Russia's War Against Ukraine

[Tripoli]

The problem is that this is an attrition war, and I don't see how, given the correlation of forces,  the Ukrainians can create the required conditions to bring about a complete collapse of the Russian military's will to fight before their own will to fight is compromised.

I think the Ukrainians can bring the needed amount of weight to bear but only on 1 axis.

I agree, that is probably the best the Ukrainians can do, and unfortunately, I don't think it will be enough.  For the Ukrainians to accomplish their war aims, they will have to collapse the Russian will to fight across all fronts, and I don't think that is likely.  To the contrary, I think the west's will to continue to support the Ukraine is more likely to collapse before Russia's will to fight collapses.  If this scenario happens, it will be over for Ukraine.  And this is the scenario that I believe that Russia is trying to develop with its reduction of energy exports to Europe.    If the US were more serious about defending Ukraine, we would be ramping up our energy production to both help supply the EU and to drive down prices to hurt Putin.

[GDS_Starfury]

I disagree.  if they can pull something off and retake Kherson and capture lots of troops then thats the first domino, a defeat they cant hide and a win that goes a long way in continued support.  the west also needs to get over its fear of russian nuclear threats.  they aint gonna use them over this.

[GDS_Starfury]

what could go wrong.   :hide:

[GDS_Starfury]

kinda says it all.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1562711259363278848

[JudgeDredd]

Saw an article this morning (in USA Today, though can't find the link now) stating that Putin intends to... produce?... another 118 thousand troops for this year.

Well, he has around 70K fewer mouths to feed, so I guess this won't strain his logistics as much as it otherwise would have. Then again, his logistics have frayed so badly with 70K fewer mouths to feed, that almost another 120K might be much worse! At the very least, he should be putting those 118K on logistics duty. (And maybe harvest duty.)

I don't recall the article being clear about how Putin thought he was going to get them, by the way -- the writer speculated it would be by hiring volunteers.

BBC says it's with lots of cash

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-62677262

[MengJiao]

...

As Slash just noted (from Rep. Waltz and the Armed Services Committee), Russia could be stalling to let gravity-and/or-winter decide this. Also, Putin may have no more choice.

IMHO, this is exactly what he is going to do.  Ukraine doesn't have the ability/manpower to throw him out of his current gains.  Putin will depopulate and/or colonize the captured areas to the extent he can, annex the captured areas, putting them under the Russian nuclear umbrella, and freeze the Europeans and Ukrainians.  The partial counter to this is for the US to begin drilling and exporting energy to the Europeans.

  Do they have to throw the Russians out or just blow up a lot of them?  While Russia still thinks hitting civilian stuff is worthwhile, the Ukrainians seem to be concentrating on rubbing out the
Russian capacity to do anything but shoot random HE at things.  It is possible that the more the Russians convince themselves they are winning, the faster they will collapse once it becomes clear
that they are not winning (at least in terms of having their war-fighting capabilities steadily eroded).  You can't go downhill forever and remain a credible force.

If the Ukrainians can some how bring about the collapse of the Russian army, then they might be able to throw them out.  The problem is that this is an attrition war, and I don't see how, given the correlation of forces,  the Ukrainians can create the required conditions to bring about a complete collapse of the Russian military's will to fight before their own will to fight is compromised.  I may be wrong on that, but I just don't see it happening right now.  Possibly the political will in Russia to continue the war can be made to collapse, but the public opinion polling doesn't show it (yet).

  The problem for the Russians with on-going attrition is that they have been losing more rapidly since the very beginning.  Now being steadily attritted is built into their plans to hang on with less and less.  This is not a winning strategy.  Meanwhile -- while the Ukrainians have been losing nearly as much stuff as the Russians, they can see the end of the tunnel.  Their strategy is to keep hammering til the Russians leave.  Well that is a winning strategy -- simple, direct and increasingly it looks like it is working: just keep hitting the Russian military gear and logistics while the Russians waste ammo shooting at everything.

[JasonPratt]

If the US were more serious about defending Ukraine, we would be ramping up our energy production to both help supply the EU and to drive down prices to hurt Putin.

In principle I agree, but at this point I doubt we could ramp up our energy production enough to help ourselves in time for this winter, much less the Ukraine.  :-\

On the other hand, Ukraine should have a lot of wrecked foliage to use for fuel reserves this winter... but are they even able to Stalingrad the whole nation? (I assume they'll still be willing.)

kinda says it all.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1562711259363278848

Considering cats usually prefer to dig at least a shallow hole, yep!

[Tripoli]

If the US were more serious about defending Ukraine, we would be ramping up our energy production to both help supply the EU and to drive down prices to hurt Putin.

In principle I agree, but at this point I doubt we could ramp up our energy production enough to help ourselves in time for this winter, much less the Ukraine.  :-\

...

You are right in that the time to make a difference this winter has largely passed.  However, the fact that 1) this strategy was evident pretty much as soon as the war started 6 months ago and 2) we have done nothing substantive, and continue to do nothing substantative during this timeframe to mitigate this threat to energy supplies despite 4) the fact that we could also make money doing so indicates 4) We (The U.S government) is not really serious about this war.  I hope I'm wrong on this, but I don't think I am.

[Gusington]

I dunno...there is a fine line here that the US must tread between supplying Ukraine, standing up to Russia and stoking a wider war. In February it warmed my cold dead ashy heart to see NATO fall in line together for the benefit of Ukraine. Granted even the Ukrainians state that it often not enough and there is the perception that Ukraine is being sacrificed for the rest of Western Europe, but it is not like the U.S. and the West are doing absolutely nothing.

[MengJiao]

I dunno...there is a fine line here that the US must tread between supplying Ukraine, standing up to Russia and stoking a wider war. In February it warmed my cold dead ashy heart to see NATO fall in line together for the benefit of Ukraine. Granted even the Ukrainians state that it often not enough and there is the perception that Ukraine is being sacrificed for the rest of Western Europe, but it is not like the U.S. and the West are doing absolutely nothing.

  Given that everyone (and that would include me), thought the Russians would knock out and overrun Ukraine in less than a week -- still a bad idea but not much that could be done -- the western response
has been more to exploit an unexpected situation than to do anything constructive or even particularly rational.  The West and the US are still reacting and it seems only now are people realizing
that the simplest answer is to beat Russia as quickly and thoroughly as possible on the theory that "If the dog is dead, the rabies are gone" -- still not very constructive, but at least focused on hammering the Russians until they leave Ukraine -- not for any over-arching rational reason, but as a reaction and as an act of self-preservation.  Whereas in February self-preservation for the West meant letting the Russians overrun Ukraine, now self-preservation means hammering the Russians until they leave.  There's really no other clear choice at the moment.  And I should add that a "stalemate" in which the Russians go on being hammered is not much of a winning strategy for Russia, but then rationality seems to be in short supply even in Russia.

[Tripoli]

I dunno...there is a fine line here that the US must tread between supplying Ukraine, standing up to Russia and stoking a wider war. In February it warmed my cold dead ashy heart to see NATO fall in line together for the benefit of Ukraine. Granted even the Ukrainians state that it often not enough and there is the perception that Ukraine is being sacrificed for the rest of Western Europe, but it is not like the U.S. and the West are doing absolutely nothing.

I wouldn't claim that the US is doing nothing.  Rather, I would claim that what we are doing in unfocused and unlikely to result in anything more than, at best, a violent stalemate with 1/3 of the Ukraine absorbed into Russia, resulting in a festering wound that will lead to further conflict in the future.  The fact that simply increasing our own energy production to drop global prices and hurt Russia (while helping our economy and allies) is apparently a step the US is unwilling to take shows the lack of seriousness regarding the war by many in Washington.  Yes, they are happy to send lots of weapons.  But what is their definition of victory, and how do they propose to get there?  I'm not sure that discussion has been held, certainly not in any public fashion.  The one thing NATO's reaction may have done is given China some pause regarding  trying to do the same IRT Taiwan.  At least thus far.  But I wouldn't count on the PRC being dissuaded for very long.....

[Gusington]

^I agree with you both on the above. For Ukraine the definition of victory has and will remain 'Russia out of Ukrainian territory.'

Honestly and to your point I am not sure what the definition of victory is for the rest of the West and NATO, including the US.

And I'm sure the Chinese and Russians are wondering how far they can go and push the West and especially the US into direct conflict.

[MengJiao]

^I agree with you both on the above. For Ukraine the definition of victory has and will remain 'Russia out of Ukrainian territory.'

Honestly and to your point I am not sure what the definition of victory is for the rest of the West and NATO, including the US.

And I'm sure the Chinese and Russians are wondering how far they can go and push the West and especially the US into direct conflict.

  Yeah, but, you have to look at the Russian point of view on this too.  Can they really count on remaining unable to grasp reality for an extended period?  It's kind of like
the mental exercise where somebody says "Don't think of a blue square."  How much longer can the Russians pretend that what they are doing makes any kind of sense at all?
How long can they not think about what is staring them in the face?  A "stalemate" where they just go on being processsed into dead meat by whatever weapons the west sends
to Ukraine?  Look at their options in Ukraine: do they just keep sending their forces into a killing ground?  They are already pulling planes out of Crimea and ships out of the Black Sea.
Nobody seems to want to help them with their little problem with facing reality.  Even if thousands of North Koreans get sent to get blown up in Ukraine -- what does that
say about the Russians?  Well...maybe they are just fed up with being sent to get blown up in Ukraine.  While the west may not be very enthusiastic about whatever it takes to
get the Russians to leave, it is certainly a better choice to hammer the Russians for however long it takes than to wait for the Russians to sit back and pick another target
for whatever it is that they think they are doing (which is still not very clear).

[Gusington]

The Russian party line is that they have been pushed into this situation by an ever-expanding NATO.

[MengJiao]

The Russian party line is that they have been pushed into this situation by an ever-expanding NATO.

   The last big additions to NATO were in 2004.  Ten years later Russia attacked Ukraine and then went to war in Syria.  Hard to see any real NATO problems with any of that.
If they wanted to hold on to Crimea -- well they already had that.  I suppose the actual aim had nothing at all to do with NATO and more to do with the idea of an easy total
take over of Ukraine BUT once there is no take over I would think rationally some fast and fancy negotiations in say March would have preserved everything and
kept Finland, Sweden and the
Ukraine out of NATO.  Maybe Dugin and the ultra-Orthodox messed that up and that's why Putin had one of the Dugins blown up -- pure frustration.
Cuz Once they passed that milestone it should have been very very clear that there was nothing to gain and
everything to lose.  So it is hard to see what they want out of all this, though maybe a few more car-bombs will clarify that.

And from Reuters...the Russians can't really say what it is that they want:

Russia can't stop war, even if Ukraine drops NATO hopes -Putin ally
Yesterday 5:53 PM

(Reuters) - A top ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Friday that Moscow would not stop its military campaign in Ukraine even if Kyiv formally renounced its aspirations to join NATO.

Former President Dmitry Medvedev, now deputy chairman of Russia's Security Council, also said in a French television interview that Russia was prepared to hold talks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy subject to certain conditions.

Even before the February invasion, Moscow made clear Ukrainian membership of NATO was unacceptable to it.

"Renouncing its participation in the North Atlantic alliance is now vital, but it is already insufficient in order to establish peace," Medvedev told LCI television in quotes reported by Russian news agencies.

Russia, he said, would continue the campaign until its goals had been achieved. Putin says he wants to "denazify" Ukraine. Kyiv and the West say this is a baseless pretext for a war of conquest.