Ukraine Invasion: Part 40

[MagicFox]

40 threads, still here 🇺🇦

He graduated from West Point.

And then served five years in the US Air Force, so no actual service in a ground combat unit, no army war college, etc.

Most people don't understand that USMA is a pretty standard undergraduate university. Students get some military skills training, but it's supplemental to a normal academic program. He might have been an electrical engineering or English major.

https://www.westpoint.edu/academics/majors-and-minors

Lots of people who attend West Point get out after the mandated five years of service as Mearsheimer did, then go on to hold some rather odd political views, like Mike Pompeo, for example.

He has, however, studied the school of realist geopolitics that has been somewhat sidelined these days for more globalist interests after the end of the Cold War. I found his points worth looking into, and the artillery guy who sent me the link is pretty good with military history, so I often defer to his judgement.

I’m trying to find an available copy of the RUSI paper mentioned in the video to check against. We do know from the leaked reports earlier this year that Ukraine has suffered severe attritional casualties in areas like Bakhmut.

Little concerned about the ending points in the talk, namely about how the US and NATO are now essentially beholden to this war. As we appear at some kind of impasse, I don’t know how long that means we now keep up this state of affairs. I was hoping this would all be over this year!

It's been stated for a while that this war is going to drag on :(

It would need a lot more weoponry sent and training to end sooner.

That article is just weird though.

It's Russia's responsibility for invading and people who point at the West consistently and apparently deliberately fail to notice Putin's attitude towards Ukraine.

Putin's direct words, translated:

"During the recent Direct Line, when I was asked about Russian-Ukrainian relations, I said that Russians and Ukrainians were one people – a single whole.... It is what I have said on numerous occasions and what I firmly believe"
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181

Already long before the Ukraine crisis, at an April 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, Vladimir Putin reportedly claimed that “Ukraine is not even a state!* What is Ukraine? A part of its territory is [in] Eastern Europe, but a[nother] part, a considerable one, was a gift from us!” In his March 18, 2014 speech marking the annexation of Crimea, Putin declared that Russians and Ukrainians “are one people. Kiev is the mother of Russian cities.*

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseih/2020/07/01/there-is-no-ukraine-fact-checking-the-kremlins-version-of-ukrainian-history/

and before this becomes yet another wall of text, from RUSI itself:

Putin ends his ‘historical’ peroration by blaming all problems on ‘external governance’ and referring to Ukrainian leaders as puppets of the West, a favourite trope of RT – Moscow’s overseas propaganda network – as well as Russian social media trolls. This shows just how much propaganda infuses all of this ‘history’; nowhere in his writings on the subject does Putin allow for Ukrainian subjectivity – for the possibility that Ukrainians might have their own opinion about who they are.

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181

The Realist school of thought was really big when I was studying international relations at Uni, it all seemed to make sense to us students at the time but now it does not to me. One particular man I used to argue with a lot at the start of the invasion was very keen on Realism and Mearsheimer, always came across as one of those blokes who never got past first year PolIR, but lately he's gone quiet on the invasion so perhaps has started to realise things aren't going as he thought they would.

John Mearsheimer can go fuck himself. What a load of nonsense.

They discussed Mearsheimer on the Battleground Ukraine podcast after a listener asked if they would consider interviewing him for an ‘alternative’ viewpoint. The general consensus was that he’s basically a useful idiot, doesn’t necessarily believe in the Russian line but isn’t self aware enough to counter it.

This is a great article, thanks Ducks. I may save this one for reference.

I’m not really interested in his politics, so much as his reasoning and sources. If anyone has valid points worth considering, then their background isn’t relevant. That’s just a logical fallacy. Yes, it can inform you as to their stance on matters, however, the argument or evidence should be seen as separate.

There were plenty of times in the Brexit debate where the infighting leavers seemed to stab one another in the back for power and make compelling arguments why they were right over their opponents. It’s funny seeing Farage seemingly embrace remain talking points today to support why it all failed.

I just saw a tweet about Taurus missiles and Germany not wanting to send them? Need to find it again. Had a poll attached that didn’t seem very onboard with the idea. Why is Germany like this?

@siloed, since you rate this guy, can you tell us what evidence he has supplied?

I am not one of the knowledgeable ones on this thread but am conscious that it is a time wasting troll tactic (which you are not, I assume) to point people to useful idiot sources to make them watch or read questionable views. After all, that is in itself a win in Russian propaganda terms.

So I disagree with you there that his politics is not relevant. It is very much relevant and prefer not to waste any head space on him further unless you can explain otherwise.

Someone's track record can be useful to notice though as knowing where they come from gives you a clue to their agenda and to how loud their axe is going to grind.

This line that "NATO expansion forced Russia to invade" has been pushed by a lot of pro-Russian trolls with some success.

They do rather fail to explain Russia's invasion of Chechnya, S Ossetia and Transnistra though.

They also fail to notice that the Eastern European nations have been warning of Russian expansionism for a long time, and that in fact NATO is defensive.

Mearsheimer has the luck to not be in danger of imminent invasion and not having lived under Soviet rule. It's a rather self-indulgent viewpoint he's putting forward.

You can’t just ignore A person’s politics and worldview, it’s an incredibly important bit of context context to any points that they’re making. “Facts” can be interpreted on a myriad of ways depending on the lens through which you view them.

He also doesn't explain why Russia is trying hard to interfere with other lands' democracy, nor why it funded separatists.

Now on this thread, few of us are trained political observers and commentators. But he is, and you'd expect a trained and experienced interpreter to see the bigger picture and to be aware that.

No one other than the Russians and the Ukrainians has an accurate assessment of what their casualties have been, so he starts off by making some dubious assumptions rather than presenting evidence or reliable sources.

What we do know is that Russia led with its best units and was sent packing after suffering severe attrition. They could not stop Ukraine from achieving major victories in Kharkiv and Kherson, and their winter offensive came to nothing. He ignores all of this. So it seems he has a conclusion and no evidence to support it.

I saw that poll too. You have to know how the question was framed to judge the result. So if it went "Given the risks of escalation and increased risk of nuclear weapons being used, do you support Germany providing long range missiles?", you're going to get a tepid response.

It does seem likely there've been a lot of Ukrainian deaths in the Battle for Bakhmut, from what's been said by non-Russian sources here and there. Ukraine itself has said that some of their best formations suffered considerable attrition in Bahkmut. at a guess, it seems surely unlikely to have been more than 1:1; the Generals are well aware of the manpower limitations of Ukraine and the price of Bakhmut at 3:1 would surely have been far too high.

For the rest of the time, a 3:1 kill ration Ukraine : Russia is plain silly.

Where did I say "I rate the guy"?

Just a couple pages back, people were talking about a variety of views on the war. I presume I'm not allowed to not post what people already have? If that's the case, can we lay some ground rules. I don't like this idea that I'm now a troll for forwarding something a serving family friend in NATO forwarded me.

I question the conflict's kill/death ratios, and this guy had given me some food for thought. Some of the assessments on Bakhmut, along with what we saw in the leaks, paints a very different picture to what the Western MSM has been pushing. I think that's important, and don't care if it's "trolling" to mention it. If we are being lied to about how many are dying in this conflict, that's concerning. If Russia isn't as degraded as is made out, then that's a concern. Bakhmut took me by surprise, I thought it was a death trap for the invaders. Turns out it wasn't the case and now I'm worried about the lack of a Ukrainian offensive. What's the hold up? Can we still push before Russia tries something else?

The rest of it, as put forward as disclaimer at the beginning, is his take on where we're at, and how things may come to pass. Nothing more, nothing less.

I dispute his points on Odessa, for instance, and taking much more than what Russia already has. Unless Ukraine collapses, I just don't see how Russia manages that. I also think he's aligned more with keeping American imperialism at the top, just he's annoyed with how it's being run. That's something that I don't personally abide by any more than Russian aggression in places like Georgia, Syria and now Ukraine.

All good points, yes. You are talking about the past, though. And it seems Russia has learned from those mistakes (I recall an article about the TB2 drone being no longer effective and Russian EW being massively ramped up).

The way I see it, we can't go by the clusterfuck of the opening acts of the war where everyone expected Ukraine to be bulldozed... and yet they fought off a massive force that got bogged down for utterly dumb reasons. The amount of corruption and lack of leadership made for some absolutely galling imagery for the world to see regarding the invasion force.

And then came the counter-offensive, which retook large chunks of land in such a swift pace that I couldn't keep up with it.

Now, though? I'm thinking the attritional battles like Bakhmut are the nature of the game. If no one is doing a big push, then this could lead to a frozen conflict that just exists for as long as anyone cares to notice. Or Ukraine pushes, breaks the front, and manages to rout a lot of the invading forces. There's some mumblings about Russia wanting this, to absorb it, then counter with another offensive now the weather is better. I don't know what to make of that given it seemed that their forces were exhausted.

@Siloed we have heard this all before only just recently by a poster who is no longer with us. I have nothing else to add.

I don't know what to make of that given it seemed that their forces were exhausted.

Some of the better forces have been held in reserve, just as Ukraine have done. Some of the fortified areas have rested troops.

The delay in the counteroffensive has also given Russia more time to train conscripts unfortunately ... although a lot of the more experienced trainers were sent to the front lines and killed in the early months of the war when things did not go to plan.

I've heard that too, though with other mixed ideas. I thought there was maybe a potential better plan for the Ukrainians that they were then holding out for, hence they delayed. Though I also heard it was because some units were not at strength or were still waiting on promised equipment. I guess the Storm Shadow deliveries also factor into it, since that should help.

It does just seem that the more we delay, the more likely the outcome is less decisive.

@blueshoes Oh? Fair enough. I normally just lurk Reddit (though I genuinely hate that site now), then someone mentioned here and I found this thread. There's also Twitter and Discord and Telegram for some interesting sources of information. I'm sure everyone has seen the Ukrainian and Russian Telegrams that are proverbial goldmines for hot takes.

@MissConductUS what do you make of apparently the Ukrainians destroying a Russian Pantsir?

Now, though? I'm thinking the attritional battles like Bakhmut are the nature of the game. If no one is doing a big push, then this could lead to a frozen conflict that just exists for as long as anyone cares to notice. Or Ukraine pushes, breaks the front, and manages to rout a lot of the invading forces. There's some mumblings about Russia wanting this, to absorb it, then counter with another offensive now the weather is better. I don't know what to make of that given it seemed that their forces were exhausted.

As Clausewitz taught us, you have three strategic resources in war: time, force (aka combat power), and space. Ukraine hung on for so long in Bahkmut to buy time to absorb Western equipment and train new brigades to use it offensively. They traded force for time. The fact that they've pulled back from Bahkmut tells me they don't need additional time.

The Russians have been sacrificing force to retain space, so they have simply been playing defense, other than the propaganda-driven campaign to take Bahkmut. And the reason they chose Bahkmut is because it was very easy for them to supply. And Wagner is better trained, equipped, and led than the Russian Army units they have available. Wagner has now retreated from Bahkmut. Russian logistics were never organized to operate on a large scale outside of Russia. That's another reason why the drive on Kyiv failed. They only brought a few days worth of supplies.

I don't think the Russians want the Ukrainian counterattack. They will probably lose their ground supply lines to Crimea and their forces remaining in Kherson oblast. That's a disaster no matter how you dress it up. They will be giving up space for no benefit in time or force. The idea that they have force available to mount a summer offensive is pretty bonkers. If they had force, they'd be using it.

And the force they have now is qualitatively different than it was at the start of the war. Russia's professional army was okay. Not great for many reasons, but okay. Units made up of the recently mobilized are substantially less effective. They couldn't properly train them, as the officers and noncoms that did basic training were put into combat units last year.

There are only so many months of suitable weather for offensive warfare ahead of us. It's going to be an exciting spring and summer.

Assuming you mean this report

https://twitter.com/THEEURASIATIMES/status/1656887704561545216

I think it's telling that such a high-value target was located by a reconnaissance drone. So their radar didn't spot it, they didn't shoot it down, and they had no electronic warfare unit protecting it.

It did burn very nicely, though. 😁

Succinctly put. I has to delete my attempts at giving my opinion for fear of a permanent ban.

It's still informative to see what has been said, if only to be able to afford it the reply Mb76 has done.