How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Aragorn2002]

1 hour ago, arkhangelsk2021 said:

I just point out a clear disadvantage in the plan. You see, the moral vibe I get from this entire conflict is ... to try and put it in terms you might understand ... German v Belgium 1914 - if you ask who's right, well it's not going to be the Germans. But there are sufficient mitigating and complicating factors that I'm in no mood to make Hitler comparisons, to advocate torture they can get away with, or to say the Ukrainians have an absolute morality advantage.

Let me tell you what I think about that in terms you might understand. There's clearly something wrong with your 'moral vibe''. It is more than justified to make a Hitler or Stalin comparison in this case and the Ukrainians DO have an absolute 'morality advantage', because their country and their people are attacked and bombed by a criminal regime, that so far only brought misery over the world. Russia is a ROGUE state. Period.

1 hour ago, arkhangelsk2021 said:

My priority, in case you don't get it, is that this gets done quickly. So you may think I'm raining doom and gloom on the Ukrainians while you are cheering for every dead Russian tank, but the fact is, I just don't think the Ukrainians are really putting the Russians in danger, at least not for now. The wave of tweets on dead Russian equipment reminds me frankly of Japans Dai-Hon-Ei Happyou (GHQ pronouncements). At least there does seem to be real dead Russian equipment ... that's the improvement ... but the real problem is that like their Imperial Japanese counterparts, every report of "success", real or fake, seems to be slowly but surely moving deeper into Ukraine. So basically Russians are dying but they are moving the line up.

Oh, I get it allright. Your 'priority' shows where your sympathies  are in this conflict. This is about a people fighting for their freedom. Of course the Ukrainians are not winning, that's why something needs to be done. That action from the side of NATO includes danger is clear and not to be taken lightly. Your attitude is to wait and see, post some 'screenshots' and excuse the agressor, which is basically why we landed in this mess in the first place.

58 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is not to say that everything is going great for Ukraine.  Clearly that's not the case.  However, uninformed general opinion before the war started was this would be over and done with in a couple of days with the total defeat of Ukraine.  I was not one of those people.

Ukraine has no reason to throw in the towel now, especially since the Russian position is total surrender, disarmament, and dismemberment as a nation state.

 

Steve

That.

Edited February 27, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[CHEqTRO]

9 minutes ago, John Kettler said:

CHEqTRO,

Believe that lone demolished Tigr has a BSR fitted, which, if true, definitely means it's a recon vehicle. The only other reasonable explanation is a SATCOM antenna, but its being parallel to the ground would seem to rule that out..

Regards,

John Kettler

Yeah those are most definitively recon units, no doubt about that. The thing is is that they are pushing not only with these light recon units, but also with unsopported infantry (They are moving trucks into a dense urban environment:)

They are desperate into tacking the city, and either they do not want to risk heavy equipment or/ and they have lost already too much on the outskirts to be used on the assault.

What this tells me, by the way, its that the Russian high command is desperate. They probably had expected Kharkiv to be in their hands already, in order to complete the encirclement of the Donbass area (Remember that yesterday the russians were able to satart threathening Mariupol). It also shows that the russian high command its unwilling, for whatever reasons, to modify its initial war plans. They had been ordered to take Kharkiv, so they will go and try to take it, the overall operational situation and the accumulated losses be damned.

[Aragorn2002]

56 minutes ago, arkhangelsk2021 said:

Say what you want about how they are doing it, but it does seem they are digging deeper and deeper.

  

I can read just enough Russian to recognize it isn't much - it's basically a name list starting from the commander of the detachment. And it's an OMON unit.

'Say what you want about how they are doing it....' Thanks, I  will.

'I can read just enough Russian...' I think there's nothing wrong with your Russian, to be honest...

[arkhangelsk2021]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

What they expected to achieve on Day 1 is probably 25% accomplished going into Day 4

I've seen them. The problem I always have is ... how do they know what the Russians "expected" to achieve on Day 1? It's vaguely possible that the UK intelligence service might have somehow stolen the General Staff Plan via a spy, but if they did, they aren't publishing that one to the masses. So on what basis did the rest of the analysts (or specifically, you for example) decide what the Russians "expected" to achieve on Day 1?

In the absence of such information, I suspect the problem is with the West's tactical mindset. For example, if the Russians make say an airdrop, they think in terms of the Russians necessarily expecting it to succeed. When it doesn't they mark it up as a Fail. After all, that's what the West would do, should it attempt the airdrop at all.

Now granted, I don't think the Russians mind at all if their forces can hold those airfields long enough to airlift larger airborne forces in, but OK here's the thing. The Russians are airlifting in companies in their first waves. The Ukrainians have two brigades ready to respond. How realistic is it to expect the one company to keep the landing zones clear consistently enough for a second landing? And if the second landing can't be done the company (or even battalion) is necessarily waiting for annihilation.

If it was a NATO general running this, he probably just won't do those airdrops. However, from an operational perspective, the landing will still be useful if it diverts disproportionate amounts of Ukrainian forces at critical moments. The Ukrainians like "squeezing those pimples" as they come in, but it does mean they have to move forces out of the main mechanized avenues of advance to do so. If the Ukrainians have been able to use those brigades against the mechanized column, the Russians may still not be in Kiev.

From that perspective, operationally the Russians have the Ukrainians where they want them. Could it be better? Yes. But they have the Ukrainians split across multiple axes, holding on by their fingernails and best of all, unable to interfere with the progress of the main direction which seems to be versus Kiev. Please don't tell me that you think the Ukrainians are holding on with one hand tied behind their back and not sending forces to help push the Russians out of their capitol. While the Ukrainians can still do "guerilla air attacks", as the Soviet designs had planned as a contingency, in the main Russian columns can use the road with relative safety.

I'd start worrying for the Russian offensive when the CoFs get better on the supporting axes, such that the Ukrainians start sending rescue forces to their capitol or Kharkiv.

[John Kettler]

Ref that BRDM-2 shooting at the passing light armor (couldn't tell type), there is return fire, for something falls over bottom of frame left.

Breaking Kharkiv story

https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-kyiv-business-europe-moscow-2e4e1cf784f22b6afbe5a2f936725550?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

 

AFP News Agency

 

@AFP

 

#UPDATE Russian troops have entered Ukraine's second city Kharkiv and fighting is under way, the head of the regional administration said. "The Russian enemy's light vehicles broke into the city of Kharkiv... The Ukrainian armed forces are eliminating the enemy," he said.

Ukrainian officials report changes in radiation levels after Russian forces capture Chernobyl nuclear plant

 

See new Tweets

 

 

 

 

 

 

0:00

 

 

Ukraine conflict

·

2 hours ago

Ukrainian officials report changes in radiation levels after Russian forces capture Chernobyl nuclear plant

Ukrainian officials have reported higher levels of radiation after Russian troops captured the Chernobyl power plant, the site of one of the world’s worst nuclear accidents, Reuters reports. The plant is located approximately 60 miles (97 km) north of the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv. Podolyak said the status of the plant and storage facilities is “unknown." White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said the US was "outraged by credible reports" of hostages being held at the facility.

US SECDEF Blinken today authorized an unprecedented third drawndown, a whopping $350 million, for Ukraine. Speaking as a US taxpayer, I hope we send it as weapons and not money that could wind up in corrupt hands!

https://www.state.gov/additional-military-assistance-for-ukraine/

Regards,

John Kettler

 

[John Kettler]

Since this appears to be separate and distinct from what Germany says it will provide, this still doesn't tell us whether the 1000 Panzerabwehrwaffen (tank defense weapons) will be Panzerfausts or the vastly more preferable Milan ER ATGM.

UPDATED: Major turnaround in Germany's military policy, as Berlin authorizes the Netherlands to send Ukraine 400 rocket-propelled grenade launchers. Until today, Germany did not permit lethal weapons that it controlled to be transferred to conflict zones.

 

 

politico.eu

Germany OKs weapons for Ukraine in major shift on military aid

Until Saturday, Germany had a longstanding practice of blocking lethal weapons from being sent to conflict zones.

 

[John Kettler]

[arkhangelsk2021]

The Czechs are one of the relatively few NATO nations using 152 mm artillery rounds, and they are sending them to the Ukraine.

[John Kettler]

A Ukrainian ammo depot blew up or was blown up 6 hours ago. Video link didn't copy.

Riot police are being used to shut down anti-war protests in Moscow. Reporter was himself arrested but released when he produced his documents. All it takes is standing around doing nothing to get arrested, too.
 

[Aragorn2002]

7 hours ago, danfrodo said:

Yes, Arkangelsk, I agree w what you said except for co-belligerent.  They are a peacekeeping force invited in by a sovereign nation and would fight only in defense of the stated safe zone and its occupants.  And the huge refugee crisis is a nice excuse to keep some portion of western ukraine out of Putin's control.  While also provide a place to stage refugees that is not inside Poland.  It draws a line, a military line, that Putin may not cross.  Hopefully other countries would volunteer to provide some refugee or military support services.  Why Poland?  Because they are right there, have a good military, are bearing the refugee crisis, and could do it. 

 

Not sure about Poland getting in alone, Dan, but interesting. It would also show Putin that he won't get away with this AND it would encourage the Ukrainians to fight on, knowing they don't stand alone. For the future it would also be a very clear sign to the world with regard to what NATO really stands for.

If the Russians decide to attack the NATO forces, who have much more of a right to be in the Ukraine, especially when invited by Zelensky which won't be a problem, than it's their choice. Enough is enough. We've already tolerated far too much from that ROGUE STATE.

Edited February 27, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[Battlefront.com]

28 minutes ago, arkhangelsk2021 said:

I've seen them. The problem I always have is ... how do they know what the Russians "expected" to achieve on Day 1?

Because I've been studying how Russia fights for pretty much the last 30 years?  And no, Russia doesn't fight much different than Soviet doctrine.

Put another way, if things are going roughly according to the Russian plan, then their planners should have heart attacks or fall out of the nearest window as soon as possible.  This is a disaster that is bad enough that the Putin regime might not survive it.

28 minutes ago, arkhangelsk2021 said:

It's vaguely possible that the UK intelligence service might have somehow stolen the General Staff Plan via a spy, but if they did, they aren't publishing that one to the masses. So on what basis did the rest of the analysts (or specifically, you for example) decide what the Russians "expected" to achieve on Day 1?

So you think it was the Russian plan to stall out advances in all areas, take heavy casualties, not achieve air superiority, lose extremely large amounts of equipment, run out of fuel at critical points, and have hundreds of soldiers surrender to the Ukrainians all while achieving almost no territorial gains of any significance?

You seem to set Russia's expectations so low it's a wonder they bothered to attack at all.

28 minutes ago, arkhangelsk2021 said:

In the absence of such information, I suspect the problem is with the West's tactical mindset. For example, if the Russians make say an airdrop, they think in terms of the Russians necessarily expecting it to succeed. When it doesn't they mark it up as a Fail. After all, that's what the West would do, should it attempt the airdrop at all.

Because no nation deliberately throws away its most highly trained and expensive forces just for the Hell of it.  Is your opinion of Russia that low?

28 minutes ago, arkhangelsk2021 said:

Now granted, I don't think the Russians mind at all if their forces can hold those airfields long enough to airlift larger airborne forces in, but OK here's the thing. The Russians are airlifting in companies in their first waves. The Ukrainians have two brigades ready to respond. How realistic is it to expect the one company to keep the landing zones clear consistently enough for a second landing? And if the second landing can't be done the company (or even battalion) is necessarily waiting for annihilation.

Well, first off you shouldn't launch an air assault unless you have reasonably suppressed the enemy's air defenses.  Russia did not and they lost at least 3 helicopters and 2 transport planes loaded with paratroopers.  So right there indicates a serious problem.

Second, you don't land airborne force in the middle of an actively occupied enemy force.  Or haven't you read anything about a little battle in Arnhem?

Third, you had better have a good plan to link up with the airborne force before it gets wiped out.  If not, then don't do the assault.

28 minutes ago, arkhangelsk2021 said:

If it was a NATO general running this, he probably just won't do those airdrops. However, from an operational perspective, the landing will still be useful if it diverts disproportionate amounts of Ukrainian forces at critical moments. The Ukrainians like "squeezing those pimples" as they come in, but it does mean they have to move forces out of the main mechanized avenues of advance to do so. If the Ukrainians have been able to use those brigades against the mechanized column, the Russians may still not be in Kiev.

Yeah, except it didn't do that either.  The battles were over very quickly and it is doubtful they had any meaningful negative impact on Ukrainian operations.  On the other hand the Ukrainians got at least 6 really good propaganda stories to bolster morale.

Look, there is no military expert you will find, ANYWHERE, that thinks the Russians handled this well.  You need to stop trying to.  Again, read some of the professional analysis of what is going on.

28 minutes ago, arkhangelsk2021 said:

From that perspective, operationally the Russians have the Ukrainians where they want them.

Again, you need to pull your head out of this thread and study the facts.  Russia is blowing this whole war worse than even I thought they would.  And yeah, I've never thought the Russians had a chance of victory in this setting.  A limited push out of Donbas, on the other hand, would have been feasible but not produce the strategic goals of Putin.  Namely, the destruction of the state of Ukraine.

28 minutes ago, arkhangelsk2021 said:

But they have the Ukrainians split across multiple axes, holding on by their fingernails and best of all, unable to interfere with the progress of the main direction which seems to be versus Kiev. Please don't tell me that you think the Ukrainians are holding on with one hand tied behind their back and not sending forces to help push the Russians out of their capitol. While the Ukrainians can still do "guerilla air attacks", as the Soviet designs had planned as a contingency, in the main Russian columns can use the road with relative safety.

Once again, you do not understand this war at the most fundamental level.  Ukraine doesn't have to push the Russians out.  It just has to defeat them enough so that they can't do what they came to do.  So far the prospects look very good for that happening within a few days.

28 minutes ago, arkhangelsk2021 said:

I'd start worrying for the Russian offensive when the CoFs get better on the supporting axes, such that the Ukrainians start sending rescue forces to their capitol or Kharkiv.

Ukraine doesn't need to send rescue forces because the Russians are botching the attack that badly.

Steve

[chuckdyke]

Here you have some people win the occasional combat mission game against the AI and that makes them instant experts in this conflict. It is sad if it was not true. 

[Battlefront.com]

As an indicator of how things are going for Ukraine, Lavrov made a big production about how they are ready to sit down with Ukraine in Minsk to discuss ending hostilities.  Zelensky, from his position in nearly surrounded Kiev, said "no thanks" as long as it is in Minsk.

Reading between the lines here... Russia needs to end the fighting now while they think they still have leverage over Ukraine.  Ukraine obviously feels that Russia doesn't have enough leverage to do so much as set the place for talks, not to mention give concessions to Russia.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

Here you have some people win the occasional combat mission game against the AI and that makes them instant experts in this conflict. It is sad if it was not true. 

You mean something like "Airborne Platoons only cost 245 points and I have 10,000 to spend on the battle.  So what if I lose one or two even if all it does is cause the enemy a couple of turns of confusion?"

Steve

[Aragorn2002]

1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:

You mean something like "Airborne Platoons only cost 245 points and I have 10,000 to spend on the battle.  So what if I lose one or two even if all it does is cause the enemy a couple of turns of confusion?"

Steve

Don't forget to save.

[CHEqTRO]

More about the poor logistical situation of Russian forces. They were reportedly low on food, apart from fuel:

 

[Sarjen]

4 hours ago, John Kettler said:

DesertFox,

The caption on the Molotov cocktail video is incorrect. Those are not tanks. For sure, the first is a VDV BMD-D, a command vehicle. The other one appears to be another BMD-D, but the degree of obscuration is so high there that it's a likely correct, rather than a certainty. 

All,

Wonder if Bellingcat, OSINTtechnical or similar is tallying the various destroyed or abandoned Russian AFVs, artillery, AD and MT? Believe much could be learned that way.

Regards,

John. Kettler

This guy is trying it.

 https://www.oryxspioenkop.com/2022/02/attack-on-europe-documenting-equipment.html

[Aragorn2002]

6 minutes ago, CHEqTRO said:

More about the poor logistical situation of Russian forces. They were reportedly low on food, apart from fuel:

 

I'm waiting for the first announcements about Russian soldiers raping Ukrainian women and children. That always has been a typical characteristic of the Russian soldier, even in Afghanistan.

 

Edited February 27, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[arkhangelsk2021]

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Because I've been studying how Russia fights for pretty much the last 30 years?  And no, Russia doesn't fight much different than Soviet doctrine.

So you think it was the Russian plan to stall out advances in all areas, take heavy casualties, not achieve air superiority, lose extremely large amounts of equipment, and have hundreds of soldiers surrender to the Ukrainians all while achieving almost no territorial gains of any significance?

You seem to set Russia's expectations so low it's a wonder they bothered to attack at all.

What you can expect in terms of rate of advance depends on the Correlation of Forces, and here's the thing ... Ukraine was never that weak at all. Consider the below pre-war video.

After I saw how much the Ukrainians had, my impression was that if Russia invades (as it finally did), it won't have an easy fight. I'm not sure what your imaginations of the Ukrainian Army was before all those tweets came in, but I definitely wasn't taking them lightly.

Given the circumstances, the Russians have settled for having a lot of Malyshevs to enable one Khrenov (a reference to Peters' Red Army) to succeed.

Quote

Because no nation deliberately throws away its most highly trained and expensive forces just for the Hell of it.  Is your opinion of Russia that low?

I'm of the mind that to the Russians, ultimately the VDV is also a tool for achieving State's goals. This is, in essence, Hameln from Red Army.

Quote

 

Well, first off you shouldn't launch an air assault unless you have reasonably suppressed the enemy's air defenses.  Russia did not and they lost at least 3 helicopters and 2 transport planes loaded with paratroopers.  So right there indicates a serious problem.

 

Ideally, you should do that. But we both can tell that Russia hasn't nearly fired the "norm" (in terms of rounds expended or time) to expect complete suppression. So if they launch the air assault anyway, they must at least be ready that there will be some enemy air defenses left alive. I agree, it's not a choice a Western commander would make. I just point out it's thinkable for a Russian commander, and I'd differ on the point of it having value.

Yes, it's true, the company lasted only a few hours (you might remember how they were saying they've gotten rid of them, then they didn't, and of course the inevitable came and they did). But tell me, what do you think would have happened if those two brigades could be sent against the mechanized column. What do you predict that would do to the rate of advance of the mechanized column? THAT is the comparison target.

I can see we are not going to agree, so I'd end it here.

[John Kettler]

Even the kids aren't giving the invaders a free pass.
 

Ukraine Updates

 

@Westandwith2

·

7h

 

A woman and her daughter stand in front of their burning home, hit by the Russian troops. They sarcastically say, “Thank you, Putin! This is what we always wanted! Now it will be warm during the winter!”

Ukraine Updates

 

 

Video didn't copy.



7 minutes ago OSINTtechnical posted a video of a Ukrainian human roadblock consisting of dozens of people had stopped a Russian tank column (location unknown) dead in its tracks. And yet another video copying fail!

On the other end of the spectrum, even the simple weapons require testing before being declared battleworthy.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1497658595961417731.html

On a separate note, if you want to unroll a Twitter thread, just ask @threadreaderapp to do so. This will get around the problem of embedded videos that won't copy, but needs to be selective, unless you want to wind up up with a hundred post thread!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Aragorn2002]

I've read Ukraine is recruting foreign volunteers to fight the Russians.

[Battlefront.com]

As an aside, this is a perfect example of why Combat Mission has Asymmetrical Victory Conditions built into it.  Same concepts that make it a good idea at the tactical level also apply to operational and strategic.

In the war we have in front of us, the Russians have set for themselves some pretty big goals.  Namely the destruction of an existing, stable, large, and well defended nation state.  Ukraine's objectives are in some ways symmetrical in that they don't want any of this to happen, so their goals are to prevent it.

However, the specifics of how Russia gets theirs and how Ukraine can win are very different.  I am going to use very blunt terms.  My apologies in advance for those who think this is personalizing things, because this is war and war boils down to killing. 

 

In short, Russia has to militarily defeat Ukraine, overthrow its government, establish a new government, and do so before domestic and international pressures end the ability to achieve those objectives.  Ukraine, on the other hand, simply has to retain the ability to kill Russians.

At the operational level Russia needs to take cities.  Very difficult to take cities.  It also needs to do this while keeping casualties very low.  Ukraine just has to keep killing Russians.  Cities are only useful in that the present more opportunities to kill Russians.

At the tactical level the Russians need to take, hold, and secure terrain while preserving their force integrity to take on the next battle.  Ukraine simply has to kill Russians.  Retaining forces for the next battle is important, but not necessarily required.

So how is the war going so far according to all of this?  Not well for the Russians at all.  They've achieved none of their goals.  Ukraine, on the other hand, is doing pretty well so far and showing no signs of running out of ways to kill Russians.

Steve

[Aragorn2002]

15 minutes ago, arkhangelsk2021 said:

What you can expect in terms of rate of advance depends on the Correlation of Forces, and here's the thing ... Ukraine was never that weak at all. Consider the below pre-war video.

After I saw how much the Ukrainians had, my impression was that if Russia invades (as it finally did), it won't have an easy fight. I'm not sure what your imaginations of the Ukrainian Army was before all those tweets came in, but I definitely wasn't taking them lightly.

 

And yet, here you are, advising the Ukrainians with your 'moral vibe' to 'get this done quickly', comparing the Ukrainian army with the Belgian army of 1914.

Edited February 27, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[Battlefront.com]

20 minutes ago, arkhangelsk2021 said:

After I saw how much the Ukrainians had, my impression was that if Russia invades (as it finally did), it won't have an easy fight. I'm not sure what your imaginations of the Ukrainian Army was before all those tweets came in, but I definitely wasn't taking them lightly.

The Russians were expecting an easy fight.  The evidence is all there, not just from this war but from before.

As for me, may I remind you that I authored the backstory for CMBS before Putin invaded in 2014?  And that it unfolded pretty close to what was written before that war happened.  I followed it in detail for months and kept tabs on it afterwards (I have two friend who were OSCE observers for years).  I am not at all surprised how poorly this is going for the Russians.  I'm only surprised they were dumb enough to invade.  This will end Putin's regime sooner than it otherwise would have and none of his stated objectives will have been achieved.

20 minutes ago, arkhangelsk2021 said:

Given the circumstances, the Russians have settled for having a lot of Malyshevs to enable one Khrenov (a reference to Peters' Red Army) to succeed.

I'm of the mind that to the Russians, ultimately the VDV is also a tool for achieving State's goals. This is, in essence, Hameln from Red Army.

Sure, but breaking your tools without doing anything to get the job done is pretty stupid.  I think the Russians made some pretty stupid decisions and executed them poorly, but I do not think the Russians are themselves stupid.

20 minutes ago, arkhangelsk2021 said:

Ideally, you should do that. But we both can tell that Russia hasn't nearly fired the "norm" (in terms of rounds expended or time) to expect complete suppression.

And why do you think that is?  Good planning?  Good execution of that plan?

20 minutes ago, arkhangelsk2021 said:

So if they launch the air assault anyway, they must at least be ready that there will be some enemy air defenses left alive.

Or they didn't and were surprised to see Ukraine shooting down not one but TWO fully loaded IL-76 and then gleefully announcing payback for the Ukrainian IL-76 the Russians shot down over Luhansk in 2014.  If the Russian purpose was to throw away forces for now gain and give the Ukrainians a boost... mission accomplished.

20 minutes ago, arkhangelsk2021 said:

Yes, it's true, the company lasted only a few hours (you might remember how they were saying they've gotten rid of them, then they didn't, and of course the inevitable came and they did).

There were something like 5 airborne insertions around Kiev, Odessa, and Mykoliv at different times over the past three days.  All failed because of the same exact reasons.  There's a pattern here you should be grasping.

20 minutes ago, arkhangelsk2021 said:

But tell me, what do you think would have happened if those two brigades could be sent against the mechanized column. What do you predict that would do to the rate of advance of the mechanized column? THAT is the comparison target.

The insertions did nothing to speed up Russian advances or tie down the Ukrainian defenses.  THAT is the point you don't seem to understand.  Poor planning, slipshod execution, and terrible intel gathering threw away some of Russia's best forces for absolutely nothing.

20 minutes ago, arkhangelsk2021 said:

I can see we are not going to agree, so I'd end it here.

Correct, you will not get me to agree with an argument that is so obviously fatally flawed and not shared by any military expert out there.  You're pissing in a hurricane, as it were.

Steve

[Ts4EVER]

I sure hope you are right. For Ukraine's sake of course but also:

On Wednesday my 9th grade students asked me "Do you think Putin is going to invade Ukraine?" I told them that I thought it extremely unlikely, that he probably wanted to use political pressure to get the separatist areas under control or at the most create a land corridor to Crimea in some way. I also said that Russia could theoretically take Ukraine, but that I didn't think Putin would be that reckless and that it would take a long time and heavy casualties.

So when he invaded he made me look like  right chum, but slowly but surely it looks like I might be getting the last laugh after all...