How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Beleg85]

Ukrainian Akatsyia hit by Lancet. At least 3 crew members probably survived.

 

[The_MonkeyKing]

1 hour ago, FancyCat said:

No rhetorical climb down, I cannot emphasize enough that if Putin and co want to deescalate, they need to prime public opinion to accept it, and we are seeing none of that.

Sky News is reporting that maybe 10 Challenger 2 tanks may be on the table for Ukraine. Token contribution but if it gets the Leopards free, so be it.

If it does pan out that Ukraine was correct in the 2nd mobilization, it should definitely be remembered as a sign of Ukrainian ability to hear the Russian state.

 

Recently retired generals talking big numbers. Up to 79 Challenge 2

[Battlefront.com]

20 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

https://www.army-technology.com/features/promise-of-armour-and-combined-arms-training-to-ukraine-point-to-new-phase-in-russia-war/

Through the Ukraine Defence Contact Group, created in order to give Ukraine a forum in which to request equipment from supportive and NATO states, Kyiv has been able to acquire, at a cost that NATO states will want to be recovered, the right platforms for the particular stage the war was in. Indeed, the level of planning that has gone into the support for Ukraine indicates NATO taking a persistent strategic view of the war and the need for Russia to fail in its bid to overthrow the government of President Volodomyr Zelensky in Kyiv.

In other words, NATO is titrating the introduction of arms to met the realities on the ground as they develop. Training is not instantaneous, so there is a sizable delay between the political decisions and the battlefield use of new systems. I think this is a way of titrating the war and being done to avoid pushing Putin over the edge by slowly warming the water around the frog. Persistent means we love you, but not enough to push the monster into a corner all at once. NATO hand-me-downs (of which there are a lot) in the hands of trained UA fighter, is an order of magnitude better than what the RA can field. In the end Ukraine could have one the best ground armies in the world - if not in history.  

This is something we haven't talked a lot about, but we've touched on various aspects of this since the war started.

What has become clearer and clearer with each month is that the discussions going on behind the scenes is very different than what we're seeing publicly.  Every single weapon system that has been given to Ukraine clearly wasn't a spur of the moment decision.  Weeks, if not months, have gone into deciding what to do and how to do it.  I presume a lot of that discussion is with Ukrainians present at the table.

This is the SMART way to help Ukraine.  When something is announced it is already extremely well thought out in terms of numbers, where they will come from, how Ukraine will use them, what other related systems should come with them, etc.  We've even seen reports of X country giving Y system literally at the same time we're seeing it unloaded in Ukraine.  And that is as it should be.

The lengthy planning process also enables each decision to be better informed than it would otherwise be and to be utilized by Ukraine to optimal effect.  Loading a bunch of X onto some railcars and dropping them in Ukraine without such planning is stupid.

Lastly, staggering the aid does make it much harder for Russia to say a line has been crossed.  This is how Russia has played the West for decades in this same way, so good on the West for figuring out how to play the game so well.

Steve

[Kinophile]

10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

 

The lengthy planning process also enables each decision to be better informed than it would otherwise be and to be utilized by Ukraine to optimal effect.  Loading a bunch of X onto some railcars and dropping them in Ukraine without such planning is stupid.

 

Which I've seen noted was a major reason NATO a d US were not on board with Polish Migs for F16's etc. NATO didn't like the rushed aspect and fundamentally doesn't fight or rush around without significant planning/political consulting.

That can make it slow at the start but once that NATO avalanche starts rolling, well, dont be a Russian forest in its way. Or a Libyan dictator. 

 

Edited January 9, 2023 by Kinophile

[sburke]

7 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

This is something we haven't talked a lot about, but we've touched on various aspects of this since the war started.

What has become clearer and clearer with each month is that the discussions going on behind the scenes is very different than what we're seeing publicly.  Every single weapon system that has been given to Ukraine clearly wasn't a spur of the moment decision.  Weeks, if not months, have gone into deciding what to do and how to do it.  I presume a lot of that discussion is with Ukrainians present at the table.

This is the SMART way to help Ukraine.  When something is announced it is already extremely well thought out in terms of numbers, where they will come from, how Ukraine will use them, what other related systems should come with them, etc.  We've even seen reports of X country giving Y system literally at the same time we're seeing it unloaded in Ukraine.  And that is as it should be.

The lengthy planning process also enables each decision to be better informed than it would otherwise be and to be utilized by Ukraine to optimal effect.  Loading a bunch of X onto some railcars and dropping them in Ukraine without such planning is stupid.

Lastly, staggering the aid does make it much harder for Russia to say a line has been crossed.  This is how Russia has played the West for decades in this same way, so good on the West for figuring out how to play the game so well.

Steve

The unsaid part is how much of that info is Russia getting in advance through its sources.  Assuming it has at least some knowledge is this part of why Russia is doubling down knowing it needs to act before things get worse?

[danfrodo]

While I am, of course, utterly thrilled at the prospect of challenger2 & leo2 going to UKR, I suspect this will take more time than for the bradelys, marders, & AMX10RCs.  Given UKR tactics I'd say the AFVs plus AMX10 could help quite a bit in the shorter term.  We've all seen videos of UKR attacking w M113s & HUMMVs, fast infiltration & assault to grab a position.  

One question I do have is how well the AMX10's 105mm gun could do against a T72 or T80, w & w/o ERA.  Any of you armor vets or modern tank grognards have any insight into this?  I get that the RU tank gun kills the AMX10 every time, but wondering how the AMX10 does if it can hit first.

Edited January 9, 2023 by danfrodo
typo

[sburke]

Russia Could Become a Failed State in 10 Years As Sanctions Bite: Survey (businessinsider.com)

[sburke]

Camp for mobilised Russians burns down in Orenburg Oblast (yahoo.com)

 

Russia's main oil product is trading way below the $60 price cap as just a handful of buyers keep up trade with the heavily sanctioned nation (yahoo.com)

Edited January 9, 2023 by sburke

[danfrodo]

5 minutes ago, sburke said:

The unsaid part is how much of that info is Russia getting in advance through its sources.  Assuming it has at least some knowledge is this part of why Russia is doubling down knowing it needs to act before things get worse?

And what can Putler do?  Seems all he can do is have more mobiks digging & manning more trenches.

[Bulletpoint]

55 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

6 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

 

Yet you are judging them and finding them probably innocent.  The weight of evidence is not supportive of that view.

That's not what I said. My original comment was a reply to someone wishing death and suffering on all Russian soldiers.

I think that's an extreme opinion and one that takes us down a dark road where Europe has been before.

What's next, wishing death and suffering on Russian civilians too, because they failed to stop Putin?

And no, I don't believe in collective guilt. I think individual people are innocent until they are guilty.

[sburke]

3 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

And what can Putler do?  Seems all he can do is have more mobiks digging & manning more trenches.

I was thinking more the timing of the mobilizations. Beyond that Russia isn't exactly awash with options.  Maybe move their carrier into ... oh wait yeah that isn't capable of leaving dock either...

Russians brought their only aircraft carrier to critical condition and looking for those responsible (yahoo.com)  

 

[Maciej Zwolinski]

1 hour ago, Butschi said:

Dehumanizing the enemy - while it serves a purpose now - is way easier to do than the other way round. Now, Russians are in Ukraine and in order to drive them out again, the only way seems to be paved with dead Russian soldiers. But this war will come to end, be it in a week or 10 years. And after that the Ukrainians and Russians will still be there and will still be neighbors. And yes, one day, the Ukrainians will have to forgive the Russians just like (most of) the world forgave Germany.

I think this line of thinking is completely off.

1.  You cannot have a war without dehumanizing the enemy.  It is the very core of what a war is. You are actively trying to kill human beings whom you have never met before only because they wear the enemy's uniform and you are being rewarded for it, the more the more people you kill. Without any regard whatsoever for the individual qualities of the person you try to kill. And you hate the enemy because it is the enemy - that is the general psychological mechanism, which I am sure has deep evolutionary roots to support precisely the capacity of conflict at the group level.

Having said that, this has become muddled up in the West since the end of the Cold War because of the expeditionary wars where the ally and the enemy are difficult to distinguish. Luckily, this is not one of those cases.

2. The normal thing is dehumanizing the enemy at the time of war and rehumanizing (if the word exists) during the peace. Of course the Germans have no monopoly on the hereditary enemy stuff. French and English, Japanese and Koreans, Romans and Parthians, Poles and Russians.  The list is endless. The thing is, that proper conditions for peace have to occur in order for the peaceful relations to be created.  If at least one of the groups entertains the possibility of war as the attractive way to resolve the differences, the relation between them will be strained and they will see each other in a dehumanized way as a collective enemy. But thinking that you first start treating the enemy as human individuals and then you stop thinking about them as the enemy is putting the causation backwards. After Germany gave up the design for war, it stopped being the enemy to the peoples of the West. Russia has never done that, and the Russians are perceived as a potential enemy by Poles, Lithuanians, Estonians, Finns, Ukrainians - quite correctly so.

 

[Battlefront.com]

33 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

That's not what I said. My original comment was a reply to someone wishing death and suffering on all Russian soldiers.

I think that's an extreme opinion and one that takes us down a dark road where Europe has been before.

My wish is that Russians do whatever they can to avoid being in Ukraine to kill and promote suffering of the Ukrainian people.  If an individual can do that without being killed or suffering in the process, I'm fine with that.  But once a Russian is on Ukrainian soil armed and instructed to kill and promote suffering of Ukrainians, I don't see why I should wish him good health.

33 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

What's next, wishing death and suffering on Russian civilians too, because they failed to stop Putin?

In a manner of speaking, yes.  And that is already happening in the form of sanctions and isolation from the rest of the world.  Whether a Russian citizen is an active supporter, an opportunist, a coward, or mentally conditioned zombie does not matter.  The fact is without their collective support this war would never have been possible or would be long over by now.  Sanctions are the best way to make that message loud and clear.  Carpet bombing is not.

33 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

And no, I don't believe in collective guilt. I think individual people are innocent until they are guilty.

So you think Germany, a nation that raped, murdered, and pillaged your country should not have been collectively punished for its actions after the war?  You think Danes should have demined its beaches instead of German POWs, most of whom were old and young late war "mobiks"?  Do you think Germany should not have paid reparations because the money might come out of the pockets of someone who was opposed to the war?  Or do you think the Allies were correct to hold the nation as a whole accountable?

My Danish great uncle that fought in the resistance isn't here to offer his opinion, but I am pretty sure I know what he would say.

Steve

[Maciej Zwolinski]

22 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

That's not what I said. My original comment was a reply to someone wishing death and suffering on all Russian soldiers.I think that's an extreme opinion and one that takes us down a dark road where Europe has been before

Well, of course this is exactly what pretty much everyone in a nation at war feels about the enemy. For a very good reason - this would be instant victory and you and your family would be safe. You realize that Zeleban, Kraze and Haiduk are Ukrainians?

25 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

And no, I don't believe in collective guilt. I think individual people are innocent until they are guilty.

This is a completely wrong point of view for this situation. It is war, not a court of law. Ukrainians are dying not because they are guilty but because they are Ukrainians.  And it is of course their preference that in order to stop this, Russian die for being Russians. except faster and in greater numbers.

[Zeleban]

 

[kevinkin]

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/ukraine/long-war-ukraine-russia-protracted-conflict

In a publication devoted to foreign affairs, the dismal shape of the RA never comes up. Otherwise, the arguments are fairly standard, if not well summarize, predicting a long war. The writers says that western quality can't overcome RA mass. But they fail to realize that the mass is cancerous. An important question: if the west went all in on equipment with training, and backed away from titrating it, would the UA have the manpower needed to use that equipment operationally in a manner that would excise the cancer in 2023? I would imagine the term "pacing" comes up a lot inside the defense department. 

Whenever the United States faces a foreign policy crisis, critics claim that the U.S. government is doing either too much or not enough. So it is with Ukraine. Many fault the Biden administration for failing to provide Ukrainian forces with the heavy weapons—mainly tanks, long-range missiles, and combat aircraft—that they say are needed to expel Russian troops from Ukrainian soil. Others, worried about Western staying power and the rising human and economic costs of the war, urge the administration to pressure Kyiv into negotiating a deal with Russia—even if that means giving up some of its territory.

Neither argument is convincing. The Ukrainian military has surprised everyone with its capacity to defend the country and even retake a good part of the territory it lost at the outset of the war. But ejecting Russian troops from all its territory, including Crimea, will be exceedingly difficult, even with greater Western military aid. Achieving such an outcome would require the collapse of dug-in and reinforced Russian defenses and would risk starting a direct war between NATO and Russia, a doomsday scenario that no one wants. As for negotiations, Russian President Vladimir Putin has given no indication that he is prepared to give up his imperial dream of controlling Ukraine. And it would be just as difficult to convince the Ukrainian government to cede territories to a brutal occupying force in return for an uncertain peace. Given the strong incentives on both sides to continue fighting, a third outcome is much more likely: a prolonged, grinding war that gradually becomes frozen along a line of control that neither side accepts.

 

[Butschi]

39 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

In a manner of speaking, yes.  And that is already happening in the form of sanctions and isolation from the rest of the world.  Whether a Russian citizen is an active supporter, an opportunist, a coward, or mentally conditioned zombie does not matter.  The fact is without their collective support this war would never have been possible and would be long over by now.  Sanctions are the best way to make that message loud and clear.  Carpet bombing is not.

You are the historian so it may be my lack of knowledge but carpet bombing or sanctions, when has either method worked as a means to convince the general population to get rid of their leaders?

Sanctions serve one purpose: They prevent it or at least make it harder and more expensive to supply a country with certain goods. But let's look at the North Korea, Cuba and Iran for instance. The sanctions did what sanctions are good for but they did not make the people rebel against their leaders.

And there are enough examples where regimes did not have popular support. Controlling the military is usually enough to control a country. So even if sanctions (or carpet bombing) swing public opinion against the regime (instead of uniting the population against a perceived external threat, helped of course by propaganda), that's not enough.

Edited January 9, 2023 by Butschi

[danfrodo]

Well, this is interesting.  This feller makes case that Germany is actually doing a really good job of supporting Ukraine, and backs it up w data.  I have no dog in this fight so glad to see there's lots of info about Germany's support that I hadn't thought of before.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/1/9/2146199/-Ukraine-update-Germany-has-done-more-for-Ukraine-than-most-know-or-acknowledge

 

[Battlefront.com]

13 minutes ago, Butschi said:

You are the historian so it may be my lack of knowledge but carpet bombing or sanctions, when has either method worked as a means to convince the general population to get rid of their leaders?

On its own?  Never.  But carpet bombing and sanctions are also designed to cause material harm to the enemy's ability to function.  So even if they don't change minds, they are useful tools.

Sanctions, however, can have a psychological impact even if indirectly.  Citizens complain and grumble about their standard of living declining.  Unhappy people are not good for a totalitarian regime because such regimes tend to make people unhappy by their very nature.  There is only so much suffering (most) societies will accept before they seek change.  North Korea is one of the very few exceptions to this rule, Cuba is a mixed example.  Russia has three times in the 20th Century shown that it is not an exception.  Iran is also not an exception.

At the very least sanctions ensure that the people of a rogue country are not rewarded by having the same relationships as other countries.  That's a worthy goal on its own.

13 minutes ago, Butschi said:

And there are enough examples where regimes did not have popular support. Controlling the military is usually enough to control a country. So even if sanctions (or carpet bombing) swing public opinion against the regime (instead of uniting the population against a perceived external threat, helped of course by propaganda), that's not enough.

Correct, it is not enough.  Which is why Ukraine is forced into the situation of having to kill as many Russians as it can as quickly as it can to end this war.  Sanctions can help, but it won't do it on their own.

Steve

[FancyCat]

3 hours ago, Butschi said:

 

1. Dehumanizing the enemy - while it serves a purpose now - is way easier to do than the other way round. Now, Russians are in Ukraine and in order to drive them out again, the only way seems to be paved with dead Russian soldiers. But this war will come to end, be it in a week or 10 years. And after that the Ukrainians and Russians will still be there and will still be neighbors. And yes, one day, the Ukrainians will have to forgive the Russians just like (most of) the world forgave Germany. The Russians will have to work very hard to deserve forgiveness, true, but without it forgiveness this will never end. We Germans had this "Hereditary Enemy" bull**** way too long and see where it got us.

 

O.o

you do realize that dehumanization had to occur in order for Putin to wage war on Ukraine, and Ukrainians? That the acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing enacted on Ukraine by Russia is done due to this dehumanization, that it is ongoing and continuing right now? 

[Kinophile]

3 hours ago, Butschi said:

1. Dehumanizing the enemy - while it serves a purpose now - is way easier to do than the other way round. Now, Russians are in Ukraine and in order to drive them out again, the only way seems to be paved with dead Russian soldiers. But this war will come to end, be it in a week or 10 years. And after that the Ukrainians and Russians will still be there and will still be neighbors. And yes, one day, the Ukrainians will have to forgive the Russians just like (most of) the world forgave Germany. The Russians will have to work very hard to deserve forgiveness, true, but without it forgiveness this will never end. We Germans had this "Hereditary Enemy" bull**** way too long and see where it got us.

Ref "most of" above - but thats the point, here. For WW2 the vast majority of the allies were unaffected by direct German action (eg. invasion). They suffered losses but not destruction of their nationhood, attempted annihilation of their population, etc. But Poland did, and even now I would be very loath to say to a Polish person that Poland has "forgiven"  Germany. Like Steve above, I'm pretty certain what my Polish relatives would say to that particular line; and if I pushed further I'm 100% certain they would get...excitable. We're only one generation removed from the war so things are still deeply remembered. Hell, the civil war in tiny, silly little Ireland is still a very touchy and quickly emotive subject.

The deeper, fundamental issue isn't that there is a war on; dehumanization is an unwanted aspect that, and as you very rightly note, is a very slippery slope. The Hereditary Enemy bull**** between France and Germany was exactly that - but because at no point did either country talk about extermination of the opposing population and annihilation of their culture. But the Nazis stated those exact goals for Poland and Russia. So the war in the East became utterly and maximally brutal because the aggressors stated aims were maximalist in the extreme.

So the real issue in this war, now, is that Russia under Putin has also stated its deliberate intention to erase Ukraine as a social entity, and, crucially, followed through on that intent.

The extreme nature of its war aims can only be countered by a completely unyielding and uncompromising defense - because the Russians have created that need. Every Russian soldier within the bounds of Ukraine is part of that horrific project of eradication of another people.

On the broader strategic level it is impossible for Ukraine to strategically defeat Russia. It only has a decent chance at the operational and tactical levels and there is no other path to victory than killing as many Russians as possible as quickly as possible. If dehumanization of Russian soldiers helps that then have it, Ukrainians. You face cultural and social genocide otherwise, so **** it. They started it - and they show zero signs of stopping.

In some ways, and on a more theoretical level, I don't really blame them, I blame Putin and his ilk. But I never forget that everyone knows right from wrong, knows that the repeated rape  of a child is just wrong, to stand by and allow it to happen is just wrong, to be part of an organization that perpetuates it is just wrong, to not say or do anything is just wrong. And I'm talking about Catholic Church in Ireland. I blame the Popes at the time and I blame every single Priest and Nun who stayed silent and did nothing. Collective guilt is absolutely a thing, when nothing is done by anyone to stop the wrong.

Russian soldiers in occupied Ukraine are not doing anything to stop this invasion, so every single one inside those borders deserves to die. Very simple - it's them or Ukraine dies.

That's not dehumanizing, that's the brutal truth Ukraine is living day to day.

---

P.S. I don't want to come across as browbeating in the above. It's tricky, with a tricky subject like this. I'm honestly interested in your response.

Edited January 9, 2023 by Kinophile

[Haiduk]

Russian P-18 radar being destroyed likely by HARM strike

[dan/california]

16 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Ref "most of" above - but thats the point, here. For WW2 the vast majority of the allies were unaffected by direct German action (eg. invasion). They suffered losses but not destruction of their nationhood, attempted annihilation of their population, etc. But Poland did, and even now I would be very loath to say to a Polish person that Poland has "forgiven"  Germany. Like Steve above, I'm pretty certain what my Polish relatives would say to that particular line; and if I pushed further I'm 100% certain they would get...excitable. We're only one generation removed from the war so things are still deeply remembered. Hell, the civil war in tiny, silly little Ireland is still a very touchy and quickly emotive subject.

The deeper, fundamental issue isn't that there is a war on; dehumanization is an unwanted aspect that, and as you very rightly note, is a very slippery slope. The Hereditary Enemy bull**** between France and Germany was exactly that - but because at no point did either country talk about extermination of the opposing population and annihilation of their culture. But the Nazis stated those exact goals for Poland and Russia. So the war in the East became utterly and maximally brutal because the aggressors stated aims were maximalist in the extreme.

So the real issue in this war, now, is that Russia under Putin has also stated its deliberate intention to erase Ukraine as a social entity, and, crucially, followed through on that intent.

The extreme nature of its war aims can only be countered by a completely unyielding and uncompromising defense - because the Russians have created that need. Every Russian soldier within the bounds of Ukraine is part of that horrific project of eradication of another people.

On the broader strategic level it is impossible for Ukraine to strategically defeat Russia. It only has a decent chance at the operational and tactical levels and there is no other path to victory than killing as many Russians as possible as quickly as possible. If dehumanization of Russian soldiers helps that then have it, Ukrainians. You face cultural and social genocide otherwise, so **** it. They started it - and they show zero signs of stopping.

In some ways, and on a more theoretical level, I don't really blame them, I blame Putin and his ilk. But I never forget that everyone knows right from wrong, knows that the repeated rape  of a child is just wrong, to stand by and allow it to happen is just wrong, to be part of an organization that perpetuates it is just wrong, to not say or do anything is just wrong. And I'm talking about Catholic Church in Ireland. I blame the Popes at the time and I blame every single Priest and Nun who stayed silent and did nothing. Collective guilt is absolutely a thing, when nothing is done by anyone to stop the wrong.

Russian soldiers in occupied Ukraine are not doing anything to stop this invasion, so every single one inside those borders deserves to die. Very simple - it's them or Ukraine dies.

That's not dehumanizing, that's the brutal truth Ukraine is living day to day.

---

P.S. I don't want to come across as browbeating in the above. It's tricky, with a tricky subject like this. I'm honestly interested in your response.

Hard to say it better than that!

[pintere]

Too hilarious to not share

[Battlefront.com]

5 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Well I am not buying into a "mystery way of the East" in strategic thinking and planning.  I think we risk seeing patterns when they really are not there.

Except they are there and people way smarter than us are the ones I've got my understanding from.  In other words, I didn't make this up to explain this war, it's something I learned about many years ago and am apply it to what is going on now.

Here's a partial abstract of a recent book (2021) that I think is now going to be at the top of my reading list:

Quote

In recent years, Western experts have generally portrayed the Kremlin's actions as either strategic or tactical. Yet this proposition raises a very important question: how closely does the West's interpretation of Russian strategy reflect the country's own definitions?

https://academic.oup.com/book/38876?login=false

And from a lengthy review of the book:

Quote

The greatest value in “Strategiya” comes from this very narrative. It is insufficient to look at Clausewitz’ “On War” and assume one knows everything about the Western conceptions of war and peace. To be sure it was an influential and indeed foundational book and many of its core principles remain just as apt now as during the Napoleonic Wars. But to read the Prussian alone and assume one knows everything about the West’s strategic culture is setting oneself up for failure. This is akin to reading Sun Tzu’s the Art of War—really more of a series of self-evident, if artfully worded, maxims than a strategic doctrine—and thinking that the reader can now interpret the moves of the People’s Liberation Army. Good luck with that. 

https://www.diplomaticourier.com/posts/understanding-russian-strategic-culture

The point these two quotes is making is what I've been trying to make, which is that Russia has a different concept of strategy than we in the West do.  Partly because it has different strengths and weakness that, over time, have produced a different way of approaching challenges.

 

 

5 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Russia employed very recognizable subversive-deterrence strategies in all those examples you note.  In 2014 they positioned subversive elements in Crimea and Donbas for years.  The basic game plan was Infiltrate-Divide/Exacerbate-Subvert-Proxy-Legitimate, ...

Yes, and yet they had no SPECIFIC plan in place for how to achieve their ends.  Instead, they put a bunch of things in place and then adapted them to suit an evolving situation.

5 hours ago, The_Capt said:

...they had end states/outcome aligned with method and means. 

Yes, but at what time period are you speaking about?  Russia switched up its strategy on how to keep Ukraine under its thumb maybe a dozen times between 2013 and 2015.  Each time something failed it tried something else with whatever tools it had available at the time.  This war, the one we're watching unfold now, was yet another alternative plan.  But unlike all the ones that came before it, it fully committed Russia to a course of action that could not be corrected if it went sideways.  It has been fumbling around for a Plan B ever since.

5 hours ago, The_Capt said:

They understood thresholds and deterrence and employed them very well.  It took long games and careful planning and prepositioning.  They were working with poor assumptions but they had alternate plans and were deliberate.  A lot of this as a result of the first disaster in Chechnya.

And you just described, perfectly, the invasion plan for this war.  And like the 1st Chechen War, there was no Plan B.  Unlike the 1st Chechen War, there was the ability to extract itself from the mess it made until it could figure out something else.  That was the 2nd Chechen War.  There will be no 2nd Ukraine War at this rate.

5 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Then in this war they threw out the playbook, tossed some dice that rolled a natural 1, and now are scrambling in a strategic vacuum.

Yes, as I keep saying Putin made two dramatic errors with implementing the Russian method of war.  First is he didn't have viable plans if the first plan failed.  Second, the plan he went for offered no options to back out and regroup.  So now Russia is desperately trying to fix this and the only option it seems to have is to play for time.  That is now the new strategy, as bad as it may be.

Steve