Thanks for the discussion. A couple of thoughts crossed my mind:
Media now highlights the risk that Ukraine took in its Kursk operation and wants to classify it as a failure because Russia did not reduce its attacks in Donbas, etc. The coverage seems to forget all the other factors that did succeed, such as changing the narrative of the war at least for a time, showing how the Russian army may be an inch deep in defending its borders, the lack of training for new conscripts., and that Ukraine still holds the territory weeks later and gained leverage in ceasefire negotiations., etc. Also, I have not seen much discussion of Russia needing to pull trained fighters from Africa to fight in Ukraine. Ironically these are probably former Wagner troops. If Putin had an easy solution, we would have seen it by now.
This US election is a nightmare. Period. At least now I have hope, and some good omens seem to be emerging. The Russian disinformation campaign is disgusting and the fact that any American subscribes is embarrassing. But, I wonder if these campaigns have a more limited effect where they end up preaching to the choir. The bias in mainstream media may have a more deleterious effect because it is more subtle.
Finally, I still think that aid to Ukraine will pick up after the election. Biden does not want to give the GOP another talking point and feed DJT's America First mantra.
(paraphrase from memory) "If ATACMS attacks in Russia would be ineffective, there would not be restrictions against it." Bears repeating one more time.
I have lost all respect not only for the Biden Admin. position, but the mouthpieces that voice it (Kirby, I am talking about Kirby). Both sides are *not* the same in US politics, but sometimes the Biden admin. seems to see that as a goal to shoot for.
That's not what they said. They said that Ukraine still isn't generating enough manpower on the front lines. They didn't say that Ukraine cannot regenerate their forces.
That the RF aren't 'exploiting' their advantages - by which I assume they mean sweeping through in some kind of combined-arms swan enveloping salient after salient) seems to be the only crumb of comfort that the Professor and Mykola can draw from the current situation. And that's with them assuming the 1,000 RF-casualties-a-day estimates from that bastion of proberty UK intelligence are correct. (They’re the people who, according to British Papers, were key to organising the Kursk incursion).
The Professor says there 'seems not to be massive loss' on behalf of the Ukrainians on the basis of absolutely nothing - and in complete opposition to what we've learned so far in this war.
We have AFU forces moving from prepared, well dug, defences in the Donbas to move into a larger area further from their AD, closer to RF logistics and into areas with little or no defences that they might be able to occupy and hold once they are countered. They've done this with relatively mobile forces without the kind of heavy digging equipment they would need to dig themselves in deep enough to survive the RF's range of air and artillery weapons. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that the casualty-loss-ratio here is anything other than distrous for the AFU. They couldn’t inflict many on their way in, because there weren’t any RF forces there – and they can’t now adequately protect themselves from the drone and other attacks that have typified the conflict so far.
What remains from this pair is any notion of a theory of victory for Ukraine – what are they after beyond stringing this catastrophic conflict on for another year. What beyond getting the West to send another few billion dollars worth of weapons that don’t actually exist – and if they do, that can’t be safely integrated into the AFU’s forces (see the F-16s).
The Professor blythly says that the AFU’s grand-strategy could “do with a bit of work on it” – OK then - where his his? Chickenhawkery is not a grand strategy, but it’s all he’s got nowadays.
Japan has beaten Russia in 1905 (it was the beginning of the end of the colonization of Asia) and Poland has beaten Trotzki’s Red Army in 1921
Yep
Thanks for the discussion. A couple of thoughts crossed my mind:
Media now highlights the risk that Ukraine took in its Kursk operation and wants to classify it as a failure because Russia did not reduce its attacks in Donbas, etc. The coverage seems to forget all the other factors that did succeed, such as changing the narrative of the war at least for a time, showing how the Russian army may be an inch deep in defending its borders, the lack of training for new conscripts., and that Ukraine still holds the territory weeks later and gained leverage in ceasefire negotiations., etc. Also, I have not seen much discussion of Russia needing to pull trained fighters from Africa to fight in Ukraine. Ironically these are probably former Wagner troops. If Putin had an easy solution, we would have seen it by now.
This US election is a nightmare. Period. At least now I have hope, and some good omens seem to be emerging. The Russian disinformation campaign is disgusting and the fact that any American subscribes is embarrassing. But, I wonder if these campaigns have a more limited effect where they end up preaching to the choir. The bias in mainstream media may have a more deleterious effect because it is more subtle.
Finally, I still think that aid to Ukraine will pick up after the election. Biden does not want to give the GOP another talking point and feed DJT's America First mantra.
Why isn't the "west" attacking the Russian information space? I don't mean in Russia, I mean in USA and Europe.
One more thing - I tried to add funds, but only euros and dollars are available, I would request GBP be added or paypal.
(paraphrase from memory) "If ATACMS attacks in Russia would be ineffective, there would not be restrictions against it." Bears repeating one more time.
I have lost all respect not only for the Biden Admin. position, but the mouthpieces that voice it (Kirby, I am talking about Kirby). Both sides are *not* the same in US politics, but sometimes the Biden admin. seems to see that as a goal to shoot for.
Thanks again.
That the Ukrainians cannot regenerate their forces (as you both agree here) IS Russia exploiting their advantages.
That's not what they said. They said that Ukraine still isn't generating enough manpower on the front lines. They didn't say that Ukraine cannot regenerate their forces.
That's a distinction without a difference.
That the RF aren't 'exploiting' their advantages - by which I assume they mean sweeping through in some kind of combined-arms swan enveloping salient after salient) seems to be the only crumb of comfort that the Professor and Mykola can draw from the current situation. And that's with them assuming the 1,000 RF-casualties-a-day estimates from that bastion of proberty UK intelligence are correct. (They’re the people who, according to British Papers, were key to organising the Kursk incursion).
The Professor says there 'seems not to be massive loss' on behalf of the Ukrainians on the basis of absolutely nothing - and in complete opposition to what we've learned so far in this war.
We have AFU forces moving from prepared, well dug, defences in the Donbas to move into a larger area further from their AD, closer to RF logistics and into areas with little or no defences that they might be able to occupy and hold once they are countered. They've done this with relatively mobile forces without the kind of heavy digging equipment they would need to dig themselves in deep enough to survive the RF's range of air and artillery weapons. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that the casualty-loss-ratio here is anything other than distrous for the AFU. They couldn’t inflict many on their way in, because there weren’t any RF forces there – and they can’t now adequately protect themselves from the drone and other attacks that have typified the conflict so far.
What remains from this pair is any notion of a theory of victory for Ukraine – what are they after beyond stringing this catastrophic conflict on for another year. What beyond getting the West to send another few billion dollars worth of weapons that don’t actually exist – and if they do, that can’t be safely integrated into the AFU’s forces (see the F-16s).
The Professor blythly says that the AFU’s grand-strategy could “do with a bit of work on it” – OK then - where his his? Chickenhawkery is not a grand strategy, but it’s all he’s got nowadays.