Larry Johnson's take on the combat in Ukraine would be more credible if he showed some basic knowledge of combat strategies. He wrote:
"When a 24 mile (or 40 mile, depends on the news source) was positioned north of Kiev for more than a week, it was clear that Ukraine’s ability to launch significant military operations had been eliminated. If their artillery was intact, then that column was easy pickings for massive destruction. That did not happen. Alternatively, if the Ukrainian’s had a viable fixed wing or rotary wing capability they should have destroyed that column from the air. That did not happen. Or, if they had a viable cruise missile capability they should have rained down hell on the supposedly stalled Russian column. That did not happen. The Ukrainians did not even mount a significant infantry ambush of the column with their newly supplied U.S. Javelins.
Just about every idea he uses to reach his conclusion is incorrect. For example, Ukraine could have all the artillery capability in the world, but if they don't have control of an area within range of the convoy then they cannot use that artillery. Whether or not a combatant uses artillery is about where they can place their artillery, not whether they have any.
Attacking a line of trucks with cruise missiles would be insane in terms of combat management and tactics. Who would deploy expensive, long range missiles against trucks? That isn't something any competent strategist would do.
Johnson claims that the Ukrainians did not ambush or launch ground attacks on the convoy. But there are dozens of videos of ground attacks on convoys by Ukrainian forces. If the Ukrainians have not attacked one particular convoy it is likely that the convoy is not doing anything but sitting still and consuming fuel, food, and equipment.
Johnson's analysis is shallow, and likely to be incorrect.
I had the same thoughts. He doesn't know what he is talking about, or he is just trying to convince us with word salad.
Yes his analysis is over the top and I wonder why people like he and MacGregor are so very invested in the idea of Russian inevitable victory. And that Russia is the victim of aggression by NATO.
However, although I support Ukraine, there certainly is the chance that Russia will win. Russia is the much larger country and military, and can always achieve a break through, or a series of break throughs over a long period of time. Meanwhile, the Ukrainians are fighting well and receiving significant aid. But no other country has yet decided to come to their direct aid.
Putin obviously is facing a terrible loss and that makes him even more determined to push through to a victory.
If we had a strong American president,Russia might be bled out as we up our assistance to Ukraine.
So this could go either way.
But let’s recall at the beginning everyone thought Russia would prevail in a week or two. And at this point, Russia’s future is unclear even if it achieves “victory” Ukraine is destroyed and angry, the West is horrified, and Russia may reap the whirlwind. Maybe.
Where's the video? This isn't like out in the desert when smart phones weren't invented yet. This is in a country with a modern infrastructure, including capacity for millions of phones using data for calls, texts, watching videos, uploading videos, and streaming. Yet, there's nothing.