Posted on 10/12/2022 8:40:29 AM PDT by Kazan
Not to beat a dead horse, but most of the world has a delusional image in their head of the war in Ukraine. As I have written previously, much of the fault lies with Hollywood, which through a plethora of movies has conditioned the masses to think of war as the conquest of critical territory. But that is a misleading image when it comes to Ukraine. Yes, there are strategically important pieces of territory that must be captured or defended, but there also are vast swaths of plains (we call them prairies here in the United States) that are tactically difficult to control and, if you succeed in capturing an area of land, you create a problem of how to defend it.
Please take a look at the following video with this in mind. Although the video shows how Russia’s Wagner Group is building defensive lines, please focus on the general landscape rather than the work of the engineers: (video at link)
Russia has a decisive advantage over Ukraine when it comes to battling for this territory, even though it ceded some of it a few weeks ago to advancing Ukrainian troops. Why? Because Russia’s air force is still intact and can be used to attack massed Ukrainian units. Ukraine’s air capability has been eviscerated. Russia also enjoys a lopsided advantage in tanks. In case you have any doubts, the video above shows quintessential tank country.
At the beginning of its full-scale invasion in Feb., Russia had around 3,330 operational tanks (2,840 with the ground forces, 330 with its naval infantry, and 160 with its airborne forces), according to the Military Balance 2021 database. . . .
However, Russia still has some 2,000 battle-ready tanks at hand, as well as an enormous amount in storage.
The Military Balance 2021 database says Russian storage facilities have around 10,200 tanks, including various T-72s, 3,000 T-80s, and 200 T-90s.
https://ukrainetoday.org/2022/09/01/how-many-tanks-does-russia-really-have/
Tank battles on rolling plains is great grist for a Hollywood blockbuster, but the real peril for Ukraine has been on display over the last two days–Russia’s hypersonic missiles, cruise missiles and air launched rockets mangling power nodes and military headquarters throughout Ukraine. The Russian strikes in the last two days significantly degraded Ukraine’s ability to supply electricity and critical heat to its major cities. The attacks also are disrupting Ukraine’s cell phone network and its ability to move troops and equipment from the west to the frontlines in the east.
Ukraine does not have a comparable capability to counter the Russian attacks. Moreover, the Russian missile barrage has highlighter the weakness, if not absence, of Ukraine’s anti-missile defense system. It is neither a mistake nor a coincidence that Russia’s strikes in major Ukrainian cities–more than 100 missiles– caused very few human casualties, especially on the civilian side of the ledger. Despite Ukrainian claims that Russia’s strikes killed civilians, the evidence suggests otherwise–Ukraine’s own anti-missile system failed to intercept the Russian targets and then fell to earth and hit apartments and schools.
What is the United States and NATO going to do? Immediately deploy the Iron Dome anti-missile system? Unfortunately, these Western anti-missile systems are not designed to defeat the missiles Russia is launching. Then there is the logistics problem–i.e., getting those systems deployed and training personnel to operate them. This will take weeks, if not months. And Ukraine does not have the luxury of time in this regard. Making matters worse, the United States and NATO do not have the reserves to quickly resupply Ukraine:
The United States will soon be unable to supply Ukraine, as it has up to now, with the sophisticated equipment essential for its defense against Russia as its reserves are reaching their limits, especially in terms of ammunition. . . .
But US stockpiles of certain equipment are “reaching the minimum levels necessary for war and training plans” and getting weapons stockpiles back to pre-invasion levels could take years, Mark Cancian wrote in a recent analysis. of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Washington is “learning lessons” from the conflict about ammunition needs in a very powerful war, and that it is “much larger” than expected, said a US military official who requested anonymity.
https://www.archyde.com/us-army-exhausts-its-ability-to-supply-ammunition-to-ukraine/
Then there is the nightmare scenario for Ukraine and NATO of Russia invoking the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and Russia asking Belarus to join the fray. Russian and Belarusian troops already are gathering on Ukraine’s northern border. Whether this is a bluff by Russia or genuine preparation for opening a new front in the north, the massing of forces requires Ukraine to deploy already depleted forces to the northern border. This will weaken Ukraine’s ability to hold off a Russian offensive in Kherson and Zaporhyzhia.
I believe that the events during the next five weeks will create a crisis within NATO and the United States. If Russia seizes the initiative and moves in force against Ukrainian units, NATO will not be in a position to rescue Ukraine from defeat on the battlefield. Any further intervention by NATO will make it, in the eyes of the Russians, a legitimate military target.
Compounding the military challenges confronting the United States and NATO, there are the economic and political headwinds. Joe Biden is likely to lose control of the House of Representatives and the Senate. If this happens, he will no longer have a congressional ally eager to keep shoveling money and weapons into Ukraine. The economic conditions throughout Europe of inflation and shuttering businesses will fuel more domestic unrest and diminish enthusiasm for keeping Ukraine afloat.
When you take all of these factors into consideration, the conclusion is clear–Russia enjoys a strategic and tactical initiative that will be difficult to surmount. Conversely, NATO is in trouble.
Them T-55s are awesome sauce too.
But hey, why you using T-55s in the first place, your fighting the Russians yo?!
I am sure its not because your other “good” Rolls-Royce tanks have been destroyed........
And please bring up Russian tanks allegedly ‘destroyed’, cause some of us know that only 15-20% of Russian forces have engaged in this war/conflict, it has largely been handled by LPR/Donbass militia utilizing the Ukrainian tanks and equipment they had in their possession prior to the war/conflict began.
This war is shining a light on the issues of nationalism, and national self-interest, which is exactly where the globalists do not want a spotlight to shine. After all, they were the ones pushing NordStream and European reliance on Russian gas so heavily. Now...that's a dead issue.
I don't think there are any winners in this war, but as of now, both sides view a loss as unacceptable to the continuation of the war. Just speaking historically, I would expect that it will be the Russians who eventually back down because they still keep their own country even with a loss. The Ukrainians do not, so they'll fight until the end.
That’s fine for hitting a power plant, but almost no impact on the battlefield..................
When I turn your power off, you will shortly be definately impacted on the battle field.
I know nothing of cauldron.
There is no other conceivable end to the war than military coup on the Ukraine side. The Russians have a security council that functions as a cabinet and the intelligence directorate is separate from military. Ukraine did not do this, for whatever reason. Their intelligence people are within the military department.
They won’t be independently watched.
The mechanism is less compelling than the macro reality. Neither side will believe the other no matter what document is signed. A promise not to join NATO will never be believed. A promise never to invade again will never be believed.
The only end to the war is coup. Nothing else can happen. Have a read of Medvedev’s recent speeches. He would be the obvious replacement in an anti Putin coup. He talks in terms of eradication of Ukraine’s government. Putin has never said that. So a Putin replacement would be far worse.
No other conceivable end.
And which foreign country are you in? Busted. 😂😂
By the way, there is nothing in my post that triggered you that shows any support for Russia. Just disdain for the jackals.
Do they teach you these lame attempts at gaslighting in troll school?
Oh, and unlike you, I *have* been in a war zone. It’s one of the reasons I’m pushing for a negotiated peace settlement.
Dig it, Comrade?
OR
They got the hell out of Afghanistan ASAP, because the MIC had milked that war dry, and they knew they were preparing a much larger opportunity in Ukraine.
“The Ukrainians can have all the will to fight, they want, if they don’t have any guns or ammo to shoot back, they ain’t winning.”
But they do have guns and ammo, because we are supplying them. So what exactly is your point???
Saying that “Russia could win if the US and NATO would stay out of it” is saying nothing at all. We are not staying out of it, so Russia must deal with the situation as it is, not as they wish it might be.
Complete disaster.
The author may be trying to paint a picture for an American audience that is more familiar with the term "plains" than it is "steppes".
you condescending clown.
Pure projection on your part...pinhead.
Who said that the territory which Ukraine is reclaiming is Ukraine’s ultimate goal?
Answer: Nobody.
Enough said.
Very nice analysis outside of the tAnk treads and sparkling objects that typically entertain the gamers on f.r.
And when we stop supplying them, then what? What happens to the Ukrainians?
And please, try to make a coherent argument as to why the US taxpayer should be supplying them with guns? Why the US taxpayer should be supplying a non-NATO country with anything? Why the US taxpayer is propping up their military and government in the form of cash and equipment?
It is very difficult for the west to resupply Ukraine since Russia probably monitors such things ship by ship, train by train, or plane by plane. Those border nations from Poland to Bulgaria aren’t keen on border problems of their own, I would imagine.
Then there is the issue of cash. Giving away war materiel to a non-paying customer is charitable, but it does get old eventually. I imagine that spigot will be turned off shortly, if control of congress changes hands. All the candidates I listen to are bad-mouthing the ukraine billions. They can’t just pretend they didn’t run on that if they do win. In other words, Ukraine’s poverty will soon come into play.
Finally, there is the issue of one man and one gun, like in Afghanistan. That can wreak terrible havoc, of course, as the Afghanis have proven time and again throughout history. If Ukrainians respond in such a manner, I’ll admit they might eventually hold their own. I’ll look for evidence of such a thing in the coming months. I don’t really know one way or another, and I don’t really know how to guess. The biggest question in my mind is whether the old ukrainian government was anti-gun and took them away from the people. If so, we know how “one man one gun” will turn out.
“And when we stop supplying them, then what?”
I don’t expect us to stop supplying them anytime soon. But say we do, just for fun.
Perhaps then Russia can manage to win against Ukraine, finally. And then what? Now Russia must permanently occupy their territory, and they will continually suffer losses to insurgents, just as we did in Iraq. Until Russians are tired of sending their sons to Ukraine and their sons coming back missing limbs.
And the best part is we will not need to supply any insurgency. Most of Ukraine is farmland. Farmland requires fertilizer, and fertilizer means explosives to blow up Russian occupiers. Unless Russia wants to keep those fields fallow and feed the Ukrainians from their own stockpiles, Russia will have to supply the Ukrainian insurgency themselves :)
I am pretty much where you landed too.
There is another realistic option that few talk about that would end this conflict and that is if the Russian military or one of his oligarch friends upended Putin.
All the arguing and sniping aside and its sure to come, consider that the oligarch inner circle is not pleased with how this war is going and IF they believe there is a real possibility of a 1) loss or 2) an uprising of the people they are toast too. The next leader will almost certainly clear out the Putinista’s and tell the people he is returning the “wealth” to them. One way to mitigate this would be for the oligarch(s) to take out Putin - it could be the only way they get to keep a portion of their wealth that remains in Russia.
The same thing is true for the military leadership inside Russia. They are being blamed by Putin and sacked (or worse given Russian history) already and there is certainly more to come. We are already seeing rumors that they blame Putin for their failure (this always happens) and Putin just moved new forces to protect himself. History shows this is the most common means of removal of a “dictator” and this allows the generals to save some face (blame Putin) AND keep their ill-gotten wealth that they siphoned off from the defense budget - a reason their lives are in danger.
The new “leaders” could basically blame Putin and call for a reset to consolidate their own power and possibly win some favor from the west turning on the oil spigot again to Europe thereby enriching themselves with more crumbs for the people.
Maybe this is fanciful thinking, but history shows either scenario is possible and this might be especially true in Russia where the military and FSB have always had a lot of power. The inner circle of Putin are mired in corruption and they have to be looking over their shoulder, worrying about how this ends, questioning Putin’s sanity and health, and wondering what their place might look like in the next regime or if they will become a populist target.
What happens to them when “President for Life” shifts off this mortal coil? Does their ally or enemy take over? Almost all of them are exposed because the new leader will clean out the old (and grab the money) and their enemies to solidify their own power base. They might be wealthy, but that wealth does not buy guarantees (especially in Russia) and you can only carry so much in a briefcase.
There is a big chance they quickly become a zero so maybe one or some of them go for hero.
At this point, looking at my own interest and those of my nation, we would be better off without Putin. Without him, this war ends. I have no trust or misconceptions about Zelensky either, but at least he does not have hundreds or thousands of nuclear weapons aimed towards us.
This would be best for the Ukrainian and Russian people as well as both are suffering with little voice or say in what is happening.
You live in fantasy land.
I see you haven’t made a coherent argument as to why the US taxpayer should be footing these bills and, I forgot to ask before, why our military stockpiles should be degraded, as well.
They might lose, depending upon how much support they'd still be getting from Poland. But it is extremely unlikely that we are going to stop supplying the Ukrainians for the foreseeable future, so that doesn't much matter.
They degrade our military stockpiles for the same reason they draw down the strategic petroleum reserves....
politics
It is good politics or at least they believe it to be good politics to do both.
Our elites in charge of our foreign policy and the globalist crowd despite Russia and Putin. Putin has made it easy to despise him as well. This equals a proxy war and for an administration who casually spends a trillion and labels it the “inflation reduction act” what is a few billion in cash or weapons? We will contract to replace the old stuff with newer and more expensive stuff and the campaign cash and PAC money will flow from the MIC as it always does.
Covid has been milked and they just want that whole thing to go away - the money was made and politics served. Now they have a new distraction on which to focus......
Ooops DESPISE not despite above
Makes sense. Would explain leaving all that stuff behind. No money in moving existing things back. Big money in all new stuff.
However, I still think they want to make people think the Russian military is inept, to provide cover for some serious issues in our military readiness.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.