How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[The_Capt]

54 minutes ago, Fernando said:

WWI was finally won by the Allies on the offensive on ALL fronts. The Central Powers front in Salonika crumbled, Turkey's front in Palestine crumbled, and the Western and Italian fronts started to crumble too. 

Not losing is ALWAYS a poor man's "victory", a false victory in fact. In Spain we say that people who does not console himself is because he does not want to ("El que no se consuela, es porque no quiere"). There is no DECISIVE victory withouth at least one final offensive. Even Talibans and Vitnamese won with a final offensive.



 

 

Oh c’mon, that is selective analysis to the point of deliberately ignoring parts of that war to fit a narrative.  Why did  all those Central Powers “crumble”.  It wasn’t decisive offensive action, we know that much.  WW1 was largely a positional war of attrition on multiple fronts.  Both sides tried operational offensives and suffered horrendous losses.  The bulk of the overall effects delivered in that war were defensive and attritional, particularly by the allies after about 1917.  Of course there were final offensives once the Germans collapsed but these were coup de grace after they Germans had essentially buckled under the weight of loses.  In fact the naval blockade, a largely defensive action in Sea Control, led to strategic pressures that ultimately broke Germany.

The fact that one finishes with offensive action does not negate the massive effects the defensive actions had in the course of any war.  Hell in this war Kharkiv and Kyiv were only possible after the RA had been decisively defensively defeated.  The fact that the UA drove through the RA at the end of all that is not a “see told ya, offensive” moment.

Poor man’s victory - BS.  History of warfare is filled with counter examples.  In fact Exhaustion is one of the major strategies of warfare since freakin Sun Tzu.  The Cold War was one massive monument to defensive containment actions.  We did not even finish that one with an operational offensive.  That binary framework did not serve is the past and it definitely does not serve in this war.  Ukraine may very well win this war by simply not losing.  Their “consolation” is remaining an independent nation free to chart their own destiny.

”That dog won’t hunt!”  Would be the English saying.

Edited February 8 by The_Capt

[The_Capt]

42 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

The things is, Grant had no intention of fighting a battle at Shiloh. The Union generals thought the Confederate army was 20 miles away and were taken completely by surprise.

Not really making a good case for Grant with that one.  So the guy was highly aggressive and careless?  He was lucky not to spend the rest of the war in a POW camp.

[cesmonkey]

 

[kimbosbread]

20 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Oh c’mon, that is selective analysis to the point of deliberately ignoring parts of that war to fit a narrative.  Why did  all those Central Powers “crumble”.  It wasn’t decisive offensive action, we know that much.

I’ll take “English naval blockade” for $400, Alex.

Sidenote: Read “African Kaiser” if you haven’t. I thought “China Show” was something I could experience in Thai sex clubs, but it turns out it is something more considerably awesome!

[The_Capt]

1 minute ago, kimbosbread said:

I’ll take “English naval blockade” for $400, Alex.

Sidenote: Read “African Kaiser” if you haven’t. I thought “China Show” was something I could experience in Thai sex clubs, but it turns out it is something more considerably awesome!

Exactly, WW1 was decided by who could deny and defend better while the other team burned out.  I do get a little vexed with 19th century “cult of the offensive” and 20th century definitions of “victory” being applied to the first peer high intensity war of the 21st century.

FFS the Taliban drove to Kabul while the ANA ran away.  War is filled with decisive defensive actions that literally turned tides (e.g. Stalingrad).  The reality is that any war is a combination of offensive and defensive.  The real question is what has primacy.  In this war, in this time, it is looking more and more like we are headed towards defensive primacy.  So we cannot judge Ukraine warfare by metrics or frameworks built on other eras of offensive primacy.  It leads to fallacy traps and frankly ill conceived narratives.  Ukraine “not losing” this war could be as decisive as the West “not losing” the Cold War.

[dan/california]

36 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Not really making a good case for Grant with that one.  So the guy was highly aggressive and careless?  He was lucky not to spend the rest of the war in a POW camp.

I would argue that Grant was aggressive, but not careless. His single greatest strength when he took over the Army of the Potomac was the strategic understanding that the Confederates simply could not fight a war of attrition, then he made them fight one. Which they duly lost. This is not irrelevant to Ukraine's situation now. The war in Ukraine is coming down to which side runs out of something truly important first, whether that is fuel, money, men, surface to air missiles, or, or. We have to give Ukraine enough support that they can stay in the fight until Russia finishes breaking itself. If we give them enough support that Russian casualties go from approximately one thousand a day, to three thousand a day, it will end a lot sooner.

[Vanir Ausf B]

55 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Which was a rather large error. But once Grant figured out what was going on he did a fantastic job of not letting a mistake become a disaster. The Confederates on the other hand managed to turn early success into a fiasco that they never really recovered from.

Grant was also lucky that the Confederate commander (Johnston) caught a bullet early in the fight.

[dan/california]

3 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Grant was also lucky that the Confederate commander (Johnston) caught a bullet early in the fight.

He was, and Ukraine is lucky that Gerasimov and Shoigu are still in the jobs they are in. Luck is always a factor in war, but what you do with matters.

[dan/california]

Three significant fires in Russia tonight. One of them a LONG way east of Moscow, That one involves a happy combination of a freight train and a gas pipeline

Quote

 

https://www.threads.net/@margogontar/post/C3G0smbteOT

️Krasnodar krai, russia, right now fire broke out in the area of the Ilsky oil refinery.locals say they heard drones, air raid siren starting and explosions prior to fireNo official reports yet

 

 

 

Quote

https://www.threads.net/@maks_23_ua/post/C3Gm62CLdQq

 

Big fire somewhere in Moscow

 

Quote

 

https://www.threads.net/@maks_23_ua/post/C3GIKnsrOBd

6h

 

Explosion in Kueda on the gas pipeline, Perm region, Russia. A freight train with tanks and residential buildings also caught fire.

 

 

 

Edited February 9 by dan/california

[cesmonkey]

Watch at your own risk:

 

[pintere]

27 minutes ago, cesmonkey said:

Watch at your own risk:

 

Any chance there’s a transcript? I can’t even sit down and watch a GOOD two hour movie in one sitting these days, let alone a conversation between two of the most detestable living humans in the entire world.

[dan/california]

2 minutes ago, pintere said:

Any chance there’s a transcript? I can’t even sit down and watch a GOOD two hour movie in one sitting these days, let alone a conversation between two of the most detestable living humans in the entire world.

I second this!

[kimbosbread]

1 hour ago, dan/california said:

He was, and Ukraine is lucky that Gerasimov and Shoigu are still in the jobs they are in.

Is Gerasimov still actually alive? We haven’t heard from him for a while.

[dan/california]

1 minute ago, kimbosbread said:

Is Gerasimov still actually alive? We haven’t heard from him for a while.

If he is dead? The 22 months he lasted were a gift to Ukraine.

[Vet 0369]

5 hours ago, billbindc said:

Have to quibble: Grant did fight at the start of the war and he did not fight at all like Lee. He also had a very clear sense of the strategic goals of his moves right from the beginning. I agree that Lee made the calculation you did above but he was very muddy on how to get there. 

Yes, this is correct! Grant’s victories in the West, some times against the express “wishes” of his Commander, against his former West Point classmates, were where he gained the nickname “Unconditional Surrender” (US) Grant for his refusal to accept an enemy commander’s surrender with “terms.”

[Vet 0369]

4 hours ago, The_Capt said:

My overall point stands - there is a magic point in time and space when the right general meets the right moment, with the right army; this is consistent throughout history.  And so the inverse - which is frankly more frequent.   Perhaps that is what we are seeing in Ukraine...question is: which one? 

I can completely agree with this assessment.

[masc]

I haven't bothered watching it either but reading about it there doesn't seem to be a lot of substance about the war itself. Putin apparently goes into a 30 minute history lesson starting with Novgorod in 862. And the usual NATO expansion spiel. I'll give Carlson credit, apparently he presses Putin about releasing Gershkovich, the WSJ jounralist jailed for over a year.

 

[billbindc]

4 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Sure, Grant was more reckless.  FFS, at Shilo he fought with a river at his back!  That entire battle was a pretty risky gamble that could have easily ended in total disaster.  As to strategic acumen, I think Grant understood what war he was in but very likely would not have had the patience to wait for everyone else to figure it out.  

I do not think the Grant of 1862 was the same guy who took over in 1864, and neither was the Army he took over.  It was a positive alignment.  Lee got high on his own supply from early aggressive wins that never culminated in strategic success.

My overall point stands - there is a magic point in time and space when the right general meets the right moment, with the right army; this is consistent throughout history.  And so the inverse - which is frankly more frequent.   Perhaps that is what we are seeing in Ukraine...question is: which one? 

Grant was at Shiloh because Halleck ordered him there. 

[Battlefront.com]

OK, let's keep out of the multiple historical rabbit holes that we could all get lost in, or at the very least break an ankle.

The reason this part of the discussion got started is us trying to wrap our heads around the shaking up of Ukraine's military leadership.  I'm hoping that Haiduk can help get a better sense of what has happened and what this might mean for the fighting to come. 

As I said earlier, it's a very bad idea to listen those lower in command or in the field.  They know death and privation, but they don't necessarily understand why.  If Syrskyi doesn't either, then things are going to be very bad indeed.  However, if he's been looking at this war and more-or-less correctly understanding the "big picture" then it might not be bad at all.  Could even be good. 

As others have noted, sometimes a leadership shakeup is necessary to move ahead successfully.  This is true in the corporate world as well.  My favorite example was the Apple board of directors booting Steve Jobs in 1985 and replacing him with an outsider, John Sculley.  That guy had no knowledge of Apple or the industry, but he understood how not to run a company into the ground as Jobs was doing.  Sculley didn't propel Apple to be the huge company it is today, but he did make it possible for that to happen by saving the company from probable destruction.

So, this could be good?

Steve

[billbindc]

3 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Grant was also lucky that the Confederate commander (Johnston) caught a bullet early in the fight.

Beauregard was already in charge of the battle when Johnston went down and the Confederates were pretty much exhausted already. It didn't help but it's hard to say it changed much. 

[cesmonkey]

Listening to Zelensky's announcement, well, reading the subtitles, these sections stood out to me:

https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/vidsogodni-do-kerivnictva-zbrojnimi-silami-ukrayini-pristupa-88857
 

Quote

Headquarters at all levels must know and feel the frontline just like soldiers at the forefront.

 

Quote

The Ukrainian Defense Forces are now almost a million people who were called up to defend our country. As of today, the majority of them have not felt the frontline in the same way as the minority who are actually at the forefront, actually fighting.

This means that we need a different approach to rotations in particular. A different approach to frontline management. A different approach to mobilization and recruitment.

All this will give more respect to the soldier. And restore clarity to actions in the war.

Fellow Ukrainians!

Starting today, a new management team takes over the leadership of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

I want our warriors in Robotyne or Avdiivka, the General Staff and the Staff to have the same vision of the war.

Quote

 

Every general must know the front. If a general does not know the front, he does not serve Ukraine.

The excessive and unjustified number of personnel in the headquarters must be adjusted.

An effective rotation system must be established in the army. The experience of certain combat brigades of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and units of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine, where such a system is in place, can be used as a basis. Rotations are a must.

There is an obvious need to improve the quality of training for the warriors – only trained soldiers can be on the front line.

 

 

[Ts4EVER]

Sounds worryingly like when the Germans started to comb out rear units to fill the front.

[pintere]

Found a transcript for the Putin-Tucker interview:

https://www.happyscribe.com/public/the-tucker-carlson-podcast/vladimir-putin-ad58097b-f616-47d8-8bb8-1cbfe9aba16c

Among the contents was this juicy nugget:

Putin - "Before World War II, Poland collaborated with Hitler, and although it did not yield to Hitler's demands, it still participated in the petitioning of Czechoslovakia together with Hitler, as the Poles had not given the Danzig corridor to Germany and went too far, pushing Hitler to start World War II by attacking them. Why was it Poland against whom war started on first September, 1939? Poland turned out to be uncompromising, and Hitler had nothing to do but start implementing his plans with Poland."

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, pintere said:

Found a transcript for the Putin-Tucker interview:

https://www.happyscribe.com/public/the-tucker-carlson-podcast/vladimir-putin-ad58097b-f616-47d8-8bb8-1cbfe9aba16c

Among the contents was this juicy nugget:

Putin - "Before World War II, Poland collaborated with Hitler, and although it did not yield to Hitler's demands, it still participated in the petitioning of Czechoslovakia together with Hitler, as the Poles had not given the Danzig corridor to Germany and went too far, pushing Hitler to start World War II by attacking them. Why was it Poland against whom war started on first September, 1939? Poland turned out to be uncompromising, and Hitler had nothing to do but start implementing his plans with Poland."

Oh that is SOOOOOO Putin.  The "why" for war starting was that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany teamed up to dismember Poland.  Of course Putin knows this very well, but he's spent decades re-undoing history after a brief post-Soviet time when things like Gulags and Purges were not only spoken about in the open but researched using official archives.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Ts4EVER said:

Sounds worryingly like when the Germans started to comb out rear units to fill the front.

I have not heard or read the full transcript of Zelensky's speech.  But from the bit posted at the bottom of the previous page, I don't see him saying that.  What I see is a leader commenting that there's too much staff and too many do not have frontline experience.  That is a Soviet legacy problem that's been mentioned more than a few times since the war started in 2014.  If it's as true as it seems to be, then Zelensky stating it right out in the open is a good sign.

There's roughly 300k in the frontline, which conservatively is about 200k support personnel (could be pushing 225k).  The total Armed Forces is about 1,000k.  That means there's roughly a 9:1 ratio between non-combat and direct combat personnel.  I don't know if that's a reasonable number, but to me it sounds like too much for a force that is mostly ground based, has no significant military commitments outside of its country, has a relatively short logistics tail, and is focused on a single (albeit long) front.  Even if the ratio was changed to 8:1 it would effectively double the combat component.

As for rotating units, we know this is a problem.  It's good to have this being mentioned as a priority to address.  One of the criticisms of the summer offensive was that the 10+ newly raised brigades could have been used as rotation and reinforcements instead of being bled white in fruitless offensive actions.  I disagreed with this as the offensive was building up and even with hindsight I don't think I can agree with that position.

Steve