Russia's War Against Ukraine

[Crossroads]

WSJ: Blasting a Path: An Illustrated Guide to Russia's Battle Tactics (free link)

[Crossroads]

General Mark Hertling quoting SACEUR on overall situation in Ukraine:

If Ukraine-Russia Negotiations Fail, Victory Remains an Option

The secretary of state and the top American commander in Europe just gave two very different perspectives on the war.

...

On the ground, Russian forces have made marginal advances in recent weeks—particularly in areas along the Donetsk front. But those gains have failed to achieve their aims and come at a high cost: Since the war began, Russia has suffered nearly 800,000 dead or wounded, about four times the size of its initial invasion force, and more than the 600,000 it now has deployed in Ukraine. For that cost, progress has been measured in meters, not miles. The Russian tactics continue to rely heavily on human wave assaults, with poorly trained conscripts often used as cannon fodder.

Russia's use of glide bombs, loitering munitions, and massive artillery barrages continue with the standoff tactics designed to inflict maximum damage (especially on civilians) with minimal risk. Civilian infrastructure, energy plants, and hospitals remain deliberate targets. This has never been a war of maneuver for the Russians—it is a war of terror. Since the beginning, Putin's strategic objective has been to gain territory and break Ukraine's will. That has not changed, but it now appears only the will of the United States is being broken.
 
...

Gen. Cavoli stated it plainly: "Russia's war in Ukraine, now in its fourth year has revealed Russia to be a chronic threat . . . it will be a growing threat, one that is willing to use military force to achieve its geopolitical goals." And the man responsible—Vladimir Putin—must remain an international outcast. The ICC's arrest warrant for the abduction and deportation of Ukrainian children is just one of many war crimes under review, and the attacks on civilians over the last few weeks—as Russia claimed to be negotiating a ceasefire—provides overwhelming evidence of Russian intent: to continue targeting civilians, maintain filtration camps, and increase systemic torture. President Trump's rhetoric, Steve Witkoff's sycophancy toward Putin, and Gen. Kellogg's proposed partition scheme play right into that plan.

The window for Ukraine to regain momentum is narrowing—but not closed. Maintenance of sanctions, critical deliveries of air defense systems, artillery, and precision munitions, and reaffirmation of Ukraine's territorial sovereignty could begin restoring battlefield balance within weeks. With better protection from Russian airstrikes and renewed long-range fires, and proper treatment of Putin's aggression, Ukraine could stabilize its lines and set conditions for limited offensive actions by late summer or early fall.

Ukraine can persevere. With steady Western support, they can hold the line—and push it forward. They don't need our soldiers. They need our resolve. We are at the inflection point. History will remember what we chose to do next.

Full article: https://www.thebulwark.com/p/if-ukraine-russia-negotiations-fail-vistory-remains-option-trump-rubio-zelensky-putin-war

[Jarhead0331]

Interesting discussion with Sarah Paine from the Naval War College. I've been watching some of her lectures on World War II. Good stuff.

[Crossroads]

Interesting discussion with Sarah Paine from the Naval War College. I've been watching some of her lectures on World War II. Good stuff.

She was very good indeed. What particularly struck me was in the comments section as well:

I love how Professor Paine dismisses "stupid," because, "you write off their understanding.

Putin is not a difficult person to read, once you remember his ambitions for restoring the Russian empire and spheres of interest.

[JudgeDredd]

Interesting discussion with Sarah Paine from the Naval War College. I've been watching some of her lectures on World War II. Good stuff.

Outstanding - if only I could be so eloquent and rational with my thoughts 

I have said many, many pages ago (I'm sure - I hate my memory right now) that out of all the conflicts the west has been involved in since The Falklands - the first Gulf War and this were the ones I thought were just. I still believe that. They are dying on the ground and all they;'re asking for is equipment. Not for us to get in...as far as I'm aware they haven't asked for our troops.

It just seemed right to help a country that was fighting an evil to at least help them militarily. They weren't asking for our soldiers - just the means to kick Russia out of their land. I still think if we'd have done it alot sooner, they would be in a far better position than they are now. Military aid was so slow and limited, it allowed the Russians not just to gain a strong foothold in Ukraine, but to build strong defensive lines.

Also - that one line from Z - "I need ammunition - not a lift" (or something) - I mean...YEAH! Support that.

Anyway - she was very good to listen to. I will be looking for more of her lectures.

[nelmsm]

I believe the line you are referencing from Zelensky is "I need ammunition, not a ride" came in response to an American offer to get him out of the country during the early days of the war.

[JudgeDredd]

I believe the line you are referencing from Zelensky is "I need ammunition, not a ride" came in response to an American offer to get him out of the country during the early days of the war.

That is indeed the line I am referring to 

[Pete Dero]

Yesterday on Russian state TV :

On Wednesday, state TV show 60 Minutes broadcast the clips of President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio on repeat. The Russian networks are thrilled with their words, which carry an enormous propaganda value for the Kremlin. Writer Sergey Strokan marveled, "Who could have imagined this?" Beaming ear-to-ear, host Olga Skabeeva replied, "No one ever—they can't believe it even now—if you're talking about Donald Trump. It's shocking, it really is. Completely incredible!"

Strokan added, "No one could have imagined we would live to see the day where the correct answer about to whom Crimea belongs to would come from the president of the United States, and he will not only give it, but will also teach the president of Ukraine what this correct answer is." As he spoke, Skabeeva chuckled uncontrollably. Strokan asserted, "April 23, 2025 can be confidently written into textbooks on modern history as a special date. It changed many things."

He explained that thanks to the current U.S. administration, the West no longer exists as a powerful force, with Transatlantic unity effectively over. Strokan noted, "Very soon, we will witness a rapprochement between Moscow and Washington."

Alexey Naumov, member of the Russian International Affairs Council, explained "In this deal, there are no bad conditions for Russia. Either we will get a weakened Ukraine and will be able to finish what we started by force, or we will get the deal that will create the security architecture in Europe our president has been talking about." Naumov said Russia now has an opportunity to build a new world order with the Americans.

During his state TV show, The Evening With Vladimir Solovyov, on Wednesday, host Vladimir Solovyov could barely contain himself. The excitement over the peace proposal that exclusively favors Russia had him prancing and grinning. The glee of seeing the U.S.—an age-old enemy—cowering in submission was unmistakable.

Solovyov mocked Trump's trade war with China, described him desperately waiting by the phone in hopes Xi Jinping decides to give him a call, and repeatedly demonstrated Trump's well-known gesture of playing an imaginary accordion. He referred to the U.S. Secretary of State as "Little Marco," remarking that he is finally "growing up" and showing himself to be a team player by swallowing his pride and abandoning his prior convictions.

[JudgeDredd]

I am waiting for the day where Europe gets it's shit together and politely tells the US Administration to stand aside and accept the responsibility that really ought to have been theirs in the first place.

That's not going to happen of course. The US has way too many weapon systems that Europe do not - or at least have far less of. I was wondering the other day what defenses the UK had just in terms of anti-aircraft...and I couldn't find a whole lot there. Some medium range SAMs - but I did not see alot at all. The US has shit like that in abundance.

But at some point Europe has to realise that the current US Administration does not have Ukraine's interests at heart and - even if a "deal" (that's a ****ing joke) is forthcoming - they are likely going to drop any support for Ukraine anyway. So Europe really just needs to up it's game and fast.

It's all well and good everyone blaming Obama's inaction, Trump's cosying up to Putin and Biden's slow release of weapons - but Europe should have taken this by the horns in 2014. Sounds easy enough, but of course they were not ready though there may have been political reasons why they couldn't as well - being held back by being part of NATO. I never thought I'd see the day when I'd say that NATO was a ball and chain around Europes military ankle - but the US has always been top dog in NATO - so Europe - as part of NATO - couldn't just open up (or join) a military front against a Russian invasion of Ukraine without US (other NATO countries) approval.

Having said that - whilst I do believe there's certainly the possibility that would have been an issue - the main reasons for Europe's inaction are
    a) Europe were not (and still really are not) ready to defend themselves
    and
    b) Europe has always looked to the US as a leader in policing trouble spots.

I did also wonder though - even if the current US Administration bails on the talks (whether Europe tells them to (yeah - right) or they do it of their own accord) - I wouldn't trust them not to open the flood gates of money with Russia again. I genuinely believe - even if the US bailed and left it to Europe - that they would re-open trade with Russia - even knowing what all that would mean.

It's a shame. I know (and really, genuinely wish) I could be wrong. But really, right now, nothing would surprise me.

[Uberhaus]

I was wondering the other day what defenses the UK had just in terms of anti-aircraft...and I couldn't find a whole lot there. Some medium range SAMs - but I did not see alot at all. The US has shit like that in abundance.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/the-uk-simulated-an-attack-on-its-own-air-defenses-based-on-the-first-night-of-russias-invasion-of-ukraine-it-wasnt-pretty/ar-AA1Dy2L7#:~:text=The%20UK%20ran%20a%20simulation%20of%20a%20Russian,UK%20instead%2C%20a%20senior%20air%20force%20official%20said.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/34621824/simulation-russian-missiles-britain-air-defences/

[Uberhaus]

but Europe should have taken this by the horns in 2014.

Some more nice light reading:  https://www.euronews.com/2025/04/24/allies-asked-kyiv-not-to-provoke-russia-during-crimea-annexation-mejlis-leader-tells-euron

[Anguille]

[JudgeDredd]

I do not mean to be disrespectful in my post regarding the US - it seems blunt - but I do not mean any disrespect. You have spent alot of money and resource helping Ukraine - but I do think the current US Administrations attitude to the issue is plain the wrong path to take.

It might be good for the US. It might even be good in the long term for the US. But I do not believe - with a single fibre in my body - that anyone other than the Ukrainians should determine what the path to peace should be. Of course that means countries could bail if they see fit - but any country that believes in democracy and the sanctity of sovereignty should back them to the hilt.

Stepping back will embolden Putin - who I have absolutely no doubt has already been emboldened by the talk and media surrounding the Ukrainian war.

Seeing cracks in NATO is an absolute dream scenario for him and leaders like him. It's just the wrong route.

As I've said before - I would rather the US administration stepped back rather than force Ukraine into a deal that sees them cede any terrain - especially if that's not their want. I think this would help force the Europeans to take up the defence which it should have done anyway.

[JudgeDredd]

I am not a fan of Ben Shapiro (for reasons I will not go into here) so I'm debating whether I want to give this a click.

[al_infierno]

I am not a fan of Ben Shapiro (for reasons I will not go into here) so I'm debating whether I want to give this a click.

It's a good interview.  Shapiro asks serious questions and lets Zelensky talk.  I'm not a fan of Shapiro either, but he does know when to scale it back and not go into steamroller debate mode.