Blyatskrieg

[Martin Y]

This static war seems suddenly to have changed, as Ukraine have done what I never imagined and taken the fight to a poorly defended part of Russia rather than a fortified part of Ukraine. I thought at first this would be another raid and just a brief incursion but they now appear to be 30km into Russia and in considerable force. The obvious benefit is it forces Putin to draw some of his regular contracted troops out of Ukraine, as the conscripts can't handle the situation, and the public won't like Russian territory being occupied, nor their national service conscript kids, proper russkiy kids, doing the fighting and dying rather than having dirt-poor sods from the far eastern back end of nowhere do the dirty work for a bit of cash.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crkm08rv5m0o

[Imrael]

Its militarily encouraging (although with pretty big risks) but I'm not sure the internal politics will play out as you think. I would very much like you to be right, but this is easily set up as a NATO backed and armed power invading Russia, thus validating everything they've ever said about NATO agression.

[shpalman]

Its militarily encouraging (although with pretty big risks) but I'm not sure the internal politics will play out as you think. I would very much like you to be right, but this is easily set up as a NATO backed and armed power invading Russia, thus validating everything they've ever said about NATO agression.

With what consequence?

[Tristan]

Stop The War being utter scumbags, as expected

STW.png (11.17 KiB) Viewed 1157 times

[Imrael]

Its militarily encouraging (although with pretty big risks) but I'm not sure the internal politics will play out as you think. I would very much like you to be right, but this is easily set up as a NATO backed and armed power invading Russia, thus validating everything they've ever said about NATO agression.

With what consequence?

Its all intangibles of course, but increased support for Putin and the military, and increased willingness to work through economic problems. And possibly external supporters will turn things up a notch - China supplying arms would be a worst case. To emphasise, I dont want this to happen and dont really know how likely it is.

[bjn]

This static war seems suddenly to have changed, as Ukraine have done what I never imagined and taken the fight to a poorly defended part of Russia rather than a fortified part of Ukraine. I thought at first this would be another raid and just a brief incursion but they now appear to be 30km into Russia and in considerable force. The obvious benefit is it forces Putin to draw some of his regular contracted troops out of Ukraine, as the conscripts can't handle the situation, and the public won't like Russian territory being occupied, nor their national service conscript kids, proper russkiy kids, doing the fighting and dying rather than having dirt-poor sods from the far eastern back end of nowhere do the dirty work for a bit of cash.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crkm08rv5m0o

Anders Puck Neilson’s* opinion is that Ukraine’s strategy is to wage a war of attrition. Russia has been helping that as their offensive has been throwing troops and equipment into the grinder for marginal gains. So you get very asymmetric casualties levels between the two sides. However the Russian offensives into Ukraine are about to culminate (ie: run out of steam), which means that the grinder will cease. Ukrainian taking lightly defended Russian soil will compel the Russians to continue attacking, as it’s a very very bad look for Putin and friends if they can’t defend the motherland itself. So taking ground isn't the point, poking the bear is. If the Ukrainians can quickly fortify their gains in Russia and let the poked bear come raging in, they can continue to attrit them.

The Ukrainians have been getting feisty on the border at a separate location further South in the last 24 hours, so much so that the Russians have evacuated the area.

I DGAF what the Stop the War dweebs are saying about this, any more than other Putin lovers like Farage and friends.

https://youtu.be/A4mg1ZUb-7s

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/1 ... der-threat

*Well worth following on youtube and Mastdon, he's a Danish solider and is faculty at their Defense College.

Mastodon id @anderspuck@krigskunst.social

[Martin Y]

*Well worth following on youtube and Mastdon, he's a Danish solider ...

Sailor. But yes, definitely well worth following.

[Woodchopper]

This static war seems suddenly to have changed, as Ukraine have done what I never imagined and taken the fight to a poorly defended part of Russia rather than a fortified part of Ukraine. I thought at first this would be another raid and just a brief incursion but they now appear to be 30km into Russia and in considerable force. The obvious benefit is it forces Putin to draw some of his regular contracted troops out of Ukraine, as the conscripts can't handle the situation, and the public won't like Russian territory being occupied, nor their national service conscript kids, proper russkiy kids, doing the fighting and dying rather than having dirt-poor sods from the far eastern back end of nowhere do the dirty work for a bit of cash.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crkm08rv5m0o

Anders Puck Neilson’s* opinion is that Ukraine’s strategy is to wage a war of attrition. Russia has been helping that as their offensive has been throwing troops and equipment into the grinder for marginal gains. So you get very asymmetric casualties levels between the two sides. However the Russian offensives into Ukraine are about to culminate (ie: run out of steam), which means that the grinder will cease. Ukrainian taking lightly defended Russian soil will compel the Russians to continue attacking, as it’s a very very bad look for Putin and friends if they can’t defend the motherland itself. So taking ground isn't the point, poking the bear is. If the Ukrainians can quickly fortify their gains in Russia and let the poked bear come raging in, they can continue to attrit them.

The Ukrainians have been getting feisty on the border at a separate location further South in the last 24 hours, so much so that the Russians have evacuated the area.

I DGAF what the Stop the War dweebs are saying about this, any more than other Putin lovers like Farage and friends.

https://youtu.be/A4mg1ZUb-7s

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/1 ... der-threat

*Well worth following on youtube and Mastdon, he's a Danish solider and is faculty at their Defense College.

Mastodon id @anderspuck@krigskunst.social

That's plausible, and there are a few other possible explanations.

- Attacking Russia may raise morale among Ukrainian civilians and soldiers. Attrition is grim for both sides. This way they get to see a success.
- The territory taken may improve Ukraine's bargaining position in any future peace negotiation. Hundreds of prisoners can also be exchanged.
- To undermine support for Putin. Prigozhin complained bitterly about incompetence in Russia's command and intelligence branches. We see these failures again in Kursk.

We shouldn't also discount the possibility that the Kursk offensive was simply an attempt to change the parameters of the war and to try something different. The Ukrainian leadership probably couldn't predict the outcome. But a new roll of the dice might lead to a positive outcome.

[bjn]

Russian troops sent to Kursk are showing their famous discipline by looting evacuated Russian properties. And filming it as well.

[IvanV]

I thought they were saying, at the start of this, that there was a troop build-up in that part of Russia, so the Ukrainians attacked it before it rolled over the border into Ukraine, and while it was still unprotected by dug-in ground defences. But I'm not hearing any follow-up about how that aspect of this campaign might have gone.

As a general proposition, one wonders if the easier way to take back some territory is through Russia and get behind the well dug-in lines. Though where they have crossed here is some 200km or so from the nearest substantial part of occupied Ukraine. And the Russians themselves have occupied a couple of small pockets of Ukraine, south of Belgorod, which are areas near the part where the large part begins. So the ends of the main lines might be well defended against that possibility.

As another general proposition, in a negotiation you are not going to stop Putin continuing the war unless you have something tangible to trade. So actually I don't agree with Stop The War that this is an escalation, it's potential route to stop the war.

[Martin Y]

Russian troops sent to Kursk are showing their famous discipline by looting evacuated Russian properties. And filming it as well.

To be fair, when I saw the video it wasn't as blatant as I expected. Not some Jack the lad gleefully running off with a washing machine. The guy who made the video was walking through a damaged house noting that it had been ransacked, rather than looting stuff himself. He did refer to some other lads outside who were taking stuff from the house's well equipped garage.

While I'm not going to suggest it's even slightly unlikely the looters were Russian soldiers, they could equally well have been local Russian civilians as the police have fled and there seems to be a serious amount of looting going on.

[bjn]

Vlad Vexler points out that Ukraine invading Russia is a failure. His premise is that by not fully arming Ukraine to promptly drive out Russia, all in an attempt to avoid escalation, all the West has done is make escalation much more likely. Ukraine doesn’t want Russian territory, but they’ve escalated the conflict as a strategic necessity because they can’t drive Russians off their land directly for want of arms.

FWIW the three people I follow on this mostly are Puck Neilson for the military aspects, Perun for the defence economic aspects of it and Vlad Vexler for the ethical and wide aspects of it.

[Woodchopper]

Vlad Vexler points out that Ukraine invading Russia is a failure. His premise is that by not fully arming Ukraine to promptly drive out Russia, all in an attempt to avoid escalation, all the West has done is make escalation much more likely. Ukraine doesn’t want Russian territory, but they’ve escalated the conflict as a strategic necessity because they can’t drive Russians off their land directly for want of arms.

That point of view seems to be based upon an assumption that Ukraine's supporters could easily provide far more arms, and have decided not to due to fears of escalation. IMHO reality is much more complex. In many cases the European countries have given all or the great majority of what they had (especially artillery and anti-tank weapons). What remains is also needed in case there are other wars (the Middle East and North Africa don't look very peaceful). Military spending has dramatically increased, but there are still limits on budgets. There is also Ukraine's ability to use and integrate equipment that might be donated.

Of course the US has lots of equipment, but as we've seen, there are strong domestic limits on how much it can spend on Ukraine. In addition, the US is preparing for a war against China.

Certainly, some equipment could have been delivered more quickly, and fears of escalation have played a role in restrictions placed on where equipment could be used. But an assumption that governments have chosen not to donate vast quantities of equipment that could easily have been sent is not correct.

[Martin Y]

It's all very well to argue in hindsight we should have armed Ukraine to the teeth given that Russia was about to invade, but it wasn't a given that Russia was going to invade, and a large and obvious buildup of weapons in Ukraine would have been both a reason for Russia to invade promptly before Ukraine was ready for them and an excuse for Russia to preemptively invade a neighbour which was 'clearly' a NATO-armed hostile Nazi-controlled threat on its border. And that's all aside from all the domestic political problems of simply handing billions of dollars worth of materiel to Ukraine instead of dealing with domestic issues.

Yes, very many of Putin's red lines have now been crossed without any major escalation, but it's not a given that if they had all been crossed at a stroke then Putin's lack of reaction would have been the same.

[Gfamily]

It's interesting that Ukraine has decided to go after Wagner assets in Africa, having given assistance to Malian separatists that seems to have enabled an ambush of a Mailian Army / Wagner unit at the end of last month.

'Significant losses'

Was their role a diplomatic mis-step?

[bjn]

It's all very well to argue in hindsight we should have armed Ukraine to the teeth given that Russia was about to invade, but it wasn't a given that Russia was going to invade, and a large and obvious buildup of weapons in Ukraine would have been both a reason for Russia to invade promptly before Ukraine was ready for them and an excuse for Russia to preemptively invade a neighbour which was 'clearly' a NATO-armed hostile Nazi-controlled threat on its border. And that's all aside from all the domestic political problems of simply handing billions of dollars worth of materiel to Ukraine instead of dealing with domestic issues.

Yes, very many of Putin's red lines have now been crossed without any major escalation, but it's not a given that if they had all been crossed at a stroke then Putin's lack of reaction would have been the same.

Vexler’s argument was that Ukraine should have been given everything practically possible after the invasion. Not preemptively.

There are practical limits on how fast and what you can supply, but the breaks in the US have mainly been political from within the Biden administration, specifically Sullivan. I’ve actually just had and hours conversation in the pub with a US military academic and he’s of the opinion that more should have been given and could have been given by the US and agrees with Vexler’s thesis that by not sufficiently arming Ukraine you were inevitably going to extend the war and so inevitably see escalation. He lays the blame squarely on Sullivan who is obsessed by China.

Talking of which, showing that you are willing to let Russia win territory by force of arms is not really a way of dissuading China from doing the same.

[jimbob]

It's all very well to argue in hindsight we should have armed Ukraine to the teeth given that Russia was about to invade, but it wasn't a given that Russia was going to invade, and a large and obvious buildup of weapons in Ukraine would have been both a reason for Russia to invade promptly before Ukraine was ready for them and an excuse for Russia to preemptively invade a neighbour which was 'clearly' a NATO-armed hostile Nazi-controlled threat on its border. And that's all aside from all the domestic political problems of simply handing billions of dollars worth of materiel to Ukraine instead of dealing with domestic issues.

Yes, very many of Putin's red lines have now been crossed without any major escalation, but it's not a given that if they had all been crossed at a stroke then Putin's lack of reaction would have been the same.

Vexler’s argument was that Ukraine should have been given everything practically possible after the invasion. Not preemptively.

There are practical limits on how fast and what you can supply, but the breaks in the US have mainly been political from within the Biden administration, specifically Sullivan. I’ve actually just had and hours conversation in the pub with a US military academic and he’s of the opinion that more should have been given and could have been given by the US and agrees with Vexler’s thesis that by not sufficiently arming Ukraine you were inevitably going to extend the war and so inevitably see escalation. He lays the blame squarely on Sullivan who is obsessed by China.

Talking of which, showing that you are willing to let Russia win territory by force of arms is not really a way of dissuading China from doing the same.

Absolutely,

To riff on Pitt the Elder.

We shall save Taiwan on the banks of the Dnipro

[Woodchopper]

It's all very well to argue in hindsight we should have armed Ukraine to the teeth given that Russia was about to invade, but it wasn't a given that Russia was going to invade, and a large and obvious buildup of weapons in Ukraine would have been both a reason for Russia to invade promptly before Ukraine was ready for them and an excuse for Russia to preemptively invade a neighbour which was 'clearly' a NATO-armed hostile Nazi-controlled threat on its border. And that's all aside from all the domestic political problems of simply handing billions of dollars worth of materiel to Ukraine instead of dealing with domestic issues.

Yes, very many of Putin's red lines have now been crossed without any major escalation, but it's not a given that if they had all been crossed at a stroke then Putin's lack of reaction would have been the same.

Vexler’s argument was that Ukraine should have been given everything practically possible after the invasion. Not preemptively.

There are practical limits on how fast and what you can supply, but the breaks in the US have mainly been political from within the Biden administration, specifically Sullivan. I’ve actually just had and hours conversation in the pub with a US military academic and he’s of the opinion that more should have been given and could have been given by the US and agrees with Vexler’s thesis that by not sufficiently arming Ukraine you were inevitably going to extend the war and so inevitably see escalation. He lays the blame squarely on Sullivan who is obsessed by China.

Talking of which, showing that you are willing to let Russia win territory by force of arms is not really a way of dissuading China from doing the same.

Clearly more could have been given, and more quickly, and in the US and Europe there have been domestic political hurdles which have slowed the flow of aid. But acknowledging how politics plays a role in aid delivery is a different point to a claim that it was "all in an attempt to avoid escalation".

It would be interesting to consider what kind of donated equipment and when might have led to a Ukrainian victory in 2022 or 2023 (victory being for example a return to the 2013 borders). Ukraine has had to deal with shortages of manpower as well as equipment, and significant problems with recapturing Russian occupied territory has been having to deal with Russian minefields and entrenched infantry.

[jimbob]

Well, ATACAMS with the ability to hit targets in Russia, F16s two years ago, and air defence missiles like Patriot would have made a big difference in reducing the Russian ability to fortify their gains so Ukraine would have been in a far better position. Probably not victory, unless it caused Putin's regime to collapse.

[Woodchopper]

Well, ATACAMS with the ability to hit targets in Russia, F16s two years ago, and air defence missiles like Patriot would have made a big difference in reducing the Russian ability to fortify their gains so Ukraine would have been in a far better position. Probably not victory, unless it caused Putin's regime to collapse.

Yes, of course all those would have helped. But I still don't see that they would have enabled Ukraine to retake the territory occupied by Russia.

Once the front lines stabilized it was always going to be a war of attrition. Russia is using human wave tactics. Ukraine might win a war of attrition, but it will take a long time.

On the F16s its taken over a year to train the pilots and set up the infrastructure. If the decision had been made in Spring 2022, they wouldn't have arrived until after the grinding war of attrition started. The first Patriot battery was sent in December 2022. Of course it and more could have been sent earlier. But the ones that have been sent since haven't had a decisive effect upon Ukraine's ability to retake territory. Likewise with ATACMS, should have been earlier and more numerous. But they help to attrit Russian forces.

[bjn]

ATCAMs during the Ukrainian summer offensive would have been really helpful. They would have severely disrupted Russian ability to use attack helicopters, which were a real pain. It would also have disrupted Russian troop concentrations and supply lines in the far rear. More (many more) Bradley/Abrams/Challengers would have helped as well. It might not have swung it completely, but the Russians would been driven back much further and would have had a much harder time recovering ground. Being generous would also have removed doubt from Russian thinking about most of the West’s support.

The political delays were all down to the Democrats initially, as they controlled the senate and the house at the time. Sullivan was being super wussy and acting as the main break on arms deliveries.

[LydiaGwilt]

Sullivan was being super wussy and acting as the main break on arms deliveries.

Brake, I hope./pedant

[bjn]

Sullivan was being super wussy and acting as the main break on arms deliveries.

Brake, I hope./pedant

That too.