Share this comment
Pretty much the entire RAND analysis is based on fundamental assumptions - Ru being a poor warfighter, and no match for NATO divisions should they enter the war.
This is why I keep saying Russia needs to DO something in terms of a significant battlefield success; not overwhelming, but enough to break the illusion these think tanks keep cr…
Pretty much the entire RAND analysis is based on fundamental assumptions - Ru being a poor warfighter, and no match for NATO divisions should they enter the war.
This is why I keep saying Russia needs to DO something in terms of a significant battlefield success; not overwhelming, but enough to break the illusion these think tanks keep creating. Taking Kharkiv, Kherson, Odessa, whatever. If I'm Lindsey Graham reading this report, I am honestly wondering why the USAF just doesn't start bombing Russian positions directly.
Nothing is going to break the illusion of these think tanks, the rot has set in too deep, they are incompetent ideologues. Russia needs to do its own thing and not be pushed into rushing into something by people who do not have all the facts at hand. Significant battlefield success isn't killing 83K+ AFU in 4 months and making AFU offensive look stupid? Ah i see, they need to take territory for you to think they are being successful....
If the US thought it could get away with it and enter the war and destroy Russia they would have already. If they end up doing it anyways they will lose one way or another, and most likely we all lose, would probably be poetic justice for how stupid the human race has turned out to be.
Look at the moment all roads lead to nuclear war. A lot of that is due to perceived weakness or strength from one side to the other. Yes, my opinion is Russia needs to capture territory but the ultimate goal being changing perceptions or narratives. If that can be done another way, I'm ll for it
Russia has captured territory; 20% of Ukranie already. But you have been advised numerous times it's not about territory but still you persist. Why?
Because its my point of view. I think the current trajectory is one which will lead to a catastrophe. Lots of people - like you - say "its not about territory". What we are arguing is tactics in this case; Russia wants to win the war; you're saying they can do that by just sitting back and letting NATO/Ukraine impale themselves indefinitely. I'm saying that is not a winning strategy because it invites evermore escalation in terms of weapons systems and capabilities to the AFU.
The entire framework of the war in the West is about territory. The counteroffensive is about retaking territory. Their language of success is measured in meters. All I'm saying is if your enemy has brainwashed themselves into thinking that way, that it is not out of order to hand them a defeat on their own terms.
You won't listen, you won't learn. You are a troll. Or just pig ignorant.
Who gives a shit about their terms.
Yes, a lengthy conflict ensures the AFU gets new capabilities. I don't think it's realistic to expect that those capabilities will match the growth in Russian capabilities.
Unless the US comes up with something that actually does change the picture (a real breakthrough in munition production, some wonder weapon that actually is one, etc.) there is no real reason for Russia to engage in anything that could result in high losses.
As the weapons become deadlier and the tactics increasingly aggressive, and as Russia continues to show restraint, it is the West that will impale themselves on global opinion, showing themselves the crazed zealots they have become. I think Russia knows precisely where this will ultimately lead - to the dissolution of NATO and the bankruptcy of the Western alliance. As the aggression grows, so too will the divisions among NATO member states as the toll of the war crushes Western solidarity, resolve and their economies, especially as they see that no matter what they do Russia remains calmly committed to its goals - goals which I suspect have expanded from denazification and demilitarisation of just Ukraine to that of the entire Western alliance. This is all a game to the West, a game of increasing provocation in which they believe in the end Russia will back down at last rather than face the fury of NATO which they unfailingly see in their own Hollywood-induced delusional state, as all-powerful and against which no sane country would dare stand. Russia, on the other hand, perceives this for what it really is, an direct assault on their very existence as a sovereign state, and as such they will engage the west to the end knowing that at the end of it all there will be a world with free Russia or no world at all.
The idea that Western aggression will turn global opinion against them is a laugh.
Opinion is on the side of whoever is perceived to be the winner.
Getting caught up in your enemy's game is like putting your Queen at risk in chess. You really don't want to do that. Force the enemy to your game.
Ru certainly did that by NOT doing a winter offensive, contrary to the predictions of many. And then in their "active defense" they confounded observers again - the same likes of Ritter and Macgregor and such, who expected a different sort of scenario playing out.
We will see what comes next, once this never ending counteroffensive is over
@Bash
The idea of choosing military strategy & tactics to validate an opponent's (now largely invalid) assumptions & preconceptions about what "victory" looks like is irrelevant, outside of online Twittercentric warfare.
I would agree in terms of battlefield realities. However, in the political space - where I believe warfare extends - it matters. Remember how everyone was for the Iraq war, till they were against it.
Somebody must to kill all the nazis which materialized in Ukraine in past 30 years. If you think it's exaggeration all you need to do is to find current Ukrainian textbooks (plenty online) and google translate it. Beware and welcome to abyss. Ditto Ukrainian summer camps for kids and what they teach there. Normal countries don't call streets leading to the site of mass murder with the name of a person who orchestrated said mass murder. Ukraine does.
If Russia acts swiftly, as you propose, then in the end you need to accept idea of mass executions, Nuremberg style. Will you accept that idea? If not, be patient and let Russia do the killing. Even if it leads to heightened WW3 risk.
To win a conflict you have to apply pressure until your opponent gives up or is subdued. In war that means offensive military actions. The destruction that Russia has caused on defense has been impressive, but it doesn't put any pressure on Ukraine to submit. It simply makes them look for additional options. Maybe not today, but at some point Russia will be required to take a decisive action and demonstrate that there are no options remaining for Ukraine.
There remains another option that few are discussing at this point - Ukraine's unconditional surrender. How that comes about would be through a military coup by some Ukrainian generals who seeing the futility of the war and the continued slaughter of their troops would overthrow Z and his "Not Sees", purge the military of those units and submit to the mercy of Russia. In such a case I can well envision NATO gnashing its teeth in helpless frustration.
I am sure that to a military man a coup is a very hard thing to execute as loyalty and obedience to the civilian authorities is an integral part of their service to their country. It would take a lot of courage and resolve to drive through something like that in Ukraine. And perhaps they are close to that point. We shall see.
This is a NEED to NOT rush. A working strategy is a working strategy. A minor, but not insignificant, difference (and the thrust of Simplicus's article.
Russia appears to be applying plenty of pressure to me, and why would Russia look a gift horse in the mouth and not accept the vaporisation of the AFU by destroying them on the defence and taking minimal casualties themselves and then going on the offense when they are weakened. For sure i assume Russia will take offensive actions, but at a time of their choosing, they aren't marching to a timeline to what people on the internet would like them to do. I mean most people here all want them to win decisively and see the grip of the hegemon loosened but we do not have all the data to be able to say what is the best options for them to take. Look at Ukraine, pressured to go on the offensive when it is not in their best interests and being destroyed, luckily Russia is not pressured to go on an offensive until they deem the time is right.
I explicitly said it didn't have to be today. IE on a timeline. I just was making the point that this won't end until they do.
Well that's not entirely true, there are possibilities for it ending without a Russian offensive, however small, they are still possibilities that need to be mapped.
As far as i can tell, you explicitly stating that it doesn't have to be today doesn't invalidate the comments i have made. Anyways we seem to be in some rough agreement on the matter with slightly different perspectives, and i don't see much point in delving further down the pedantic road. I believe we have both clearly made our points known.
Every conscript sent to walk out into a minefield is one less guy the AFU have to sit in a hidden trench and wait to ambush Russian troops.
Or deploy as reinforcements to plug the gaps to prevent a Russian breakthrough. Or deploy as a reaction force to cut the flanks of a Russian breakthrough.
Like it or not, the Russians can only push fast and deep if they deplete the defenders first. If Ukraine has no troops to man the trenches, no artillery shells to punish Russian sappers and breach teams.
Imagine not waiting for this offensive, and launching a spearhead attack with an 80k strong army ready to cut you off.
The problem with this argument f it can be called such is that it fails to take into account several underlying factors.
The USA & Friends staged a coup in 2014, installed a “government” and proceeded to fuel a war.
Russia observed all of this, lent a hand to a degree and has no illusions about what the handlers have in mind for them as a nation and people.
Every single “option” so far has been direct by, donated by, and generally mismanaged by the above mentioned interlopers.
So from the get-go Ukraine has been burning through “options” sponsored largely by the above handlers, and they are clearly running out.
So what’s this phantasmal set of “options” that will be revealed if the Russian military does not giddyUP?
I’m sure Russia will undertake offensive military actions. At the time of its choosing, based on its analysis of the situation. I assume that the time it will choose is going to be based on the weakness of the Ukrainian military / state and Russia’s strength.
Spring 2024 after a winter of pressure across the whole front and rear seems like a reasonable timeframe.
Nicely put. I’ve grown a tad bit weary of the concern trolling about how Russia isnt doing BigArrow pushes and has thus stalled or just doesnt have it in them. STFU already.
You voice your opinion/point of view like it has any positive merit.
It does not.
It is informed by an ignorance of facts only matched by Western Media.
Russia is DOING things that are having EXTREME success on the battlefield, both tactically and strategically. Obliterating the Ukraine "counter-offensive" in front of the "Surovikin Line" has sent shockwaves throughout NATO.
WHICH IS THE WHOLE F@$KING POINT OF THE ARTICLE YOU HAVE MADE YOUR IDIOT COMMENT ON!!
I don't get the hostility, really, to hearing a viewpoint that you don't agree with. Don't have time for it. I would happily make my argument to someone over a beer at a bar and nobody would lose their shit over it, whereas your response would land you on your ass. Goodbye.
Seems there's one (NiggleS) in every comment section: a self-appointed arbiter of the acceptable.
Yeah he “glossed over” that somehow...
Think
Tank
.......mmmmYeah-No.
My money is on this ending in a whimper and not a bang. The West may be delusional but it is also cowardly.
@Bash
Lindsey Graham can't remember how to tie his shoes most mornings.
Although I see your point, the passage of time is very useful when getting a point across. Despite NAFO trolls, the MSM AgitProp mills, and a highly opinionated but under-informed public Russia continues to not GAF (give-A-fhaak) what they think. And they do this consistently as they continue the path they have chosen seemingly unperturbed by the constant provocation. To the slightly more informed observer this stance garners considerably more respect than the constant screeching and backpedaling coming from the opposition. The longer this dynamic persists, they greater heft it accrues. Plus the fact that you can only lie over and over again for so long before people just stop listening, which is precisely why the western MSM has been given marching orders to pivot the narrative. It’s on the cover of the Rothschild Economist FFS!
There is a weird bifurcation happening for sure. On one hand, we have (thankfully) substack, Elon's X, and other platforms where the truth gets out. But then we have Politico saying "its complicated" on Nazis, and a standing ovation to a living member of the SS in parliament. I have never been so ashamed to be Canadian.
Why?
If the enemy insists on underestimating you - only a fool feels the need to correct this misconception.
Results, not ego.
They don't need to. They crushing Ukraine with 5+ to 1 ratio and West still sees Russia weak. Traditionally, anything above 1.3 to 1 is a crushing victory, yet we have horse with blinders on - it's hopeless. No amount of demonstration will change that. Only direct participation will become a wake up call