FancyCat

And he mentioned Odesa in the briefing, ahh nevermind, nothing to feel silly about, how can he say "how can Ukraine survive the winter without the grain producing regions including Odesa if Russia gets that far" implying that one, Russia might well make it to Odesa, and two, would do so before winter in time to disrupt the harvest. Which is barring the collapse of the Ukrainian army, basically impossible, it took what, 2 months? for them to make and take this little cauldron in Donbas? How does he expect them to take Mykolaiv much less Odessa? Nah, he's either lacking in information, or is privy to much more information, or has taken the Russian viewpoint wholesale without consideration of Ukraine's. Russia achieved significant penetration of both the Austrian Foreign Ministry, and their Intelligence Agency, and probably deeply politically. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/07/05/austria-russia-infuence/ Resulting in them being frozen out of intelligence sharing for a time? Wouldn't be surprised if still banned.... Edit: Say there are pro-Russian factions in the Austrian government, both to ensure Austria gets Russian gas, and maybe more personal (bribes) reasons. Russia in order to break European unity and support to Ukraine needs to portray the conflict as lost, in order to empower elements of pro-ceasefire, anti-war, and those against supplying Ukraine and against ruining relations with Russia on the basis that the conflict is decided. In that sense, especially with the banning of many Russian propaganda networks in the EU, it would make sense to get Western experts endorsing the Russian viewpoint.

That article is actually quite illuminating, clearly Ukraine has not reached the point of being able to mass together units without Russia blowing them to bits, but it lays out Ukraine's plan to turn the tide of the war, maybe someone link it to the Austrian colonel. (On one hand I feel quite silly contesting a military man's judgement, I know nothing of military matters, on the other hand, I can't get over the fact he thinks the cauldron worked. I mean it may have but we have no proof of significant numbers of POWs, no proof of large numbers of destroyed equipment, Colonel Reisner thinks significant numbers of western weapons were successfully destroyed which again, Russia has shown nothing to indicate has occurred. Snake Island may be a sideshow so he ignored it in favor of the main fight in Donbas but if Ukraine was on the ropes, and Russia actually dominating, Ukraine should not have been able to force Russia off the island)

One thing I do note, 1917 and the collapse of the Russian army, there was much, much more social discontent domestically, and right now not even the more positive scenarios envisioned at the beginning of the year, like protest movements for peace are existing. As much as we hope for a collapse, 1917 looks quite impossible now and in the near future. Maybe later it develops but we shall see.

You do not deploy police as frontline units in military conflicts. You deploy police to beat down riots, or arresting targets. The fact that Ukraine got to ambush National Guard and Police units, and that the first unit into Kiev aside from PMCs attempting to assassinate the UKR government was a NG unit that got crushed.....these "shock troops" clearly didnt know what was gonna happen or prepped for it. At least the VDV got briefings, according to the BBC.

The fact that Russia chose not to undertake a sustained air campaign to dilute Ukrainian military and communications before deploying the forces against Kiev along a narrow front lends a lot towards that the decision makers in the Kremlin did not expect serious resistance and a quick toppling of the Ukrainian military. Not to mention the leading units being essentially National Guard/Police, or that many units ran out of fuel....en route to Kiev. they ran out of fuel on a 100 mile trip. Statements from captured soldiers not expecting resistance, the fact the Kremlin chose to undertake a air landing without SEAD or quite simply ignoring the fact NATO ISR was watching and providing Ukrainians with information on the air landings dropzones. (if Russia considered the Ukrainian military dangerous, what happened to degrading their ability to operate? if Russia considered the UKR military to be a quick issue, then the disadvantages of all I've mentioned are outweighed by the need for quick Russian seizure before potential NATO intervention/reinforcement)

At 5:42, he states its unknown how many Ukrainians were captured or killed in the cauldron, the lack of Russian POW captures would indicate a very low amount were captured at least. At 7:38, he mentions the BTGs, but ISW and others have pointed out that the BTG theory vs reality of force makeup is very skewed and its much harder to compare BTG vs BTG for force disparity. 11:45, he talks about the lack of air defense and aircraft for Ukraine, except we continue to get evidence that helicopters and aircraft of the Ukrainian Air Force are still sortieing out, and the fact Russia refrains from air sorties into UKR territory that it should be doing to suppress UKR western artillery pieces, does not mesh with his statement that all air power or defense of Ukraine is dead. Plus Snake Island, if Ukraine had no more air defense or aircraft, why did Russia fail to hold the island against a artillery battery? Why are Harpoon launchers still able to keep Russian ships from nearing Odessa? Also....im sure hes a great military officer, etc, etc, what sources of intel is he getting from? Austria is not part of NATO, Austria's intelligence agencies are hallowed out after this, Russian infiltration into both the Foreign Ministry and Intelligence agencies being present and high-level, and were frozen out of intel sharing as a result. The biggest concern is why he ignored Snake Island, and he seems to not have a video before this one but after Russia left the island, so I cast doubt on his assertions that Ukraine has no airpower or air defense on the basis that the island should have been readily held had that be true.

Man, all those civilians in Kherson region, God protect them as much as possible.

Why hit the railways when you can hit the ammo dumps at the end and cause tons of social media chatter as the skies darken from the smoke and flames?

O'Brien lays out why this attack is so bad for Russia. Putting parts of it below.

I want to bring up from my prior post the assessment by the U.S on Russian logistics. Is this a Russian logistical failing or a Soviet failing, the reference of a lack of doctrine on munitions and safe storage has me quite perplexed that the "2nd most advanced" military in the world stores ammo like this.

Better to pretend these are civilian targets, for PR internationally and to hopefully convince the public that Russia isn't losing valuable supplies needed to defend.

If we review the wiki article on the New Union Treaty, the attempt to maintain the USSR, the majority of potential members are independent states now, with smaller number still part of Russia.amd being quite small geographically. Not sure whatever remained part of Russia till today is viable as a potential state to engage in either catastrophic or negotiated collapse. Maybe engage in seeking more devolved powers but remaining as a federal subject of Russia. This devolved conflict I think would be much less worrisome than the feared 1991 breakup scenarios. In essence, Russia decays slowly with no fear of actual collapse.

I think I found it. Two things stand out significantly for me, one, his invoking of the Spanish Empire but he did not elaborate on it I believe. Two, he does not in the thread go into detail on why the same sort of factors generated the breakup of the Soviet union don't apply here (mass action, etc, but I will say Russia socially does not nearly look close to 1991 Soviet Union in dissent and protests so I'm inclined to support that the Russian people will not attempt to change the course) He does point out that fraying economic ties and political elites attempting to make up for it will cause the factors for breakup later down the line. I know nothing about the exact circumstances of how regions interact in Russia so I am assuming he understands it more as a native. His mention of the division between the mainlanders and the colonial subjects in the Spanish Empire, I do think there can be comparisons to the way Moscow exists with the other regions in Russia. Spain of course had the collapse of basically all central authority and the large amount of wars that occurred, while perhaps this is how Russia falls apart, I don't see how the central authority collapses in such a manner as Spain to cause active military conflicts to arise and again, the people look unlikely to cause central authority collapse.

Russia actually never wanted the Donbas annexed into Russia, what Russia wanted was leverage to prevent the Ukrainian state strengthening, and to ensure Russian influence persisted in Ukraine (case in point Crimea was annexed quick as hell). Now, if the 2022 invasion had been successful, maybe in some far off future, Russia might have annexed the Donbas, but only as part of a broader project absorbing the rest of Ukraine. The pre-2/24 borders that one could see maybe Russia and Ukraine reach a compromise are actually absolutely defeats for Russia, that cannot be waved away domestically. 2/24 if you remember means Ukraine still retains control of parts of the two republics claimed de jure borders, and especially with Putin claiming such lofty goals like denazification, demilitarization, not to mention dreams of New Russia, and explicit immediate goals of liberating the republics territories still occupied by Ukraine, 2-24 is impossible for Russia to agree to as it is clear defeat. Also, 2-24 precludes major land important (economically) portions of those Oblasts, and economically not whole, both are utterly useless to Russia, annexing them may unlock economic gains (doubt) but that would remove the lever on Ukraine. 2-24, the same reason Russia cannot accept it as a peace point, Ukraine cannot accept 2-24, for the fact that Russia still holds a lever to interfere in Ukraine via the republics if the republics are not annexed. Ukraine cannot cede any land and so the existence of the Republics poses a threat to Ukraine, more so than if annexed into Russia. But again, Russia will not annex useless territories. So 2-24 is sorta impossible so either Ukraine or Russia to formalize a agreement around. (Maybe a stalemate, but that would involve skirmishes, active military conflict) 2-24 is impossible from a negotiation standpoint, and if Ukraine reaches 2-24 from a military standpoint, there isn't a argument, I see for Russia being able to stabilize the front to prevent Ukraine from pushing further beyond 2-24 if Ukraine has reached the point of the 2-24 borders.

Kamil had made several threads detailing Russian collapse scenarios, one was a loss of centralization but slowly and not as chaotic as one would think. I can't find it anymore but I find it useful since so far Russian broader society seems unwilling to do anything concerning the war so I'm doubting they will overthrow Putin or insist on reforms. Likely it will be infighting among the political class.

In a interview with The Times, Defense Minister Reznikov makes clear (unless its a bluff) that Kherson is the site of the Ukrainian counter offensive. Makes sense, Ukraine has been slowly itching its way towards the city itself, the location of it on the far bank of the Dnipro makes it hard for Russia to defend, the limited crossing points make it very easy for Ukraine to defend the region once retaken, as the only capital of a Oblast taken by Russia in the 2022 invasion, it has been given significant significance by Russian occupation authorities for a future Novorossiya, retaking it will shatter the image of Russian victory domestically and worldwide. Especially worldwide, Russia argues partly conflict is meaningless, as its superiority makes it impossible for Ukraine to regain, and promotes pro-ceasefire, negotiations, and status quo solidification of the occupied territories. No other frontline nearing city has as much significance as Kherson, holding Lysychansk for 4 months will not equal the damage to Russia the retaking of Kherson will inflict. Hopefully this will occur sooner than later.

Interesting they targeted a police base. Rosgvardia units don’t appear on battlefield anymore right, beyond those columns in the first waves? Some assistance to the partisan units is nice to see occurring. im mulling over what happens next for Kherson. The warnings by high level Ukrainian government officials indicate a battle for Kherson, the question is, is Ukraine going to shut down the nearest passage to Kherson? On one hand, Ukraine needs to stop further Russian reinforcements, on another hand, I’m not sure why they haven’t lobbed something to blow up the nearest bridge yet since that would be top priority so maybe Ukraine hopes to generate enough fear to force Russia to leave the city?

I would say a essential thing to read. A very important tidbit, the utilization of Europe as a safe harbor cannot be underestimated. Ukrainian personnel train without fear of death, Ukrainian equipment is repaired, etc. This is a tanker? Quite good he refers to combined arms warfare with infantry. am I the only one who does a double take at the fact Ukraine offers financial incentives for soldiers to register captured and destroyed equipment? Certainly a common idea, but I feel uncommonly seen in western armies….but if it stops corruption, I’m all for it.

From @5urpher on twitter, no idea if its legit bases, but what a map, OSINT is wow. https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=14Q6WqozGQhpE4KgQr-5zIPNjYiU&ll=48.202766704995796%2C38.00556793133162&z=10

I dunno what the rest of the book says, but with the hindsight of the invasion confirming it, the Donbas has always been merely a lever for influencing the rest of Ukraine. Minsk was a attempt to handicap the Ukrainian state and give Russia a veto in Ukrainian internal affairs. The reason why Russia never wanted to annex Donbas or entertained the republics requests for annexation was actually absorbing it into Russia removes it from leveraging it to damage Ukraine like Bosnia and Republic of Srpska. Crimea they went ahead and annexed it but not Donbas.