am not even sure what is still holding it together.  This may be an example of that Russian steel everyone was going on about at the beginning of this war.  Right now the RA appears glued together by pure stubbornness.  Their losses have been historic and a lot of capability is simply gone.  The central question is, “are they close to tipping?”  No idea but I am pretty sure the UA and western military support “inside the box” have a much better bead.
- Ok, the UA offensive of 2023 fails…now what?  Well, we might have to start thinking about frozen lines and a much longer conflict.  So what does that look like?  How do we support that?  There is no “cutting and running” on this one yet, our sunk costs are too high and the opportunity to continue to cripple Russia too good.
One thing we do need to get out of our heads is the idea that “not retaking every inch of pre-2014 Ukraine = losing”.  That was a dangerous binary position to take and it will not serve well moving forward.  Losing is an Ukraine no longer able to decide when and where to prosecute this conflict.  Losing is an Ukraine no longer able to be independent of Russian Will.  Losing is western powers surrendering strategic initiative.
All war is negotiation.  With the other parties, with oneself and with the situation as it evolves.  My read is that Ukraine is continuing to negotiate from a position of strength and no matter how this year’s offensive turns out, if they can sustain that then we still have options.

Something is afoot.  You don't start an air & naval campaign only to stop it after some success. The enemy just recuperates and hardens,making a round 2 much harder. I suspect UKR has properly begun its Crimea prep. 
 

Well I mean if Britain just let Germany simply occupy its share of Poland without any action - there would be no war, am I right?

that's literally not a joke but a russian logic. If you defend yourself - more bullets get to fly.

What air defenses? ;D
Apperently, there's less and less of them. BBC was pretty quick to report the local (my hometown) events, so you may wanna check that out.
No air raid warnings, no nothing. Nothing is happening, as always. Just bavovna and smoke. Even the announcer at the train station skips the usual "be observant and careful, careful and observant" this morning. How come, I wonder?
 
ps: I'm okay, and the windows are fine, for now.

He's made some really good choices and saw where things were headed while others had head in sand.  But genius?
He drunk or mental illness binge bought twitter, tried to renege (even trying to wreck twitter stock value thinking it would help his case) and was forced to do the buy.  He paid $44B for a company worth maybe $20B.  And now it's worth what?  he then decided cost structure to high and binge fired over half the company w no plan or thinking.  That aint genius.  
He publicly wanted to fight his competitor, Zuckerburg of facebook.  And wanted to compare dicks.  That's not genius.
He thinks QAnon stuff actually makes sense.  That makes him an idiot, not a genius.  
He alienated the customer base for tesla cars (affluent libs) and had to dramatically cut prices.  The good news for tesla is that they are great cars and get the big tax break in US, so a lot of libs (some I know) held their nose and bought anyway, but he did serious damage.  So, not a genius.  
He thinks colonizing mars makes sense.  Except that it's insane.  Maybe he promotes this because he'll make fortune on the contracts for the stupidest endeavor in human history.  

I used to think so. But I am more and more convinced that Musk isn't actually all that smart. Just rich enough to hire smart people. The man renamed Twitter (one of the more recognizable names in the world) to X (a single letter which is impossible to trademark and which is literally used as a placeholder).

https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-tried-to-shoot-down-ukrainian-flag-revealed-firing-position-2023-9
Made me chuckle
MMM

https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-tried-to-shoot-down-ukrainian-flag-revealed-firing-position-2023-9
Made me chuckle
MMM

I am a veteran of two wars and have likely forgotten more about war and warfare than you based on your contributions to this thread.  
I see that you are taking a “self-imposed” vacation and will come back “when proven right”.  Well problem with that is that you have never really taken a clear position on anything.  At one moment you talk about “diplomacy and negotiation” the next “4 weeks to victory”.  You have not demonstrated any real research or citations in your contributions nor any level of recognizable expertise on the subject matter.  My, and other attempts, to explain are “too complicated” so you dismiss them.  Then when I sit down and actually try to unpack your position and why your assumptions are flawed, I get insults and name calling.  No facts.  No counter analysis.  Just “be quiet”.
So when you come back (and I am sure you will), what exactly constitutes you “being proven right”?  Have the courage to take a position and clearly define it and stop these politically motivated drive-bys.  The way you have ambiguously framed your position does not allow for you to be wrong.  If the war is still going on you can declare “I told you we should have negotiated/stated/invaded”.  If the war ends, you can claim it is because the US finally did whatever you were saying all along.
So I am calling you out.  Clearly give us three strategic “must dos” in order for this war to end.  Clear and measurable strategic actions the US and West must carry out in your deeply informed opinion.  Don’t weasel around it or try to build in wiggle room.  Here let me show you how it is done:
1.  Commitment to win the war. The US/West must continue to own the escalation ladder in this war.  They must continue steady, predictable and clear pressure on Russia through programmed support to Ukraine.  This commitment must be unambiguous and apolitical, we are in it until this is done.  No back doors or side deals.  No renormalization until Russia is out of Ukraine completely.  This is a slow steady path with no sudden movement as we thread a needle between uncontrolled escalation and stagnation/freezing conflict.  This is a long war of attrition and must be navigated as one…it will go slow until the RA collapses militarily or there is a major political shift in Russia.  Either way direct confrontation between US/West must be avoided at all costs - no hard fast win.  Further, victory must be clear and unambiguous as well.  No soft-wins for Russia just to end this. Russian defeat must be clear.
2.  Commitment to win post-war.  Reconstruction and post conflict defence and security mechanisms are a must.  No grey areas or open clauses.  We commit to rebuild Ukraine and pull it into a real security alliance that will guarantee long term security and investment.
3.  Engineer Russian negotiations with its own defeat.  Russia cannot become a failed state, yet it requires regime change.  That is very tricky to manage at the best of times.  A path to renormalization must be developed but it cannot ignore the egregious warcrimes and violations Russia has committed.  This will lead Russia out of being pulled entirely into a Chinese power sphere and provide some multipolar power manoeuvre room.
There you go.  I am on record with my position and advice.  Now if the US goes in hard next week and Russia withdraws with its tail between its legs I will be proven wrong.  If we can suddenly negotiate an end to this war that makes everyone happy, I was also wrong.  So what have you got?

I have largely ignored you because it is pretty clear that you are not in fact interested in actually learning anything on this forum.  However, in reality this is an honest question that some lurkers may also be asking.  Why can’t the US, or NATO or an alliance in between “win this war in 4 weeks and just end this brutal war?”  Don’t need an essay really:
-  Put the nuclear escalation to the side for arguments sake but we will come back to it.
-    A US direct incursion into Ukraine or this war is going to drive a massive amount of support into Putin’s arms, to the point he might actually get full mobilization support.  A fully mobilized and galvanized Russia is a scary beast particularly since they will likely be heavily backed by both China and Iran as they will see the entire expansion of the war as a chance to defeat the US by proxy.  So now the US has four weeks to push Russia out of Ukraine, could they do it?  Probably?  Would it end the war…no way.  It would likely expand it as Russia gears up for a serious fight because now it has reason to have one. The totality of your position is that you are in fact pointing madly at a “limited war” but your solution is “more limited war”…oh wait maybe you are not talking about a limited war.
- ok, to defeat Russia, truly defeat them, it means not simply driving them out of Ukraine.  It means total defeat of Russia as a nation.  The destruction of Russian Will to fight.  This means going into Russia itself and removing its ability to generate that Will.  So we are talking invasion, defeat in detail and occupation…of Russia.  The military force the US would need to do that is well outside the US military current envelope, we are talking millions of troops.  Let’s pretend Russia can be occupied, it is a big country (look at a map).  You now need to hold it until you can install a friendly government…and remember you brought up total war.  So the US and most of NATO would now need conscription to sustain a force that large…you feeling strong?
- “But we will stop at the border”, sure and Russia will now simply reload and incite as much violence and discontent in Ukraine…now filled with US troops.  What possible negotiated end-state is there where Russia can still function while massing for WW3? No, you cannot give Russia time to reload…that would be really dumb.  So now you would need to contain Russia…in the 21st century…with China on one of its borders…and Iran.  That is a massive problem.  The state sponsored terrorism issues alone will be intense.  Again, this is limited measures that won’t “end” anything but risk a lot worse.
- Back to occupation, the risk of a resistance from hell is incredibly high.  See the many lengthy posts on that issue.  Very angry and well supported by various powers an occupied Russia could make Iraq look like a weekend outing.  Oh wait, there is more,
- Russia might fly apart while you are trying to occupy it.  Not known for its shining unity, occupation could see Russia itself fly apart and the the US is trying to manage a civil war…and a possible insurgency.
- Ok, now the obvious one…WMDs.  Let’s pretend that Russia won’t use them on good old “Merican” boys as they counter attack into Ukraine and encroach on the Russian border.  They sure as hell will if the US invades Russian soil, which we have to now.  And even if they don’t there is no way in this universe we can guarantee we can secure them all.  Now we may have lose WMDs of many flavours lose in this mess.
To put it more simply and in words with as few syllables as I can: To defeat  Russia and end this war in 4 weeks the US would need to break Russia.  To break Russia is to engage in a major war, possibly global.  It would break the UN, it would shatter NATO because I can think of at least a dozen nations that would get off that train quickly.  Economically it would break the system as we are talking markets staring down the barrel of nuclear Armageddon.  Anything short of that is just more limited war with even slimmer margins than we are already on.
So when you declare that “the US could end this thing in 4 weeks” all you are doing is loudly announcing just how much you do not understand.  If you honestly want to learn, maybe stop typing and start reading more. 
 

Just a bit of light politicking, Russian style.

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-admits-thwarting-ukraine-attack-not-activating-starlink-satellites-2023-9
He didn't think Starlink would be used for military purposes? Man is either deluded or a liar. Or a deluded liar.

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-admits-thwarting-ukraine-attack-not-activating-starlink-satellites-2023-9
He didn't think Starlink would be used for military purposes? Man is either deluded or a liar. Or a deluded liar.

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-admits-thwarting-ukraine-attack-not-activating-starlink-satellites-2023-9
He didn't think Starlink would be used for military purposes? Man is either deluded or a liar. Or a deluded liar.

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-admits-thwarting-ukraine-attack-not-activating-starlink-satellites-2023-9
He didn't think Starlink would be used for military purposes? Man is either deluded or a liar. Or a deluded liar.

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-admits-thwarting-ukraine-attack-not-activating-starlink-satellites-2023-9
He didn't think Starlink would be used for military purposes? Man is either deluded or a liar. Or a deluded liar.

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-admits-thwarting-ukraine-attack-not-activating-starlink-satellites-2023-9
He didn't think Starlink would be used for military purposes? Man is either deluded or a liar. Or a deluded liar.

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-admits-thwarting-ukraine-attack-not-activating-starlink-satellites-2023-9
He didn't think Starlink would be used for military purposes? Man is either deluded or a liar. Or a deluded liar.

The one simple trick to understanding Musk is that he will do whatever he perceives to be in his self interest. Obviously, letting Ukraine use Starlink endeared him to the US government...upon whose contracts several of his companies depend. But he also has large Tesla manufacturing interests in China and that government was expressing strong concerns about Western aid to Ukraine at that time. Much of his wealth is tied to Tesla and it wouldn't take more than a Russian interlocutor mentioning Putin's conversations with Xi to put a deep chill into him. 
The situation now, as I understand it, is that the USG locked him in contractually to avoid this sort of thing reoccurring but I would imagine the scrutiny of who at Starlink knows what about Ukrainian operations and who they may then be talking to will be going into overdrive. Musk's wealth is a pretty big vessel but in the end, the USA is the world's biggest glacier. He avoids running against it or he sinks.

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-admits-thwarting-ukraine-attack-not-activating-starlink-satellites-2023-9
He didn't think Starlink would be used for military purposes? Man is either deluded or a liar. Or a deluded liar.

Worth to remember this short clip- Mordvichev is trying to position himself as hardliner and distance from putchists. But sole fact that this new narration of "collecting Russian lands" as historical mission is gradually being accepted by top muscovite militaries and wider society (and not just state propagandists) is telling by itself. Year after year it will become less fake and more genuine, even if they lose this war.
So it was just about time to start arming ourselves on Eastern NATO Flank.
 
 

I am just going to walk past without getting involved in this but, should I drop any thing over my shoulder as I go maybe it can go towards drawing a line under this whole sub-thread?
...
Whoops!
Clumsy me!