Our history over the last hundred years or so has been not just fickle, but openly untrustworthy. Ever since we sent troops into Russia during WWI we’ve abandoned not only our Allie’s, but our own troops to political expediency. It is shameful how many of our allies and own citizens we’ve left to fend for themselves. Honestly, all of our treaties should come with a warning label.
In the old days (late 70s thru 91, yes, I'm that old) we used to talk about the "threat". Threat was simplistically defined as Threat = Capability times intent. A strong force with no desire or perceived desire by the adversary that it would be used was low threat.
Russia was a perceived / declared huge threat, and obviously had the will to use their force. Apparently the capability of the Russian armed forces was poorly assessed, or the UKR forces exceeded all expectations on the upside.
We don't know, because the lack of actual accurate information is glaring.
America has proven to be an unreliable ally since 91 (arguably before that, yes, we can argue).
In the old bipolar world, threat estimation was easy, if not accurate.
Today, in a truly multipolar world, threat estimation is very hard, and also likely not accurate.
Why? When we have so much information, is it so hard? To steal (and mangle a quote), it's not what we don't know, it's what we think we know that just isn't so.
Information / influence operations have become the new critical component in the shaping of national public opinion. By definition public support for national participation in UKR, the middle east, Pacific theater are now largely driven by social media. AI use, misinformation, disinformation, propaganda are shaping things in ways we don't realize, or understand if we do realize they are being used.
I'd view this video as possibly honest and true, or a tiny piece of a larger influence campaign.
The problem here, for Russia, as near as I can tell, is that they didn't plan on a war at all. In other words, some asshole(s) at FSB or GRU (or both) told Putin what he probably wanted to hear, namely, that the Ukrainians wouldn't fight. Nothing else accounts for the lack of logistic preparedness, the small numbers, or the exceptionally restrained ROE in the first few weeks of the war.
Mechanized Warfare 101: you will not succeed in your objective unless you control the airspace. History is replete with such examples. Perhaps you get lucky and your adversary has few or effective air assets. As it currently stands, Ukraine cannot establish air superiority and, thus, it is madness to take the offensive and they should have been persuaded otherwise. We are all surely aware that combined arms is a deadly, violent dance that requires training, leadership, comms, intel and logistics. In what measure do the Ukrainians possess any of this? I truly admire their fighting spirit but they were not ready to take the offensive against an entrenched enemy who will not quit the battlefield.
The Ukrainians this, the Ukrainians that. That bothers me. Maybe it is just a language difference. Ukrainian troops this, Ukrainian troops that would have been easier for my western language filter to handle.
Beyond my filter, the video was very informative, well presented, and hopefully accurate. Any film by either side, in a time of war, should be considered as potential propaganda.
Putin has his casus belli and we have a flock of cowards hiding behind "fear of escalation." I wouldn't care less if they had to face the music of not stopping the bully where they could fairly easily, except that that would mean that Ukraine was wiped odf the map.
Thanks for sharing this. Something you would expect from them. On the other hand, Zelensky can continue to be delusional but will cannot over come raw power from a much larger nation with huge resources while the West is running critically low on resources that will take years to resupply.
This entire sorry war is reminiscent of an ant climbing an elephant's hind leg with rape on his mind. The Pentagon and the DoD have other concerns, like figuring how to rig standards so women can qualify for SPECOPs, but our NATO pals ought to be able to recall Russian military ability.
The next year will be interesting. We committed to support with the Budapest Agreement and are dealing with a recalcitrant EU, a corrupt Ukrainian government that has been throughly penetrated by Russian intelligence, an impotent UN, and a NATO Chief who says Ukraine can join NATO after the war.
There is no incentive for Putin to sue for an end to the war unless something drastically changes Ukraines warfighting abilities or it becomes politically inexpedient at home for him.
"America can be a fickle friend." Just ask the South Vietnamese, the Afghans, the Kurds, the Kosovo Albanians, the Kurds again, the Syrian people, the Kurds again, again, and the Afghans again...
It seems to me that both sides are stuck...meaning that diplomacy should be used. Neither side will get 100% of what it wants. Let's review the bidding....
Russian war goals:
1. Acquire the Crimea and Donbas, including formal cession of that territory.
2. Gain control of Ukrainian foreign policy. Domestic policy if possible, but the keys are to keep them out of NATO, out of the EU, and in particular no American forces.
3. Get access to the Nikolyev shipyards, the only former Soviet yards capable of replacing the worn-out capital ships of the Russian Navy.
Ukrainian war goals:
1. Maintain independence, especially in foreign policy.
2. Kick the Russians out.
3. Wring a hefty war reparation, with Putin's head on top.
Most likely compromise axis: Either territorial concessions or independence of foreign policy. Were I Putin, I'd trade land for Ukrainian neutrality.
Sneaky move: Cut a deal to ship Second World War captured arms to Ukraine...for resale on the American collector market.
A great assessment of the current situation in Ukraine and further emphasizes that the war will be won or lost in the capital cities of Europe and Washington.
We, the West, need to decide if want to fight the Russians now, via Ukraine or send our children in 10 years time to defend Poland and the Baltic states.
Our history over the last hundred years or so has been not just fickle, but openly untrustworthy. Ever since we sent troops into Russia during WWI we’ve abandoned not only our Allie’s, but our own troops to political expediency. It is shameful how many of our allies and own citizens we’ve left to fend for themselves. Honestly, all of our treaties should come with a warning label.
In the old days (late 70s thru 91, yes, I'm that old) we used to talk about the "threat". Threat was simplistically defined as Threat = Capability times intent. A strong force with no desire or perceived desire by the adversary that it would be used was low threat.
Russia was a perceived / declared huge threat, and obviously had the will to use their force. Apparently the capability of the Russian armed forces was poorly assessed, or the UKR forces exceeded all expectations on the upside.
We don't know, because the lack of actual accurate information is glaring.
America has proven to be an unreliable ally since 91 (arguably before that, yes, we can argue).
In the old bipolar world, threat estimation was easy, if not accurate.
Today, in a truly multipolar world, threat estimation is very hard, and also likely not accurate.
Why? When we have so much information, is it so hard? To steal (and mangle a quote), it's not what we don't know, it's what we think we know that just isn't so.
Information / influence operations have become the new critical component in the shaping of national public opinion. By definition public support for national participation in UKR, the middle east, Pacific theater are now largely driven by social media. AI use, misinformation, disinformation, propaganda are shaping things in ways we don't realize, or understand if we do realize they are being used.
I'd view this video as possibly honest and true, or a tiny piece of a larger influence campaign.
Couldn't tell you which one it is.
The problem here, for Russia, as near as I can tell, is that they didn't plan on a war at all. In other words, some asshole(s) at FSB or GRU (or both) told Putin what he probably wanted to hear, namely, that the Ukrainians wouldn't fight. Nothing else accounts for the lack of logistic preparedness, the small numbers, or the exceptionally restrained ROE in the first few weeks of the war.
Well done, Cdr. A comprehensive, succinct analysis. Absolutely worth the 27:22 minutes.
Mechanized Warfare 101: you will not succeed in your objective unless you control the airspace. History is replete with such examples. Perhaps you get lucky and your adversary has few or effective air assets. As it currently stands, Ukraine cannot establish air superiority and, thus, it is madness to take the offensive and they should have been persuaded otherwise. We are all surely aware that combined arms is a deadly, violent dance that requires training, leadership, comms, intel and logistics. In what measure do the Ukrainians possess any of this? I truly admire their fighting spirit but they were not ready to take the offensive against an entrenched enemy who will not quit the battlefield.
I always look forward to his posts on that channel. It is nice not having a political type telling me what to think.
The Ukrainians this, the Ukrainians that. That bothers me. Maybe it is just a language difference. Ukrainian troops this, Ukrainian troops that would have been easier for my western language filter to handle.
Beyond my filter, the video was very informative, well presented, and hopefully accurate. Any film by either side, in a time of war, should be considered as potential propaganda.
Putin has his casus belli and we have a flock of cowards hiding behind "fear of escalation." I wouldn't care less if they had to face the music of not stopping the bully where they could fairly easily, except that that would mean that Ukraine was wiped odf the map.
Thanks for sharing this. Something you would expect from them. On the other hand, Zelensky can continue to be delusional but will cannot over come raw power from a much larger nation with huge resources while the West is running critically low on resources that will take years to resupply.
Hmmm. That went well, didn't it?
This entire sorry war is reminiscent of an ant climbing an elephant's hind leg with rape on his mind. The Pentagon and the DoD have other concerns, like figuring how to rig standards so women can qualify for SPECOPs, but our NATO pals ought to be able to recall Russian military ability.
The next year will be interesting. We committed to support with the Budapest Agreement and are dealing with a recalcitrant EU, a corrupt Ukrainian government that has been throughly penetrated by Russian intelligence, an impotent UN, and a NATO Chief who says Ukraine can join NATO after the war.
There is no incentive for Putin to sue for an end to the war unless something drastically changes Ukraines warfighting abilities or it becomes politically inexpedient at home for him.
"America can be a fickle friend." Just ask the South Vietnamese, the Afghans, the Kurds, the Kosovo Albanians, the Kurds again, the Syrian people, the Kurds again, again, and the Afghans again...
It seems to me that both sides are stuck...meaning that diplomacy should be used. Neither side will get 100% of what it wants. Let's review the bidding....
Russian war goals:
1. Acquire the Crimea and Donbas, including formal cession of that territory.
2. Gain control of Ukrainian foreign policy. Domestic policy if possible, but the keys are to keep them out of NATO, out of the EU, and in particular no American forces.
3. Get access to the Nikolyev shipyards, the only former Soviet yards capable of replacing the worn-out capital ships of the Russian Navy.
Ukrainian war goals:
1. Maintain independence, especially in foreign policy.
2. Kick the Russians out.
3. Wring a hefty war reparation, with Putin's head on top.
Most likely compromise axis: Either territorial concessions or independence of foreign policy. Were I Putin, I'd trade land for Ukrainian neutrality.
Sneaky move: Cut a deal to ship Second World War captured arms to Ukraine...for resale on the American collector market.
A great assessment of the current situation in Ukraine and further emphasizes that the war will be won or lost in the capital cities of Europe and Washington.
We, the West, need to decide if want to fight the Russians now, via Ukraine or send our children in 10 years time to defend Poland and the Baltic states.
You choose!!
As everyone who studied war since the Korean police action 1951-1953 and beyond.
Who saw and participated in Vietnam, watched the Beirut massacre's and retreat, The Hostage's of Iran, and carters desert disaster.
The twenty year war that ended with a retreat much like Saigon 75.
We saw what was going to happen in Ukraine and only the generals, government and fanbois didn't see this coming.
It is over, stalemate until attrition wears down Ukraine he war is finished.
No doubt like the Palestinian vs Israel the shooting, rocket/missile terror attacks, drone bombings will go on intermittently forever.
Waste of lives and money.
The Lady in Black has arrived.
Linebacker I and II hit targets off limits up to then.
It was the devastating strike that should have happened in 1965 when the Marines landed.