To all those who may be dooming or wildly rejoicing. This war is not between Russia and Ukraine. This is not even war, this is a special military operation and for good reason. Let me elaborate. First things first this struggle is between American empire and Russia, not Russia and the west, and certainly not Russia and Ukraine. The empire chose to precipitate matters maybe as an example for China or to have Russia defeated before attacking China. Regardless why, what was intended was for Russia to come in all guns blazing takeover all of Ukraine in short order and THEN get mired in a long bloody insurgency loosing men materiel and treasure. The freezing of assets and overwhelming sanctions would then further deteriorate the internal conditions such as that political instability would set in finally resulting in regime change. Russia could then be raped dismembered devoured by the empire at leisure. This is why the special military operation is a special military operation and not a war. The objective here is not simply to defeat the Ukrainian army, it is rather designed to bring maximum damage to the empire while keeping the costs for Russia manageable. The Russian campaign is running on simmer being careful not to let the situation boil over at any point. The pace of operations is glacial on purpose. The longer the conflict is drawn out the more harm the empire and it's allies will endure. Their policies will result in self inflicted pain, their hubris will not let them walk back to more sensible positions. The empire is trapped in a pit it has dug, its allies are mere hostages. Is there a point of pain that can be reached where the citizens of Europe may demand of their leaders to revolt against the empire? Who knows if such a point exists, if it is reached this winter or the next? However there is another sphere where the battle is taking place and that is in the nation's that are not in the hallowed west. Here in the nations some poor and some not so much an evaluation of prospects is being done. Siding with the west is safe from reprisals but in the emerging economic scenario might be tantamount to suicide. Even the dimmest leaders know their fate if they fail to keep their citizens fed and supplied with essentials. Considerable shifts have already materialised and more are sure to follow as things get tighter. The empire potentially losing European allies or losing influence across the globe are far more valuable objectives than a quick roll up of the Ukrainian army.
On the tactical side the Ukrainian leadership continues to throw it's troops onto prepared Russian defences and continues to suffer unfavorable casualty ratio of at least 1 to 5 if not more. Can Ukraine continue this frivolous behaviour for another six months a year two years? Can they continue to be supplied for as long? Can the West ,will the west continue to foot the bill to keep Ukraine running and fighting? How many more Ukrainian refugees will Europe accomodate? 10 mln?20 mln?
Russian aim of denazification will be accomplished either by destruction on the contact line of those willing to fight or by emigration of those unwilling to fight.
Demilitarization will be complete once the western support dries up. Almost all Ukrainian military industrial enterprises have already been destroyed and whatever remains on the field will eventually be destroyed.
In the meantime we may see many Russian retreats and setbacks to give the enemy glimpses of victory, to keep him fighting and dying. In any case Kiev has no other option, for the fear of losing support, neither do their sponsors who are ideological bent on destroying Russia.
A multi pronged combined arms high intensity manoeuvering operation would be interesting to watch for purely academic purposes, however if the preceding hypothesis is even somewhat correct then we are going to have to wait a considerable time before this special military operation terminates.
P.S. Also of equal interest are the actions of the empire.
How far will they go? How do they extract themselves if
Alternative theory at the operational tactical level.
Now that no one can cross the Dnieper in the Kherson sector Kiev will be eager to move the considerable forces amassed here to opposite Donestk and Luhansk.
This will afford Russia an opportunity to shut the gate behind the bulk of the Ukrainian forces by dropping the remaining bridges across the Dnieper cutting off logistical supply coming from the west. The bridges need not be completely destroyed just damaged sufficiently to make supply difficult. General Armageddon does favor Calibers Iskanders and Russia has stopped shying away from destroying infrastructure. Do note that Russia has been busy moving around a lot of combat equipment all around the periphery of Ukraine. This combat power can be brought to bear from multiple axes north south and east. The Ukrainian forces east of the Dnieper will find themselves unsupported and potentially under attack from all sides. If a surrender complete or negotiated is not forthcoming then destruction of the major part of Kiev's forces would follow.
'dropping the remaining bridges across the Dnieper' simply isn't militarily possible by Russia. Ukraine has air defenses in place at these cities. 60% of incoming missles get shot down. The few that get through punch holes in bridge decks typically, not hitting support structures. Russia would need to eliminate all road and rail bridges over a 1,000 km length AND keep them eliminated as Ukraine scrambled to repair them.
Believe me, if Russia could do this it would have been done as soon as the Kiev push was called off. Russia is not even close to being able to do this.
i do know a bit about air and missile defense.....
you're not as bad as sec def austin who claim us gifts, which are not optimal to missile defense, are hitting 100%. exercises i took part in we never claimed more than 95% using 'good stuff'.
the kill chain is a lot more than the unimproved [since before 2014] s-300, which who knows how they are calibrated...
the newer sam is s-400 which is deployed w/in russia and has been purchased by turkey.
the miracle you proclaim includes getting usa target and track data into an obsolete russian sam.....
I actually write a second substack about American affairs but that qualifies me as much as anyone else on the internet. Your attempt at an insult failed.
What else can they do? Hold a 40k-60k force in reserve while they struggle to move forward in Donetsk and Luhansk ? Give up the momentum that they have supposedly built? No I believe they will keep pushing before the mobilised materialize.
Surovkin's hint of using freed up forces in other offensives is a nudge for Kiev to redeploy their built up forces either to buttress defences or go on offensives.
Would not be surprised if Kiev elects to attempt cutting the land bridge and Russia invites them to try. It would be touch and go for both sides, high risk winner takes all. Russia building defensive lines north of Crimea indicates they are willing to let Ukraine punch in deep hoping to destroy much of the attacking force which will not have the luxury of fortifications. Kiev will believe that by threatening Crimea they will have leverage over the Kremlin.
Of course there is another option where Russia opens a third and fourth front in the north and east, to keep Kiev from concentrating it's forces, and then proceeds with a defeat in detail plan sector by sector front by front.
Regardless of how Kiev chooses to employ them these troops almost certainly will cross the Dnieper again. Then Russia has a choice in approaches between continuing attrition or attempting annihilation.
Kyiv not Kiev. This is russian propagandist who uses old russian naming of Ukraine capital.
I would not trust this commenter, no name, russian spelling, clear russian footprint pushing russian narrative, and will have nothing to do with vision or thinking.
Ed I think they will stay away from the Polish border so as not to provide a pretext (however ridiculous) for intervention. The Poles seem to be itching for a fight but for now they will have to be satisfied with sheep dipping polish troops as volunteers in the foreign legion.
If rivet joints and satellites appear on the menu then be sure the main course is not far away.
No, direct conflict between the main actors is highly unlikely as far as logic goes and neither party desires it.
Russia is being extra careful not to provide any reason for intervention and America is pushing as close to the red line without crossing it. (ATACMS ABRAMS)
It is like a great game with certain boundaries. Step out of those boundaries and step into the abyss.
Empire 's challenge:
Can Russia stop NATO in Ukraine without directly engaging NATO?
Can Russia maintain its economy?
Can Russia maintain internal stability?
Can Russia maintain its foreign partnerships?
Russia poses in return:
How much are you willing to sink into this; if at the end of all this all you achieve is some dead Russian soldiers and nothing else?
No Russian collapse, no NATO in Ukraine, no Ukrainian natural resources, maybe no Ukrainian ports.
These are roughly the stakes upon which the game is played.
While Surovikin tightens his lines and Zaluzhny prepares another charge (?of the light brigade?), the humble infantry man in knee deep mud squares his shoulders to face shot and shell and once again settle the final argument. For if he stands the day is carried and if he falls all is lost.
Note: Trade has not stopped, sanctions are mere eyewash.
I thought all Russian Trolls had been drafted. Anyway, with what? Russia does not have the resources for a straight-up fight with Ukraine, much less NATO. All those troops were lost during the charge to Kiev, So how are military operations further even closer to the untouchable NATO supply line in Poland going to be supplied?
As the article illustrates in part to us, Ukronazis are adherent to political will, not military will. They must do so because their masters in America told them so. The bloodlust embedded within them thanks to 8 years of fascist education will certainly help. Has the terrible losses and lack of military victory stopped them at any point so far?
I think the Dems are demolishing the U.S. on purpose as part of the New World Order agreements plotted by The World Economic Forum. Does that theory sound too far out there?
No. And its not only the US government (Dems and 1/2 of the Reps) the Globalists have captured. The Globalists also control most of the "West" and also all of the International institutions (UN, WHO, World Bank) with the exception of Hungary, Italy, and maybe a couple more).
These are just layers of cope as Russia simply becomes another isolated satellite of China, not unlike DPRK.
Kherson was Putin's only win, and now it is gone. I think some delusional Putinites will need to see Melitopol collapse in a few months before they understand that there is no Russian military, no Russian state, both these things simply don't exist. There is Wagner, there is Gazprom, there is a dependency on China.
It depends on what you mean by "demolish." The Dems have business model where they give money from taxes or borrowing to their base and they will get their votes. The US will pursue military and cultural supremacy until it is bankrupted.
What the "empire" sees is a heaven-sent opportunity to weaken Russian Military and economic power for the next few decades. All without sacrificing a single soldier. And all for the cost of a few months of the US military budget. Who could resist?
It takes 3 billion a month just to meet Ukrainian payroll. Russia has captured Ukrainian territory that delivered 95% of Ukrainian GDP. The energy cost in the EU is 6x, and UK 3x, and even the US at least 20% higher. The West is not prepared economically for this, since they are all mortgaged to the hilt. Worse, the USD is hogging all the debt liquidity, so soon Western countries will have to start buying their own debt, printing money and leading to high inflation. The US owes 31 trillion, 1.25 GDP, but worse is local and state debt which swells that number. The US is running a structural fiscal deficit, with no end in sight, est to be 113 trillion more in three decades. Worse, the US will want record military spending! There is only one result of this: Russia "wins," and the West "loses," and the US unable to find the resources to preserve its empire. Oh, and next there is China...
Did you not know this? Mr Leadley, you are making a fool of himself. The territory Russia seized provided (over) 95% of Ukraine's pre-war GDP. Frankly, I don't think this is a matter of IQ, it is a matter of being well informed and fact checking before saying something stupid. I appreciate the attention though.
Yes Comrade Tovarisch. During WWII the Nazis captured territory that delivered 200% of USSR's GDP. That led Stalin to immediately surrender. That's Mensa-level analysis.
You miss the point: Ukraine is an economic basket case. They are depopulated, their infrastructure is destroyed, and the only thing that is keeping them afloat is Western aide. I'm not telling Ukraine to give up - I am urging Western nations not to support them. What I am pointing to is the gigantic financial cost to Western nations, just to enable the Ukrainian govt to sacrifice another hundred or two hundred thousand soldiers for nothing. By the way, I don't give a sh!t about Mensa, but pass that test and you have bragging rights buddy.
Open wikipedia first before posting 95%. Stop pushing Russian propaganda. Considering you can't even read wikipedia your comment is a lie + complete propaganda and BS. I'm sad for people who reads this and believe you.
So put up a counter figure. To be fair: Ukraine ia an economic basket case, and without proxies with deep pockets, Ukraine would have collapsed. Also, you imagine long term hundreds of billions support?
If the West could not afford to support Ukraine, if it did not think that the price was worth it, the West would have ordered Ukraine to sue for peace.
As I indicated earlier, if you believe otherwise, then go buy a bunch of long-dated deep put of the money puts on T bills.
I heard Biden say Ukraine conflict was a vital US interest. I disagree. If it isn't one, then Biden is making a mistake. It has been elevated into a contest over a unipolar world order, which is bad for the US unless it is a vital US interest.
Actually the "war" is between Globalist actor captured Western governments (of which the US is one) and Russia. China is a snake-in-the-grass, playing both sides.
Why do I say that? Because all the Globalist actors systems of (global) control are based, and designed by, Chinese domestic actors. China is striving for world control, they are open about that.
Russia is all alone. May God grant the Russian people strength to see the conflict through.
Freedom loving people in the West are trying to dislodge the Globalists infesting our governments. May God grant us success.
The Chinese are too weak and are not a threat. We have them totally surrounded from Taiwan, Japan all the way to the Philippines. Their population is going down. The Chinese will be lucky they don’t get invaded by us like they have many times before. India is the new upcoming threat.
Delusional. Russia is weakening, America’s military is strengthening. Russian war machine is being bled and their military incompetence is being showcased for the world to see. Unfortunate the new commander had to inherit such a shoddy operation.
Tell me, how is the special military operation going? By my calculations it should have been over 9 months ago
I think terms like "delusional" are thrown around these days a little too often. Somebody is going to be eating their words from whichever side I am not sure. But I know with certainty that one side will suffer great indigestion.
I believe your hypothesis is correct but I also believe the US cannot wait indefinitely and if the Democrats get a comfortable majority in Congress that some type of war declaration will be announced on both Russia and China.
The entire West is acting as if this will be over sooner than later.
What the citizens of Russia need to understand is that they need to defend their sovereignty. As stated, their land will be raped and pillaged. I'm sure bordering countries will expand their borders.
Every Western party has been promised something.
Russia will be gone. A message to others around the world that there is a single master, a single global president.
Russia has nukes NATO won't take the chance of a strategic nuclear exchange. The fact is NATO doesn't see Ukraine as part of Russia and don't consider it existential to Russia, but the west are merely upholding what it views as liberal values in Ukraine.
what atlanticists see as 'liberal' values..... is malarkey
the atlanticists, whether nwo or tools of wef, are using a 500 year old slavic inter tribal fight for the dneipr region as tool to ruin russia and keep china from rising....
Russia will never be "gone." Don't discount BRICS, plus other Russian allies like Iran, Syria, and it's looking like maybe even Saudi Arabia. They're all in the process of coming together to form the Eurasian Economic Union, the goal of which is a multipolar world to rival the West's/WEF's ambitions for a unipolar, one-world order. Ukraine is just one chess move on the overall game board.
According to Scripture, Satan is the 'ruler of this world'; a point Christ did not dispute when tempted with 'ALL the kingdoms of the world' offered by Satan in the temptation in the desert. (Mathew 4:8) That is why Christ prayed his followers should be 'No part of the world' John 17:14.
Ukraine is not fighting Russia, it’s fighting Iran and China. Russia is merely an insignificant pawn of Asia in this geopolitical game. The second Iranian support dries up Russia will be defeated.
LOL you’re delusional. You’re describing the American Empires strategy of bleeding out the Russian war machine but you’re claiming it is the Russians attempting to weaken the Americans. It is the opposite and you are either a troll or extremely brainwashed. This is a golden opportunity for the US to weaken Russia without engaging in direct warfare. That is what we are witnessing - the weakening (yet again) of the incompetent Russian empire.
Here's an idea. Turn off the propagandist mainstream media and look to independent media to give you the REST of the story. Then come back and share with us what conclusions you have reached.
But Russia has this entire war on its border and doesn't need to drag everything 1000km from polish border. Ukraine is transporting this entire stuff through long route by intact bridges, rails, roads and tunnels. Russia is allowing this and nobody knows WHY.
Russia is bleeding out the "donators". the more the NATO-bastards deliver, the more will be destroyed. if Russia would have decided to shred all in Western-404, they would have had to manage the "help" quite different.
In Vietnam, the US would knock down bridges, etc. , only to see them up and running again within a day or so. Stated-simply, because they can be readily repaired or built around, unless within continued artillery range, tunnels, bridges, etc can only be put out of longer-term service by aircraft or missiles. All this requires air superiority, or a lot of missiles, which the Russians are short of.
Great analysis. Don't underestimate the West escalating because they know they are in an untenible strategic position. I hear a Russian missile hit Poland today...
It is possible that west may do something desperate but it is unlikely.
Milley's statement has pretty much confirmed that militarily there is no direct intervention to be expected.
Biggest giveaway is the status of trade. Setting aside the eyewash of sanctions trade overall has picked up. Crises has been good for energy prices/profit and metals are essential for corporate America.
A trap was set and Russia managed to not fall in.
All parties realise it. Russia still has to clean up on the battlefield but that is not where the real war will be pursued. The general on that front is Lavrov not Surovikin. The only success so far has been the Nord Stream fiasco but that may in time also turn out to be detrimental to overall calculus.
Deindustrializing Europe may put America on a better footing against China in the short term but the cost of loosing Germany France Australia Saudi UAE Brazil etc may not be profitable or prudent in the long term. If dollar actually had to compete with currencies backed by something real then that national debt would start looking very worrisome.
As for the Poland missile incident I am sure some guttural noises will be made but nothing is to come out of it since the image of the fragments clearly show it belonging to an S300 rocket fired by Kiev.
There should be no fallout of any significance unless the Polish are really enthusiastic about going in without NATO. NATO by all indications does not want to fight an actual war.
Things are developing and miscalculations may occur, desperate attempts may be made but as of right now I believe this is where things stand.
Next big event is likely to be global financial meltdown that will see some sink some swim but none unscathed.
What are you doing here, when Mother Russia needs your services? I thought all the Trolls had been drafted and sent to war so some oligarch can buy another toy. Yet here you are, for now. Anyway, Russia picked this fight, not NATO, which was pretty much moribund.
You simplify the situation to make insults. It is becoming rout to equate non-Ukrainian perspectives with Russian propaganda. My observation is that if you start believing your own propaganda then you are lost. Don't count on continued Western support...
That's an easy one. There is never enough resources in war. Besides, the conflict is two levels, not just one. The first concrete level is fighting on the ground, the second is a financial. For every dollar the West gives, it costs them more than 10x in debt, social unrest, and institutional failure. We have a phrase for this: Ukraine is a black hole for the US/NATO/the West. Russia is just getting started...and eventually there is China.
Empire prepared well, there were more Javelin, Stinger etc in country prior to the 24th than Russia probably has active tanks, helicopters.
The expectation of Russia had been that they would charge headlong into a force on force engagement over prepared defences, getting into urban battles taking enormous casualties as such actions involve.
Even if the Russians won these engagements as was likely it would be at a very high cost in men and materiel.
Next phase would have been a low cost insurgency that could be run indefinitely (through Poland Baltics) till Russia bled out. Evidenced by SBU successes and cells uncovered till date.
Unfortunately Russia decided not to play this game. After securing vital terrain Russia decided to sit back and lob 152 mm HE, from the peripheries of the map.
Having expended approximately 1.5-2 mln rounds already, they don't appear to be slowing down.
I suspect even the general staff has any idea how many 152 HE they have in stockpile.
Of course if they run out they can always turn to Kim as reported by reliable resources.
Meanwhile I hear the other Kims are to contribute an astronomical 100,000 rounds of 155 he to the Kiev charity drive. Not sure if Seoul or Washington split the bill.
Do note that 152 mm from Soviet stockpiles is already paid for whereas future 155mm will have to be paid for.
Also you would be glad to know that 155mm costs between 5-10 times more than 152 mm. Not much difference between them except who manufactures them and where. State enterprises vs Mil Corporations.
Makes one wonder if Russia will run out of artillery shells before Kiev runs out of support and/or conscripts.
See it's one thing firing Javelins out of windows blowing up cars and trucks shelling market squares, quite another engaging in an artillery slugfest with an army that is built around artillery. (HIMARS or no HIMARS)
Empire was prepared but for a different type of war
I am sure they can cope, just that it's going to cost a bit more.
Then again a few million here a couple of billions there and suddenly the costs start adding up and you start wondering ...,
p.s. to those interested in serious discourse I do apologise for any frivolity in tone.
I do however believe this to be an important aspect of the course of events that we are witnessing.
Russian artillery is unguided and requires a long intensive supply chain on a limited number of rail lines that are under continual observation. Just watch where the trains unload. Then a quick further glance tells you where the ammo dumps are. Dial in the GPS coordinates into a precision guided rocket or two that outranges the Russian artillery, no more Russian Ammo. Very likely, you can use the Ammo dump to locate the artillery too.
Comrade Tovarisch, why are you sitting here typing instead of being mobilized and fighting for Mother Russia? You will get excellent Mosin rifle to defeat Ukrainian HIMARS. Comrade Tsar Putin will get very angry if you don't move.
That exactly shows that all Russian propaganda bots comments are fake and does not represent people's opinions. Which means Russians does not have opinions they are blindly follow Tsar and kiss his a...
Second I don't troll, isn't that your propaganda? Nebenzya says, rashists believe, so just be afraid of pigeons, mosquitoes and dirt, as they might be from Ukraine.
Well, I am not sure if the issue is to be popular. I rather try to understand what is going on and MSM is really constructing a huge fog of propaganda.
Anyway, Serge, there is another answer to Odessa move - from Andrei from the Saker: “Another option might be to move not West but North and then turn West to basically take all the NATO defenses around the Black Sea coastline from behind.”
As for optics.....it is commented right from the beginning of this operation that Russia is bad at PR. The question is who is the recipient of this PR? The West? Then, one can say that Russia simply does not play by those rules.
The western media narrative runs orthogonal to reality, so there's no reason whatsoever for Russia to attempt to influence it to their own physical and economic detriment.
I think MacGregor is right. Russia wants to end the war; since US/nato are not agreement capable, there must be a crushing win. But they can't start until the ground freezes enough to support the vehicles, & it may not do that on the south coast regions.
I live in midcoast Maine, right at the 44th parallel, roughly same as Kherson. It is mud season now & there is no guarantee the ground will freeze in any given winter, never mind freeze enough to hold heavy vehicles. Eg, I usually can bring in a few thousand pounds of hay between Christmas & New Years, but some years I can't & have to move my car outside & use my high & dry garage for hay storage instead. The trend in recent years has been for later freezing, and not freezing. Or freeze - thaw - refreeze, but never deep enough for the hay truck. Probably similar over there.
Russia is building up heavily in the north in Belarus, as well as fortifying the south. The Kherson soldiers are getting a rest. The northern, inland areas will freeze for sure. They can close in from the north, the west & maybe also the south.
Large bodies of water have a significant local impact, as well as latitude. I expect the local weather on the coast in Kherson (mid-40s+ lat), not to mention Crimea, is significantly different than, say north of Kiev, inland, (mid 50s lat).
Regardless of how Maine is classified, reality is more like a lot of microclimates. Southern Maine has whole different temperature range than north of Bangor. And inland Maine is totally different than the coast.
Iirc, forecast showed Kiev with 4-5 days at 17-18F next week before back to 25-30 ish. That will give a good deep freeze. Don't know how far south those temps will extend, though.
I'm not taking any bets on Nov or December tho, lol. Frozen ground is just one pre-req.
They also need to finish taking out power, which I'm not sure they've done yet. And there are likely other triggers we don"t know.
I am not going to make myself popular, but Russia has two choices. Either devote enough troops and resources to win (and the sooner, the better, as winning will only get more difficult with time as the West continues to lavish weapons, training and money on Ukraine) and accept that there will be significant casualties along the way, or sue for peace on whatever terms Russia can get.
This "war by half-measures" is not working and has not been working for a long time now.
What a lot of people haven't realized - which is strange for anyone who has had to live in the real world for a bit - is that "wishing don't make it so."
Brian over at The New Atlas has done another great job of analyzing the latest weapons donation from the Pentagon.
He also makes some comments about what "attrition" means in practice - especially how it is working out in the demilitarization of Ukraine [and, by happenstance, the ongoing demilitarization of Europe and NATO - who would have thought that Russia would have gained such an unforeseen (at least by me) bonus?]
"Update on Russian military operations in and around Ukraine for November 11, 2022.
- Russia completes withdrawal from Kherson city to east bank of the Dnieper River;
- Ukraine has lost its last major opportunity to corner and destroy/capture large numbers of Russian forces/equipment;
- Russia continues stated process of de-militarizing Ukraine;
- US aid to Ukraine becomes increasingly unrealistic - Hawk missiles designed in the 1960s and unused for 2 decades are being "refurbished" for a lack of better options;
- "Avenger" systems to be sent in small numbers (4) which are essentially Stinger missiles attached to a Hummer - after training for Ukrainian operators is completed;
- Dwindling amounts of basic ammunition continue to be sent to Ukraine, prolonging the conflict, but not in quantities to even allow Ukraine to hold what it has;
- As Russian forces withdrew from Kherson city, they advanced elsewhere in southern and northern Donbass.
References:
US Department of Defense - $400 Million in Additional Assistance for Ukraine (November 10, 2022)"
I think the loser is the one that has to sue for peace.
We can wish Zelenskies will do that but he seems to be reading a different script.
There is strength in patience and slow motions as well as frustrations, I guess ultimately the logic is of the politics that the war is against the collective West, not merely nUkraine.
If it was Ukraine opposing Russia, this would have been over six months ago. Since it is another proxy war by Washington, DC, the stakes are much higher. We have been hearing for months that Russia will blow up the Kakhovka dam: Now that has become a possibility.
The USA and NATO are bankrupting both the USA and the EU with its wars of aggression. This may prove to be the straw that breaks them.
That this is a proxy war is obvious, which is why Russia seriously miscalculated by not devoting enough resources to end Ukraine before the US and its vassals could further flood that country with weapons, training, intelligence and money.
However, Putin was not operating in a diplomatic vacuum.
He had to manage things in a fashion that allowed Russia's allies to support him.
Big picture time.
I have come to believe that this was a series of very sensitive and tricky maneuvers, with the sequence of moves being carefully planned - and not only on the battlefield but diplomatically as well.
I believe it was very important for it to seem that every move made by Russia in this conflict was "forced" upon it.
Putin needed to be able to turn to China and India and say,
"What else can I do?
Look how crazy/corrupt/irrational these people are.
They are shelling civilians.
They are using human shields.
They are Nazis.
They won't listen to reason."
This allowed for the justifiable gradual increments in force and the ability to still maintain the diplomatic support of Russia's allies.
I am happy to acknowledge that perhaps miscalculations may have been made.
Russian leadership has to have a relative strong buy in from the population in order to be able to mobilize sufficient manpower and material resources. While the conflict with the US is life or death, the death is like in the 1990s to early 2000s, slow and dispiriting, not immediate, acute, like in WWII. So the population at large does not have this sense of imminent danger that requires the utmost effort and sacrifice. However, the reaction of the combined west, and the rabid behavior of Ukrainians and Poles and Balts, etc. have convinced the Russian population who they are dealing with in fact and that they cannot stay passive with so much animus under the surface against them. The combined west has done the recruitment for Putin. Now Russian need time to properly train and equip these 300,000 people. Now Russia will have superiority in troops on the battlefield. Let's see what happens in the next several weeks and months.
the proxy-war from the beginning days = NATO ./. RUS via proxy 404 has changed into a war, where 404 is the proxy FOR RUS to weaken the western military and financial and socio-cultural abilities.
And? None of this matters if Russia cannot control these acquisitions.
Fact is, Russia has made no significant advances since July, and has only retreated since then. Not to mention betrayed a lot of people in those territories who trusted Russia.
I wish I had something else to report, but facts is facts.
The massacre of civilians that takes place by the Nazis after withdrawals is horrific to me.
Would Russians engage in the slaughter of civilians if Ukraine withdrew from an area?
No, I don't think so.
Russia is not to blame for Ukrainian war crimes.
So I think one needs to remove that from the list of Russia's faults.
The Western world should condemn these things - but its media doesn't tell it to, so it doesn't.
I am not a military person, nor a military historian.
But we have been told by the general that this is a war of attrition - which I understand to mean the primary goal is the destruction of the other side's army.
This can involve the tactical ceding of territory temporarily as this is not the overall objective at this point.
None of us really like how this looks.
We don't even have to agree with it.
But at least we can understand it.
Some would wish to substitute their decision for that of the general [even given the uneven level of respective information and knowledge].
Russia started this operation with the army it had not with the army it wished to have or knew it was necessary to defend the well manned, well trained and well armed Ukrainian army.
Now it has the motivation and the support of the population to build that army. Let's see what will happen in the next few months.
The third option only came about because of timing.
MSM released the news about the call knowing that the retreat was coming in the next couple of days to give the illusion that the US intervened. It also fits the pattern of giving Zelensky the script of we’re good to “negotiate” with Russia now. No such deal.
I agree that it was the correct military decision. Problem is Russia in the last 2-3 months has ceded a lot more territory. You don’t win wars by orderly evacuations.
This is a War. A war against NATO no less. A War for the very existence of Russia. It’s time for all of Russia to treat it that way.
"A war for the very existence of Russia." Funniest thing I have heard all day. Sorry to break your bubble, but nobody gives much of a shit about Russia, one way or another. Far, far, down the list, whatever your delusions. Just don't invade a country full of physically-attractive people whose independence you have guaranteed and which happens to sit in our general direction. BTW, if you are so serious, why don't you volunteer to join the fight?
I guess people don't like that word, or they don't/refuse to understand what it means, or it goes contrary to their idea of what war is - something or other.
"You don’t win wars by orderly evacuations."
It should read "You don’t win wars ONLY by orderly evacuations."
They evacuated in 3 days - Milley the Moron was thinking it was going to take 3 weeks?
Applause, anyone?
Is it true that the General got his men and equipment [20,000+ and 5,000+ items of materiel] evacuated from Kherson over the Dnieper River and [from what I understand] maybe no soldiers were lost?
I am not a military man, but I would think that may probably go down as a textbook evacuation, and will be studied in military school from now on.
Now, back to shelling, missiling, droning and shooting.
What do people think is going to happen when all of those extra Russian troops get deployed?
Exactly.
I just read about this today, and I would prefer if Israel would kindly stop providing Russian troop positions to the those handling the missile targetting for Ukraine.
Yeah that last thing, won’t happen. They (you know who) always bet on both horses.
No one is saying it wasn’t a good retreat. Still a retreat. And yes correcting previous mistakes (possibly). Fine.
What I’m saying is first, why did it have to happen at all? And second, how does Russia prevent it from happening in the future?
The problem with this is even if in military strategic terms it’s neutral, in the morale of the adversary it’s a positive. That might have the effect of pacifying them and blindside them to a big attack (doubtful they know what’s coming) or gives them the opportunity to spin it for more support and escalate. Which is not good.
In an anti Loyd Austin words, “Russia not only needs to win but to look like it’s winning”
"What I’m saying is first, why did it have to happen at all? And second, how does Russia prevent it from happening in the future?" - Maybe go back and read the article again.
Oh, so you actually ARE pro-Russian in this conflict. In this case, may I suggest you send your comments from public spaces where the trackable IP is not actually yours. Interesting people may show at your doorsteps if you're in the U.S. or Europe. Remember, Ukrainians are acquiring intel and digital skills at an insane rate right now, and they're also the most radicalized European nation at present.
The operative word is the last: now. And that’s my point. Russia, Putin, Kremlin, need to accept that this is an existential war. If the people do not understand that then help them understand (propaganda whatever). More mobilization, a more military supportive economy, more aggressive and escalatory battle tactics/operations in Ukraine. That will be more effective than what they have now.
The other side will ALWAYS escalate. That is what they do. So what then? Pack up and go home?
Surovkin corrected the stupid mistake of entering swampy ground with your only supply lines being river crossings. And Surovkin is turning out the lights and heat throughout Ukraine. The next task for Surovkin is to cut the West's supply lines into Ukraine.
The Russian forces staged in Belarus are going to come in shooting along the Polish border - not like the first time when forces came to Kiev and just sat there doing nothing. Ukraine will be starved of weapons, is now being starved of electricity, and in a few months Donetsk forces will push west and southwest all the way to Odessa. Ukraine will not exist in the year 2024.
The cope is hilarious, but when you exist so deeply in alternate reality, things like the rapid collapse of Melitopol with partisans doing more damage than HIMARS surprises you.
Exist in reality, and Putin swinging from a lamppost in six months won't shock you at all, you'll have it on the calendar like me, your friendly Kherson swim coach.
With what? With modern intelligence tools, the Russian order of battle is easy to figure out, at least in general terms. What really effective units the Russians had are now severely degraded, with no immediate possibility of being reconstructed. They have even eaten the seed corn by tapping training units for experienced combat troops.
Your second paragraph is full of predictions [if you're a fortune teller, let us know!!]
Although I'd like to wish all those prognostications to come true, I am going to have to curb my enthusiasm and refuse such a megadose dose of hopium [I'm trying to cut back!].
I find it refreshing to see accurate operational and strategic analysis. Thank you Serge! Tactical mind-sets, such as Dima (Military Summary Channel, YouTube) and not rarely Bernard at Moon Of Alabama, are most unsatisfactory these days.
If I may elaborate from my neck of the woods, so to speak:
Geo-strategically and geo-politically, The USA is an island nation whereas Russia is a continental nation.
The problem sets for each are fundamentally different.
The USA is in the more dangerous position, in fact, because her internal wealth and relative safety tempt her to overreach and overbear.
Spiritual disorder far more vitiates a nation’s strength than does physical danger.
I'm getting increasingly pessimistic about the direction of this SMO. Russia has been supposedly degrading Ukraine's offensive capability for months, yet they're so afraid of their current potential that they abandon what is now Russian territory? I really don't understand this.
Given Russia's superiority in artillery, air power, drones, tanks and every other sort of weaponry, what is there to be afraid of? Can't the forces in Kherson be supplied by helicopters and air drops if worst came to worst? I would think that Russia would have had the capability to decimate any frontal attack by Ukraine, and indeed, would relish it given their advantages. Surely keeping hold of Kherson would have pinned masses of Ukranian troops worried about a push to Nikolayev
My opinion after the Kharkov region debacle, was that the Russian military leadership was incompetent; this latest move adds to that assessment.
The fact that only now there is an overall theatre commander also indicates that prior to this appointment, the SMO was an ad hoc operation, which, quite frankly, is insane.
My other thought is that there has been a deal made, as Russia has reached the culmination of their efforts; they have been exposed as a paper tiger. This will only embolden NATO to push for their complete capitulation. Pursuing this strategy of half-measures was a failure.
I hope I'm wrong and that the Russian military is far more capable than we've seen thus far, but I won't be getting my hopes up.
I don't think Russia is "afraid", however providing a 100% certainty that the Ukraine will not, by some means (with NATO help), blow up the dam and flood the city, is simply impossible. There is too much risk associated with relying on a position that can in an instant cause you mass casualties, massive loss of equipment, and the possible isolation and encirclement of some units.
This decision will relieve a great strain and worry on the part of the generals as they consider troop losses. Position wise, Russia will now have to prepare another angle of attack if they seek to take Odessa by land.
This was prudent and correct military strategy in my opinion. Having taken Kherson, they were able to funnel out those citizens who preferred Russian governance, and now have a strategic vantage (east side of the river) from which to shell and otherwise inflict large casualties on the occupying Ukrainian forces. The meat grinder strategy.
I don't think Russia is concerned with the short term PR game, they know that in the end, a victory on their terms will trump all the minor psychological victories being heralded by the collective West.
Something else to consider: Alexander Mercouris noted that he saw the Russian OOB for the Kherson region and it included all of the Russian paratroop units. He reasoned that these specialized units were being wasted fighting a defensive battle in this region and one reason to pull out (not the only one) is to rest and refit them for operations elsewhere. He also noted that no new troops, from the 82k sent to the front from the mobilization, went to Kherson.
If he is correct then it makes even more sense to reset the lines and reorganize the troops from that front.
I watched the same Alexander Mercouris video [I'm a big fan of the Duran boys].
I agree with his analysis.
The fact that he came up with the observation regarding the illogicalness of having all the Russian paratroop units on the west side of Kherson fighting a defensive war - BEFORE he found out that the General had made the same observation - is a big kudo to Alexander's perspicacity.
Or they were taking heavy attrition and needed to be reconstituted, the British army was right to withdraw from gallipoli, doesn't mean the campaign was a success.
And apparently the Ukrainians have found intact s-300's left behind by the russian army.
There was no news, even on the Ukrainian front, that Russia was taking heavy losses in Kherson. Whatever "attrition" you're talking about is new information.
The so-called leaving behind of S-300 is supported by no evidence other than a couple grainy images that seem to have no location source but have been splashed around social media. If you have real evidence we'd all be interested.
An intelligent person knew Moscow was setting itself for disaster 7 years ago with the Ghivi cult.
Everything about Putin's engagement to this day from those choices in 2015, to embrace clowns like Farage, Trump, Ghivi, Surkov, Strelkov, flows from that. If you thought it all through, you knew that Russia was doomed one way or another thanks to delusional foundations of Surkov's bullshit.
You give as reason for rejecting option 3: "I find this unlikely for a variety of reasons. First off, such a deal would represent an extremely pyrrhic Russian victory - while it would achieve the liberation of the Donbas (one of the explicit goals of the SMO) it would leave Ukraine largely intact and strong enough to be a perennial thorn in the side, as an inimical anti-Russian state. There would be the problem of probable further Ukrainian integration into NATO, and above all, the open surrender of an annexed regional capital".
I agree. But this is exactly the reason why option 4 is deeply problematic too, yet you do not mention it there! I would argue that overall there might be short to medium term tactical reasons for abandoning Kherson west of the Dnieper but there are huge longer term strategic disadvantages that far outweigh the shorter term ones.
I also do not agree that this was a decision made by a general. Decisions of this import are always made by the top political leadership, Putin and his circle, and it is clear (given that preparations were being made well ahead) that this preceded Surovikin's appointment and was almost certainly made clear to him that it was a condition of his appointment (hence his effectively preparing the ground for it in his first address, before he would have been able to make a detailed appraisal of his command).
Oh, and taking your argument that it was the supply difficulty across the Dnieper caused by Ukrainians bombarding the crossings that was the major tactical reason for this withdrawal, can you please explain how it is that the Russians have not touched the Ukie bridges across the Dnieper, despite having vastly more powerful missiles that could easily destroy them completely? And I understand there are only 6 really critical bridges! This would make it impossible for the Ukies to supply their vastly greater forces in Eastern Ukraine, and leave them stranded there. So if that is the reason Surovikin withdrew why does he not do this? Once again, it is because Generals don't make decisions like that - its the political leadership that does.
So in trying to explain the Kherson decision, maybe you might focus on why the Russian political leadership (and not Surovikin) decided on this withdrawal and why they have decided they won't attack the Ukies bridges across the Dnieper? Could they be related; many people are beginning to think so.
I think you're stretching to say that General Surovikin did not make this decision. Up to this point, Putin and the Russian leadership have not, by all evidence I've seen, had a heavy hand in military matters in the SMO. I don't see any reason to doubt that General Surovikin is running the war without political interference now (which does not mean he doesn't report to Moscow).
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I did not mean the Kherson bridges, I meant the bridges across the Dnieper north of Kherson, up to the Belarus border through which the Ukies been supplying their armies in the Eastern Ukraine, i.e. Donbass, Kharkiv etc. If these bridges were destroyed (and Russia possesses and has been using missiles powerful enough to knock them out completely .. .with relative ease) then it would be almost impossible for the Ukrainians to supply their armies in Eastern Ukraine. (The Kherson bridges were irrelevant for that). Those troops would be stranded and effectively at the Russians mercy.
If that happened they and NATO would be begging for negotiations. So why hasn't it happened after nearly nine months? And if Surovikin is now in charge, when might we expect him to get around to this? He's had a month or so already.
How should Russia blow up these bridges? I have never seen any detailed engineering analysis of how it could be done. Even if it may be possible, these bridges form obvious targets that will have air defense attached to them. Attacking them, thus, provides guaranteed opportunities for the enemy to adjust his air defenses to missile types used. That may create problems further down the line. A case in point is that the Russian side had difficulties shooting down HIMARS missiles initially. The Russians having gone through a learning period, HIMARS missiles have now become almost ineffective whereever Russian air defenses can be pre-positioned.
So, the Ukies managed to incapacitate the Russians bridges making them withdraw from Kherson - and they had only HIMARS and artillery to do it with and against Russian air defenses that are much better than the Ukies ones. The Russians have far more powerful missiles - Kalibers and hypersonic. But why aren't they even trying is the question?
I take it for granted that the Kremlin had to approve Surovikin's decision to withdraw - which was a hugely important decision with heavy political ramifications, and no doubt the topic of heated and extensive debate.
I had already accepted the scenario that Surovikin had decided this, presented it to the MOD, who presented it to the Kremlin, and it was approved.
I see no reason to alter this scenario.
You think the other bridges should have already been blown up.
You seem to indicate:
1) that this is a clear and obvious military need that Surovikin should have already realized and carried out if he were "really" in charge;
2) this hasn't been done yet, so that means Surovikin doesn't make these decisions;
3) that therefore this is a political decision that the Kremlin makes.
Again, blowing the bridges might be within Surovikin's purview, but it might not - he might have to get approval to do that.
Whether he needs permission or not, I'm not sure we'll ever find out.
You make a good case for blowing the bridges.
Maybe it's on his "to do" list?
Perhaps this is in the cards but things on the battlefield are not ready yet - maybe when the other troops are deployed?
Perhaps when the Russians would be better positioned to take advantage of the related "shock and awe?"
Or it could be that they [the Kremlin/Surovikin] don't think it is necessary given the current circumstances.
ussia is bleeding out the "donators". the more the NATO-bastards deliver, the more will be destroyed. if Russia would have decided to shred all in Western-404, destroyed the bridges, streets and railroads, NATO would have had to manage the "help" quite different, may be a more unfortunate way.
"Bleeding out"? ROTFL. Clearly, you do not understand the economic forces Russia has arrayed against it. Several US states alone have economies significantly larger than Russia's. Other issues aside, it is impossible for an economy the size of Russia's to win a war of materiel against NATO. In fact, finessing the Soviet union into fighting such a war is precisely how NATO bled the Warsaw pact dry and won the cold war. So, as long as the Ukrainians are willing to provide the soldiers, NATO will continue to supply them. Cheap at the price. Practically a rounding error <grin>. The Russians know this as well as anybody. So likely this withdrawl is part of minimizing the damage by limiting the scope of the war, meanwhile hoping for a change in the situation.
What humiliation? Given your analysis, which is very persuasive, Russia did the right thing. Even the uber Russiaphobe Max Boot agrees with your analysis as he admitted in his Nov 9 opinion piece in the WaPo that Putin was not mad after all. The best outcome for the SMO would be for Ukraine to finally realize that the collective west, in which they have placed all their faith, is not coming to the rescue any time soon (beyond supplying diabolical weaponry with which to commit suicide). The provocations of the collective west over several decades have only led to the bear lashing out in anger. Better admit that Russia has legitimate security concerns and act accordingly. Nothing that Russia has asked for is unreasonable.
History shows that any legitimate security concerns between Russia and the West were (and are) negotiable. The US even tolerated a Russian garrison in Cuba for decades. This is Putin taking advantage of what he thought was US weakness to indulge in an imperialist venture.
Retreating from any conquered territory is a humiliation in the Russian doctrine and in the Russian mind. Land is the only thing that then Soviets and now Russian look at. You won't understand it from the American or West European perspective.
An excellent article. AS the old saying goes "all the cards are still on the table":. Ukraine will for its own good will in time unite with Russia as they have been for centuries.
Taking this analysis with a pinch of salt as Big Serge has a habit of downplaying Ukrainian gains
"But regarding the general trajectory, I am confident predicting that Ukraine’s offensive is nearing the high water mark and will soon become a mass casualty event for the Ukrainian army. It may take a few more days for the situation to stabilize entirely, but that point is rapidly approaching and many of Ukraine’s best units face destruction."
Which was said mere hours before Izium was retaken, he then claimed THAT was the high water mark. Currently Ukraine has retaken Lyman and is probing Luhansk, which according to his initial analysis was impossible. Chances are Ukraine has retained it's offensive capabilities and with the Kherson front frozen can redeploy it to the Luhansk Oblast.
Considering how the civilian 'evacuation' probably coincided with the retreat I think it's likely the Russians used the citizens of Kherson as meatshields to allow their retreat to progress. Knowing that Kyiv would not willingly shoot it's own civilians on purpose.
To all those who may be dooming or wildly rejoicing. This war is not between Russia and Ukraine. This is not even war, this is a special military operation and for good reason. Let me elaborate. First things first this struggle is between American empire and Russia, not Russia and the west, and certainly not Russia and Ukraine. The empire chose to precipitate matters maybe as an example for China or to have Russia defeated before attacking China. Regardless why, what was intended was for Russia to come in all guns blazing takeover all of Ukraine in short order and THEN get mired in a long bloody insurgency loosing men materiel and treasure. The freezing of assets and overwhelming sanctions would then further deteriorate the internal conditions such as that political instability would set in finally resulting in regime change. Russia could then be raped dismembered devoured by the empire at leisure. This is why the special military operation is a special military operation and not a war. The objective here is not simply to defeat the Ukrainian army, it is rather designed to bring maximum damage to the empire while keeping the costs for Russia manageable. The Russian campaign is running on simmer being careful not to let the situation boil over at any point. The pace of operations is glacial on purpose. The longer the conflict is drawn out the more harm the empire and it's allies will endure. Their policies will result in self inflicted pain, their hubris will not let them walk back to more sensible positions. The empire is trapped in a pit it has dug, its allies are mere hostages. Is there a point of pain that can be reached where the citizens of Europe may demand of their leaders to revolt against the empire? Who knows if such a point exists, if it is reached this winter or the next? However there is another sphere where the battle is taking place and that is in the nation's that are not in the hallowed west. Here in the nations some poor and some not so much an evaluation of prospects is being done. Siding with the west is safe from reprisals but in the emerging economic scenario might be tantamount to suicide. Even the dimmest leaders know their fate if they fail to keep their citizens fed and supplied with essentials. Considerable shifts have already materialised and more are sure to follow as things get tighter. The empire potentially losing European allies or losing influence across the globe are far more valuable objectives than a quick roll up of the Ukrainian army.
On the tactical side the Ukrainian leadership continues to throw it's troops onto prepared Russian defences and continues to suffer unfavorable casualty ratio of at least 1 to 5 if not more. Can Ukraine continue this frivolous behaviour for another six months a year two years? Can they continue to be supplied for as long? Can the West ,will the west continue to foot the bill to keep Ukraine running and fighting? How many more Ukrainian refugees will Europe accomodate? 10 mln?20 mln?
Russian aim of denazification will be accomplished either by destruction on the contact line of those willing to fight or by emigration of those unwilling to fight.
Demilitarization will be complete once the western support dries up. Almost all Ukrainian military industrial enterprises have already been destroyed and whatever remains on the field will eventually be destroyed.
In the meantime we may see many Russian retreats and setbacks to give the enemy glimpses of victory, to keep him fighting and dying. In any case Kiev has no other option, for the fear of losing support, neither do their sponsors who are ideological bent on destroying Russia.
A multi pronged combined arms high intensity manoeuvering operation would be interesting to watch for purely academic purposes, however if the preceding hypothesis is even somewhat correct then we are going to have to wait a considerable time before this special military operation terminates.
P.S. Also of equal interest are the actions of the empire.
How far will they go? How do they extract themselves if
they ever do?
Alternative theory at the operational tactical level.
Now that no one can cross the Dnieper in the Kherson sector Kiev will be eager to move the considerable forces amassed here to opposite Donestk and Luhansk.
This will afford Russia an opportunity to shut the gate behind the bulk of the Ukrainian forces by dropping the remaining bridges across the Dnieper cutting off logistical supply coming from the west. The bridges need not be completely destroyed just damaged sufficiently to make supply difficult. General Armageddon does favor Calibers Iskanders and Russia has stopped shying away from destroying infrastructure. Do note that Russia has been busy moving around a lot of combat equipment all around the periphery of Ukraine. This combat power can be brought to bear from multiple axes north south and east. The Ukrainian forces east of the Dnieper will find themselves unsupported and potentially under attack from all sides. If a surrender complete or negotiated is not forthcoming then destruction of the major part of Kiev's forces would follow.
'dropping the remaining bridges across the Dnieper' simply isn't militarily possible by Russia. Ukraine has air defenses in place at these cities. 60% of incoming missles get shot down. The few that get through punch holes in bridge decks typically, not hitting support structures. Russia would need to eliminate all road and rail bridges over a 1,000 km length AND keep them eliminated as Ukraine scrambled to repair them.
Believe me, if Russia could do this it would have been done as soon as the Kiev push was called off. Russia is not even close to being able to do this.
60% that is amazing!!!
the star wars spec sheets do not sell 60%!!
who is running the layered air and missile defense, with systems that have never been demonstrated elsewhere?
Strangely they are Soviet systems. Moscow is ringed by the modern versions. I don't know why I bother with people that know nothing.
i do know a bit about air and missile defense.....
you're not as bad as sec def austin who claim us gifts, which are not optimal to missile defense, are hitting 100%. exercises i took part in we never claimed more than 95% using 'good stuff'.
the kill chain is a lot more than the unimproved [since before 2014] s-300, which who knows how they are calibrated...
the newer sam is s-400 which is deployed w/in russia and has been purchased by turkey.
the miracle you proclaim includes getting usa target and track data into an obsolete russian sam.....
piffle!
I actually write a second substack about American affairs but that qualifies me as much as anyone else on the internet. Your attempt at an insult failed.
Comrade Tovarisch this is brilliant operational tactical strategic analytic analysis. Suvorov, Brusilov, and Vatutin are all morons compared to you.
So why would the Ukrainians be so eager to do this?
What else can they do? Hold a 40k-60k force in reserve while they struggle to move forward in Donetsk and Luhansk ? Give up the momentum that they have supposedly built? No I believe they will keep pushing before the mobilised materialize.
Surovkin's hint of using freed up forces in other offensives is a nudge for Kiev to redeploy their built up forces either to buttress defences or go on offensives.
Would not be surprised if Kiev elects to attempt cutting the land bridge and Russia invites them to try. It would be touch and go for both sides, high risk winner takes all. Russia building defensive lines north of Crimea indicates they are willing to let Ukraine punch in deep hoping to destroy much of the attacking force which will not have the luxury of fortifications. Kiev will believe that by threatening Crimea they will have leverage over the Kremlin.
Of course there is another option where Russia opens a third and fourth front in the north and east, to keep Kiev from concentrating it's forces, and then proceeds with a defeat in detail plan sector by sector front by front.
Regardless of how Kiev chooses to employ them these troops almost certainly will cross the Dnieper again. Then Russia has a choice in approaches between continuing attrition or attempting annihilation.
Kyiv not Kiev. This is russian propagandist who uses old russian naming of Ukraine capital.
I would not trust this commenter, no name, russian spelling, clear russian footprint pushing russian narrative, and will have nothing to do with vision or thinking.
kiev is the victorian english government's name for the capital of the latest neocon adventure.
who is pandering neocon speak?
btw why you did not use words from victorian era if you are writing on such an victorian English?
Just for you, pronunciation matters and victorian spelling had proper pronunciation.
russian propaganda is so weird with picking facts to prove they are right...
Let's use moscovia instead russia then!
If we're talking about propaganda, you sound like Goebbels, foaming at the mouth about "Jew propaganda".
Of course, by your logic, "Moscow" should be renamed "Moskva".
punch through from belorus toward the rails from poland and cut off the usa supply lines.
drop a uk 'rivet joint' and engage usa satellites provding targets to the ukers.
putin's forbearance has been nothing less than saintly!
Ed I think they will stay away from the Polish border so as not to provide a pretext (however ridiculous) for intervention. The Poles seem to be itching for a fight but for now they will have to be satisfied with sheep dipping polish troops as volunteers in the foreign legion.
If rivet joints and satellites appear on the menu then be sure the main course is not far away.
No, direct conflict between the main actors is highly unlikely as far as logic goes and neither party desires it.
Russia is being extra careful not to provide any reason for intervention and America is pushing as close to the red line without crossing it. (ATACMS ABRAMS)
It is like a great game with certain boundaries. Step out of those boundaries and step into the abyss.
Empire 's challenge:
Can Russia stop NATO in Ukraine without directly engaging NATO?
Can Russia maintain its economy?
Can Russia maintain internal stability?
Can Russia maintain its foreign partnerships?
Russia poses in return:
How much are you willing to sink into this; if at the end of all this all you achieve is some dead Russian soldiers and nothing else?
No Russian collapse, no NATO in Ukraine, no Ukrainian natural resources, maybe no Ukrainian ports.
These are roughly the stakes upon which the game is played.
While Surovikin tightens his lines and Zaluzhny prepares another charge (?of the light brigade?), the humble infantry man in knee deep mud squares his shoulders to face shot and shell and once again settle the final argument. For if he stands the day is carried and if he falls all is lost.
Note: Trade has not stopped, sanctions are mere eyewash.
this is existential.
the neocons using nato are treading a nascent dilemma.
I thought all Russian Trolls had been drafted. Anyway, with what? Russia does not have the resources for a straight-up fight with Ukraine, much less NATO. All those troops were lost during the charge to Kiev, So how are military operations further even closer to the untouchable NATO supply line in Poland going to be supplied?
This comment hasn’t aged well 😂
too old, why i have time to beard trolls here.
putin playing biden and truss' replacement....
As indicated previously, i am actually agnostic on the withdrawal from Kherson, given the present circumstances.
I criticize the decisions that led Russia to the point where the withdrawal appeared necessary.
Until a third front opens and has enough personnel to actually do anything, it's so much hot air.
And clearly you are a Western Imperialist plant who is betraying the Revolution.
I like that!
As the article illustrates in part to us, Ukronazis are adherent to political will, not military will. They must do so because their masters in America told them so. The bloodlust embedded within them thanks to 8 years of fascist education will certainly help. Has the terrible losses and lack of military victory stopped them at any point so far?
I think this is indeed the way things are playing out. The Empire is a frog being boiled slowly and unable to see it.
I think the Dems are demolishing the U.S. on purpose as part of the New World Order agreements plotted by The World Economic Forum. Does that theory sound too far out there?
No. And its not only the US government (Dems and 1/2 of the Reps) the Globalists have captured. The Globalists also control most of the "West" and also all of the International institutions (UN, WHO, World Bank) with the exception of Hungary, Italy, and maybe a couple more).
There's also partial capture. Russia pushing CBDCs on retirees is in-line with globalist scheme. Russia running a derivative gene-jab is in-line.
None of these things are binaries, and no nation state enjoys the kind of sovereignity we are still habitually thinking in terms of.
These are just layers of cope as Russia simply becomes another isolated satellite of China, not unlike DPRK.
Kherson was Putin's only win, and now it is gone. I think some delusional Putinites will need to see Melitopol collapse in a few months before they understand that there is no Russian military, no Russian state, both these things simply don't exist. There is Wagner, there is Gazprom, there is a dependency on China.
What does your comment have to do with mine?
It depends on what you mean by "demolish." The Dems have business model where they give money from taxes or borrowing to their base and they will get their votes. The US will pursue military and cultural supremacy until it is bankrupted.
What the "empire" sees is a heaven-sent opportunity to weaken Russian Military and economic power for the next few decades. All without sacrificing a single soldier. And all for the cost of a few months of the US military budget. Who could resist?
It takes 3 billion a month just to meet Ukrainian payroll. Russia has captured Ukrainian territory that delivered 95% of Ukrainian GDP. The energy cost in the EU is 6x, and UK 3x, and even the US at least 20% higher. The West is not prepared economically for this, since they are all mortgaged to the hilt. Worse, the USD is hogging all the debt liquidity, so soon Western countries will have to start buying their own debt, printing money and leading to high inflation. The US owes 31 trillion, 1.25 GDP, but worse is local and state debt which swells that number. The US is running a structural fiscal deficit, with no end in sight, est to be 113 trillion more in three decades. Worse, the US will want record military spending! There is only one result of this: Russia "wins," and the West "loses," and the US unable to find the resources to preserve its empire. Oh, and next there is China...
Time to remove 'Mensa' from your Bio! 95% of Ukrainian GDP has been captured by Russia already...hahaha!
Did you not know this? Mr Leadley, you are making a fool of himself. The territory Russia seized provided (over) 95% of Ukraine's pre-war GDP. Frankly, I don't think this is a matter of IQ, it is a matter of being well informed and fact checking before saying something stupid. I appreciate the attention though.
Yes Comrade Tovarisch. During WWII the Nazis captured territory that delivered 200% of USSR's GDP. That led Stalin to immediately surrender. That's Mensa-level analysis.
You miss the point: Ukraine is an economic basket case. They are depopulated, their infrastructure is destroyed, and the only thing that is keeping them afloat is Western aide. I'm not telling Ukraine to give up - I am urging Western nations not to support them. What I am pointing to is the gigantic financial cost to Western nations, just to enable the Ukrainian govt to sacrifice another hundred or two hundred thousand soldiers for nothing. By the way, I don't give a sh!t about Mensa, but pass that test and you have bragging rights buddy.
We should not support Ukraine because Russia is our friend and surrendering to Russia is awesome?
Open wikipedia first before posting 95%. Stop pushing Russian propaganda. Considering you can't even read wikipedia your comment is a lie + complete propaganda and BS. I'm sad for people who reads this and believe you.
You're relying on the propaganda site Wikipedia? No wonder you're so misinformed.
What sources are you relying on? Show your sources before posting meaningless arguments.
Again, three billion a month d all the rest of it is obviously a cost that the US is willing to pay. The EU isn't given a say.
To put it another way, are you buying deep out of the money UST puts?
So put up a counter figure. To be fair: Ukraine ia an economic basket case, and without proxies with deep pockets, Ukraine would have collapsed. Also, you imagine long term hundreds of billions support?
If the West could not afford to support Ukraine, if it did not think that the price was worth it, the West would have ordered Ukraine to sue for peace.
As I indicated earlier, if you believe otherwise, then go buy a bunch of long-dated deep put of the money puts on T bills.
You're assuming that because the West made a certain decision, it must have been a rational and sensible one.
That's an invalid assumption.
Check out these two pieces that analyse how the sanctions on Russia backfired:
https://bit.ly/3NxI8s0
https://bit.ly/3yPny1U
The West has been tripped up by hubris.
I am not sure what makes you think that I made such an assumption.
I heard Biden say Ukraine conflict was a vital US interest. I disagree. If it isn't one, then Biden is making a mistake. It has been elevated into a contest over a unipolar world order, which is bad for the US unless it is a vital US interest.
I'll spell it out for MAGA-level reading comprehension:
Deflating Russia is a vital US interest.
The Kabal that putsched Kiev just withdrew 18 billion from EUSSR pockets.
This after demanding and getting orders for 4 billion gene-jabs for 400 million citizens.
Actually the "war" is between Globalist actor captured Western governments (of which the US is one) and Russia. China is a snake-in-the-grass, playing both sides.
Why do I say that? Because all the Globalist actors systems of (global) control are based, and designed by, Chinese domestic actors. China is striving for world control, they are open about that.
Russia is all alone. May God grant the Russian people strength to see the conflict through.
Freedom loving people in the West are trying to dislodge the Globalists infesting our governments. May God grant us success.
Chinese secret mastermind fantasy isn't borne out by history.
Can china attack US warships and get away with it?
Can china steal US nuclear material and get away with it?
Can china coordinate 9/11 and get away with it?
Can china officially endorse midterm candidates and get 95% wins?
Someone can.
No, but they can purchase all the players, and they have.
So "globalists" who embrace other peoples are not alone, but Russians who reject other peoples are alone. That is some incisive MAGA analysis.
The Chinese are too weak and are not a threat. We have them totally surrounded from Taiwan, Japan all the way to the Philippines. Their population is going down. The Chinese will be lucky they don’t get invaded by us like they have many times before. India is the new upcoming threat.
You're in the majority
Delusional. Russia is weakening, America’s military is strengthening. Russian war machine is being bled and their military incompetence is being showcased for the world to see. Unfortunate the new commander had to inherit such a shoddy operation.
Tell me, how is the special military operation going? By my calculations it should have been over 9 months ago
I'd like to see those calculations of yours however I am useless at reading scribbles written in crayons....
Russia weakening? I think you're projecting that delusion.
I think terms like "delusional" are thrown around these days a little too often. Somebody is going to be eating their words from whichever side I am not sure. But I know with certainty that one side will suffer great indigestion.
Then maybe you calculated wrong and continue to do so.
Sometimes comments are better than articles.
Rick Hyne
just now
I believe your hypothesis is correct but I also believe the US cannot wait indefinitely and if the Democrats get a comfortable majority in Congress that some type of war declaration will be announced on both Russia and China.
The entire West is acting as if this will be over sooner than later.
What the citizens of Russia need to understand is that they need to defend their sovereignty. As stated, their land will be raped and pillaged. I'm sure bordering countries will expand their borders.
Every Western party has been promised something.
Russia will be gone. A message to others around the world that there is a single master, a single global president.
Russia has nukes NATO won't take the chance of a strategic nuclear exchange. The fact is NATO doesn't see Ukraine as part of Russia and don't consider it existential to Russia, but the west are merely upholding what it views as liberal values in Ukraine.
what atlanticists see as 'liberal' values..... is malarkey
the atlanticists, whether nwo or tools of wef, are using a 500 year old slavic inter tribal fight for the dneipr region as tool to ruin russia and keep china from rising....
outside the atlantic sphere.
Russia will never be "gone." Don't discount BRICS, plus other Russian allies like Iran, Syria, and it's looking like maybe even Saudi Arabia. They're all in the process of coming together to form the Eurasian Economic Union, the goal of which is a multipolar world to rival the West's/WEF's ambitions for a unipolar, one-world order. Ukraine is just one chess move on the overall game board.
Satan, president of West
Who is the single global president please?
Satan
According to Scripture, Satan is the 'ruler of this world'; a point Christ did not dispute when tempted with 'ALL the kingdoms of the world' offered by Satan in the temptation in the desert. (Mathew 4:8) That is why Christ prayed his followers should be 'No part of the world' John 17:14.
And further, this is the prophecied Reign of Esau.
To know when the bus will arrive it helps to know what time it is.
The (as yet) unrevealed anti-Christ.
Psst. It's plural.
Ukraine is not fighting Russia, it’s fighting Iran and China. Russia is merely an insignificant pawn of Asia in this geopolitical game. The second Iranian support dries up Russia will be defeated.
American humor!
Very funny!
I am not dooming. I am being realistic.
And you are high if you think that the Empire is even close to giving up.
LOL you’re delusional. You’re describing the American Empires strategy of bleeding out the Russian war machine but you’re claiming it is the Russians attempting to weaken the Americans. It is the opposite and you are either a troll or extremely brainwashed. This is a golden opportunity for the US to weaken Russia without engaging in direct warfare. That is what we are witnessing - the weakening (yet again) of the incompetent Russian empire.
Here's an idea. Turn off the propagandist mainstream media and look to independent media to give you the REST of the story. Then come back and share with us what conclusions you have reached.
But Russia has this entire war on its border and doesn't need to drag everything 1000km from polish border. Ukraine is transporting this entire stuff through long route by intact bridges, rails, roads and tunnels. Russia is allowing this and nobody knows WHY.
Russia is bleeding out the "donators". the more the NATO-bastards deliver, the more will be destroyed. if Russia would have decided to shred all in Western-404, they would have had to manage the "help" quite different.
In Vietnam, the US would knock down bridges, etc. , only to see them up and running again within a day or so. Stated-simply, because they can be readily repaired or built around, unless within continued artillery range, tunnels, bridges, etc can only be put out of longer-term service by aircraft or missiles. All this requires air superiority, or a lot of missiles, which the Russians are short of.
Thanks for your take, Vlad.
Great analysis. Don't underestimate the West escalating because they know they are in an untenible strategic position. I hear a Russian missile hit Poland today...
It is possible that west may do something desperate but it is unlikely.
Milley's statement has pretty much confirmed that militarily there is no direct intervention to be expected.
Biggest giveaway is the status of trade. Setting aside the eyewash of sanctions trade overall has picked up. Crises has been good for energy prices/profit and metals are essential for corporate America.
A trap was set and Russia managed to not fall in.
All parties realise it. Russia still has to clean up on the battlefield but that is not where the real war will be pursued. The general on that front is Lavrov not Surovikin. The only success so far has been the Nord Stream fiasco but that may in time also turn out to be detrimental to overall calculus.
Deindustrializing Europe may put America on a better footing against China in the short term but the cost of loosing Germany France Australia Saudi UAE Brazil etc may not be profitable or prudent in the long term. If dollar actually had to compete with currencies backed by something real then that national debt would start looking very worrisome.
As for the Poland missile incident I am sure some guttural noises will be made but nothing is to come out of it since the image of the fragments clearly show it belonging to an S300 rocket fired by Kiev.
There should be no fallout of any significance unless the Polish are really enthusiastic about going in without NATO. NATO by all indications does not want to fight an actual war.
Things are developing and miscalculations may occur, desperate attempts may be made but as of right now I believe this is where things stand.
Next big event is likely to be global financial meltdown that will see some sink some swim but none unscathed.
What are you doing here, when Mother Russia needs your services? I thought all the Trolls had been drafted and sent to war so some oligarch can buy another toy. Yet here you are, for now. Anyway, Russia picked this fight, not NATO, which was pretty much moribund.
You simplify the situation to make insults. It is becoming rout to equate non-Ukrainian perspectives with Russian propaganda. My observation is that if you start believing your own propaganda then you are lost. Don't count on continued Western support...
Comrade Tovarisch, if this is struggle against American empire then why is Ukraine complaining American empire isn't giving enough weapons?
That's an easy one. There is never enough resources in war. Besides, the conflict is two levels, not just one. The first concrete level is fighting on the ground, the second is a financial. For every dollar the West gives, it costs them more than 10x in debt, social unrest, and institutional failure. We have a phrase for this: Ukraine is a black hole for the US/NATO/the West. Russia is just getting started...and eventually there is China.
Lol and of course Ukraine isn't a black hole for Russia, because Putin is awesome Comrade Tovarisch?
Against better judgement...
Empire prepared well, there were more Javelin, Stinger etc in country prior to the 24th than Russia probably has active tanks, helicopters.
The expectation of Russia had been that they would charge headlong into a force on force engagement over prepared defences, getting into urban battles taking enormous casualties as such actions involve.
Even if the Russians won these engagements as was likely it would be at a very high cost in men and materiel.
Next phase would have been a low cost insurgency that could be run indefinitely (through Poland Baltics) till Russia bled out. Evidenced by SBU successes and cells uncovered till date.
Unfortunately Russia decided not to play this game. After securing vital terrain Russia decided to sit back and lob 152 mm HE, from the peripheries of the map.
Having expended approximately 1.5-2 mln rounds already, they don't appear to be slowing down.
I suspect even the general staff has any idea how many 152 HE they have in stockpile.
Of course if they run out they can always turn to Kim as reported by reliable resources.
Meanwhile I hear the other Kims are to contribute an astronomical 100,000 rounds of 155 he to the Kiev charity drive. Not sure if Seoul or Washington split the bill.
Do note that 152 mm from Soviet stockpiles is already paid for whereas future 155mm will have to be paid for.
Also you would be glad to know that 155mm costs between 5-10 times more than 152 mm. Not much difference between them except who manufactures them and where. State enterprises vs Mil Corporations.
Makes one wonder if Russia will run out of artillery shells before Kiev runs out of support and/or conscripts.
See it's one thing firing Javelins out of windows blowing up cars and trucks shelling market squares, quite another engaging in an artillery slugfest with an army that is built around artillery. (HIMARS or no HIMARS)
Empire was prepared but for a different type of war
I am sure they can cope, just that it's going to cost a bit more.
Then again a few million here a couple of billions there and suddenly the costs start adding up and you start wondering ...,
p.s. to those interested in serious discourse I do apologise for any frivolity in tone.
I do however believe this to be an important aspect of the course of events that we are witnessing.
Russian artillery is unguided and requires a long intensive supply chain on a limited number of rail lines that are under continual observation. Just watch where the trains unload. Then a quick further glance tells you where the ammo dumps are. Dial in the GPS coordinates into a precision guided rocket or two that outranges the Russian artillery, no more Russian Ammo. Very likely, you can use the Ammo dump to locate the artillery too.
Lol. The person without name gives a lot of trust in the comment! Welcome to Russian propaganda bots world!
Oh, hi, Ukranian propaganda bot!
Oh. Ukraine does not need to invest in bots when Russia will fail without pushing its propaganda.
Don't forget we can send combat mosquito after you!
You right, workforce of full troll office is cheaper than one bot developer.
Comrade Tovarisch, why are you sitting here typing instead of being mobilized and fighting for Mother Russia? You will get excellent Mosin rifle to defeat Ukrainian HIMARS. Comrade Tsar Putin will get very angry if you don't move.
That exactly shows that all Russian propaganda bots comments are fake and does not represent people's opinions. Which means Russians does not have opinions they are blindly follow Tsar and kiss his a...
Second I don't troll, isn't that your propaganda? Nebenzya says, rashists believe, so just be afraid of pigeons, mosquitoes and dirt, as they might be from Ukraine.
Thank you .
Logic and saving lives is the good enough reason to withdraw....
I appreciate your work, thank you for keeping the Russia related posts free to us.
The perspective you bring gives clarity and a concise analysis of difficult situations.
Rock on.
Well, I am not sure if the issue is to be popular. I rather try to understand what is going on and MSM is really constructing a huge fog of propaganda.
Anyway, Serge, there is another answer to Odessa move - from Andrei from the Saker: “Another option might be to move not West but North and then turn West to basically take all the NATO defenses around the Black Sea coastline from behind.”
As for optics.....it is commented right from the beginning of this operation that Russia is bad at PR. The question is who is the recipient of this PR? The West? Then, one can say that Russia simply does not play by those rules.
THANK YOU for your analysis.
The western media narrative runs orthogonal to reality, so there's no reason whatsoever for Russia to attempt to influence it to their own physical and economic detriment.
Very interesting maneuver if they can use it
I think MacGregor is right. Russia wants to end the war; since US/nato are not agreement capable, there must be a crushing win. But they can't start until the ground freezes enough to support the vehicles, & it may not do that on the south coast regions.
I live in midcoast Maine, right at the 44th parallel, roughly same as Kherson. It is mud season now & there is no guarantee the ground will freeze in any given winter, never mind freeze enough to hold heavy vehicles. Eg, I usually can bring in a few thousand pounds of hay between Christmas & New Years, but some years I can't & have to move my car outside & use my high & dry garage for hay storage instead. The trend in recent years has been for later freezing, and not freezing. Or freeze - thaw - refreeze, but never deep enough for the hay truck. Probably similar over there.
Russia is building up heavily in the north in Belarus, as well as fortifying the south. The Kherson soldiers are getting a rest. The northern, inland areas will freeze for sure. They can close in from the north, the west & maybe also the south.
Maine is temperate oceanic while Kherson is temperate continental climate. Big difference.
Large bodies of water have a significant local impact, as well as latitude. I expect the local weather on the coast in Kherson (mid-40s+ lat), not to mention Crimea, is significantly different than, say north of Kiev, inland, (mid 50s lat).
Regardless of how Maine is classified, reality is more like a lot of microclimates. Southern Maine has whole different temperature range than north of Bangor. And inland Maine is totally different than the coast.
I am in the same region
3 miles from the ocean things are a bit warmer but a week of arctic air and the ground will solid. Betcha it’s frozen by the end Of the month.
Iirc, forecast showed Kiev with 4-5 days at 17-18F next week before back to 25-30 ish. That will give a good deep freeze. Don't know how far south those temps will extend, though.
I'm not taking any bets on Nov or December tho, lol. Frozen ground is just one pre-req.
They also need to finish taking out power, which I'm not sure they've done yet. And there are likely other triggers we don"t know.
I was waiting for your analysis. Now to read it 😎. THANK YOU!
I am not going to make myself popular, but Russia has two choices. Either devote enough troops and resources to win (and the sooner, the better, as winning will only get more difficult with time as the West continues to lavish weapons, training and money on Ukraine) and accept that there will be significant casualties along the way, or sue for peace on whatever terms Russia can get.
This "war by half-measures" is not working and has not been working for a long time now.
This is not difficult.
A war of attrition requires patience.
We've been hearing for months now that Ukraine is out of men, it's about to break.
It hasn't happened.
In fact, whatever Ukraine’s real losses, the territorial gains were obviously worth it to Bankovskaya and its American master.
Surrendering cities without a fight is not even a war of attrition.
Ah, but who is being attrited?
What a lot of people haven't realized - which is strange for anyone who has had to live in the real world for a bit - is that "wishing don't make it so."
Brian over at The New Atlas has done another great job of analyzing the latest weapons donation from the Pentagon.
He also makes some comments about what "attrition" means in practice - especially how it is working out in the demilitarization of Ukraine [and, by happenstance, the ongoing demilitarization of Europe and NATO - who would have thought that Russia would have gained such an unforeseen (at least by me) bonus?]
https://rumble.com/v1tnr6v-russias-de-militarization-of-ukraine-continues-us-sending-decades-old-arms-.html
"Update on Russian military operations in and around Ukraine for November 11, 2022.
- Russia completes withdrawal from Kherson city to east bank of the Dnieper River;
- Ukraine has lost its last major opportunity to corner and destroy/capture large numbers of Russian forces/equipment;
- Russia continues stated process of de-militarizing Ukraine;
- US aid to Ukraine becomes increasingly unrealistic - Hawk missiles designed in the 1960s and unused for 2 decades are being "refurbished" for a lack of better options;
- "Avenger" systems to be sent in small numbers (4) which are essentially Stinger missiles attached to a Hummer - after training for Ukrainian operators is completed;
- Dwindling amounts of basic ammunition continue to be sent to Ukraine, prolonging the conflict, but not in quantities to even allow Ukraine to hold what it has;
- As Russian forces withdrew from Kherson city, they advanced elsewhere in southern and northern Donbass.
References:
US Department of Defense - $400 Million in Additional Assistance for Ukraine (November 10, 2022)"
Russia, there's a reason they've had to resort to buying loitering munitions from Iran rather than use their oh so plentiful cruise missiles.
the reason is the pure existence of the "Empire of lies".
I asked the same question in late March a friend from Moskau, the answer was "Those are for you!" (the West!)
It's the difference between two kids going shopping, one with daddy's money, the other with the money he earned from a summer job.
Trust fund boy isn't careful how he spends it.
Good call. Those drones are cost effective and seem to be giving results. Here's an informative article discussing drones used on both sides.
https://warontherocks.com/2022/04/loitering-munitions-in-ukraine-and-beyond/
I think the loser is the one that has to sue for peace.
We can wish Zelenskies will do that but he seems to be reading a different script.
There is strength in patience and slow motions as well as frustrations, I guess ultimately the logic is of the politics that the war is against the collective West, not merely nUkraine.
Doesn't matter who is opposing Russia. The question is what Russia proposes to do about it.
If it was Ukraine opposing Russia, this would have been over six months ago. Since it is another proxy war by Washington, DC, the stakes are much higher. We have been hearing for months that Russia will blow up the Kakhovka dam: Now that has become a possibility.
The USA and NATO are bankrupting both the USA and the EU with its wars of aggression. This may prove to be the straw that breaks them.
That this is a proxy war is obvious, which is why Russia seriously miscalculated by not devoting enough resources to end Ukraine before the US and its vassals could further flood that country with weapons, training, intelligence and money.
Yeah, I see your point.
One could definitely see it your way.
However, Putin was not operating in a diplomatic vacuum.
He had to manage things in a fashion that allowed Russia's allies to support him.
Big picture time.
I have come to believe that this was a series of very sensitive and tricky maneuvers, with the sequence of moves being carefully planned - and not only on the battlefield but diplomatically as well.
I believe it was very important for it to seem that every move made by Russia in this conflict was "forced" upon it.
Putin needed to be able to turn to China and India and say,
"What else can I do?
Look how crazy/corrupt/irrational these people are.
They are shelling civilians.
They are using human shields.
They are Nazis.
They won't listen to reason."
This allowed for the justifiable gradual increments in force and the ability to still maintain the diplomatic support of Russia's allies.
I am happy to acknowledge that perhaps miscalculations may have been made.
But overall, I give Putin top marks.
I doubt India or China care about the plight of civilians other than their own, or that are likely to end up as refugees in their lands.
A much simpler explanation- Russia expected Ukraine to fold like Afghanistan.
Russian leadership has to have a relative strong buy in from the population in order to be able to mobilize sufficient manpower and material resources. While the conflict with the US is life or death, the death is like in the 1990s to early 2000s, slow and dispiriting, not immediate, acute, like in WWII. So the population at large does not have this sense of imminent danger that requires the utmost effort and sacrifice. However, the reaction of the combined west, and the rabid behavior of Ukrainians and Poles and Balts, etc. have convinced the Russian population who they are dealing with in fact and that they cannot stay passive with so much animus under the surface against them. The combined west has done the recruitment for Putin. Now Russian need time to properly train and equip these 300,000 people. Now Russia will have superiority in troops on the battlefield. Let's see what happens in the next several weeks and months.
So the argument is that Russia didn't do a good job selling the war at the outset?
"The combined west has done the recruitment for Putin."
Agreed. Well put!
now the opposite is the reality!
the proxy-war from the beginning days = NATO ./. RUS via proxy 404 has changed into a war, where 404 is the proxy FOR RUS to weaken the western military and financial and socio-cultural abilities.
"If vietnam was fighting the US it would have been defeated in 2 weeks, clearly the fighting is being done by Russians.
Well, Russian federation got larger this year Sir....
And? None of this matters if Russia cannot control these acquisitions.
Fact is, Russia has made no significant advances since July, and has only retreated since then. Not to mention betrayed a lot of people in those territories who trusted Russia.
I wish I had something else to report, but facts is facts.
The massacre of civilians that takes place by the Nazis after withdrawals is horrific to me.
Would Russians engage in the slaughter of civilians if Ukraine withdrew from an area?
No, I don't think so.
Russia is not to blame for Ukrainian war crimes.
So I think one needs to remove that from the list of Russia's faults.
The Western world should condemn these things - but its media doesn't tell it to, so it doesn't.
I am not a military person, nor a military historian.
But we have been told by the general that this is a war of attrition - which I understand to mean the primary goal is the destruction of the other side's army.
This can involve the tactical ceding of territory temporarily as this is not the overall objective at this point.
None of us really like how this looks.
We don't even have to agree with it.
But at least we can understand it.
Some would wish to substitute their decision for that of the general [even given the uneven level of respective information and knowledge].
I wouldn't.
Russia is not to blame for Ukraine’s manifest war crimes, but that these war crimes would happen was entirely predictable.
And ceding territory without a fight doesn't attrite much of anything.
Russia started this operation with the army it had not with the army it wished to have or knew it was necessary to defend the well manned, well trained and well armed Ukrainian army.
Now it has the motivation and the support of the population to build that army. Let's see what will happen in the next few months.
Circular argument. If you want to start an op, you make sure you start with the army you need.
Of course, nobody was saying that in February.
What Russia needed and needs was not a different army, but numbers and will to drive to victory m
Not sure if you read Big Serge's analysis.
I said nothing about the specific decision to abandon Kherson, and everything about the conduct of the war in general.
very close to what I think, 'war by half measures' never works never...
The third option only came about because of timing.
MSM released the news about the call knowing that the retreat was coming in the next couple of days to give the illusion that the US intervened. It also fits the pattern of giving Zelensky the script of we’re good to “negotiate” with Russia now. No such deal.
I agree that it was the correct military decision. Problem is Russia in the last 2-3 months has ceded a lot more territory. You don’t win wars by orderly evacuations.
This is a War. A war against NATO no less. A War for the very existence of Russia. It’s time for all of Russia to treat it that way.
"A war for the very existence of Russia." Funniest thing I have heard all day. Sorry to break your bubble, but nobody gives much of a shit about Russia, one way or another. Far, far, down the list, whatever your delusions. Just don't invade a country full of physically-attractive people whose independence you have guaranteed and which happens to sit in our general direction. BTW, if you are so serious, why don't you volunteer to join the fight?
Nobody gives much of a shit about Russia. LOL.
Why are you here then? Lame.
In geopolitical terms, the whole world. And 4/5 of it are neutral or pro. How does it feel to be part of the misguided deluded minority?
I keep coming back to the idea of attrition.
I guess people don't like that word, or they don't/refuse to understand what it means, or it goes contrary to their idea of what war is - something or other.
"You don’t win wars by orderly evacuations."
It should read "You don’t win wars ONLY by orderly evacuations."
They evacuated in 3 days - Milley the Moron was thinking it was going to take 3 weeks?
Applause, anyone?
Is it true that the General got his men and equipment [20,000+ and 5,000+ items of materiel] evacuated from Kherson over the Dnieper River and [from what I understand] maybe no soldiers were lost?
I am not a military man, but I would think that may probably go down as a textbook evacuation, and will be studied in military school from now on.
Now, back to shelling, missiling, droning and shooting.
What do people think is going to happen when all of those extra Russian troops get deployed?
Exactly.
I just read about this today, and I would prefer if Israel would kindly stop providing Russian troop positions to the those handling the missile targetting for Ukraine.
Yeah that last thing, won’t happen. They (you know who) always bet on both horses.
No one is saying it wasn’t a good retreat. Still a retreat. And yes correcting previous mistakes (possibly). Fine.
What I’m saying is first, why did it have to happen at all? And second, how does Russia prevent it from happening in the future?
The problem with this is even if in military strategic terms it’s neutral, in the morale of the adversary it’s a positive. That might have the effect of pacifying them and blindside them to a big attack (doubtful they know what’s coming) or gives them the opportunity to spin it for more support and escalate. Which is not good.
In an anti Loyd Austin words, “Russia not only needs to win but to look like it’s winning”
"What I’m saying is first, why did it have to happen at all? And second, how does Russia prevent it from happening in the future?" - Maybe go back and read the article again.
Maybe you should read what I wrote right before.
I understand the reasons (at least what we can get from open sources). My focus is on the second question.
Oh, so you actually ARE pro-Russian in this conflict. In this case, may I suggest you send your comments from public spaces where the trackable IP is not actually yours. Interesting people may show at your doorsteps if you're in the U.S. or Europe. Remember, Ukrainians are acquiring intel and digital skills at an insane rate right now, and they're also the most radicalized European nation at present.
You don't support Ukraine Nazis, do you?
Actually it's a war against weapons who have limited NATO weapons and training, it's effectively a hybrid soviet-NATO styled army.
Apparently much more effective than whatever Russia has now.
The operative word is the last: now. And that’s my point. Russia, Putin, Kremlin, need to accept that this is an existential war. If the people do not understand that then help them understand (propaganda whatever). More mobilization, a more military supportive economy, more aggressive and escalatory battle tactics/operations in Ukraine. That will be more effective than what they have now.
The other side will ALWAYS escalate. That is what they do. So what then? Pack up and go home?
Surovkin corrected the stupid mistake of entering swampy ground with your only supply lines being river crossings. And Surovkin is turning out the lights and heat throughout Ukraine. The next task for Surovkin is to cut the West's supply lines into Ukraine.
The Russian forces staged in Belarus are going to come in shooting along the Polish border - not like the first time when forces came to Kiev and just sat there doing nothing. Ukraine will be starved of weapons, is now being starved of electricity, and in a few months Donetsk forces will push west and southwest all the way to Odessa. Ukraine will not exist in the year 2024.
The cope is hilarious, but when you exist so deeply in alternate reality, things like the rapid collapse of Melitopol with partisans doing more damage than HIMARS surprises you.
Exist in reality, and Putin swinging from a lamppost in six months won't shock you at all, you'll have it on the calendar like me, your friendly Kherson swim coach.
With what? With modern intelligence tools, the Russian order of battle is easy to figure out, at least in general terms. What really effective units the Russians had are now severely degraded, with no immediate possibility of being reconstructed. They have even eaten the seed corn by tapping training units for experienced combat troops.
Totally agree with your first paragraph, Dave.
Your second paragraph is full of predictions [if you're a fortune teller, let us know!!]
Although I'd like to wish all those prognostications to come true, I am going to have to curb my enthusiasm and refuse such a megadose dose of hopium [I'm trying to cut back!].
The Russians ain’t rushin’.
I find it refreshing to see accurate operational and strategic analysis. Thank you Serge! Tactical mind-sets, such as Dima (Military Summary Channel, YouTube) and not rarely Bernard at Moon Of Alabama, are most unsatisfactory these days.
If I may elaborate from my neck of the woods, so to speak:
Geo-strategically and geo-politically, The USA is an island nation whereas Russia is a continental nation.
The problem sets for each are fundamentally different.
The USA is in the more dangerous position, in fact, because her internal wealth and relative safety tempt her to overreach and overbear.
Spiritual disorder far more vitiates a nation’s strength than does physical danger.
Thanks as usual for these well argued posts.
I'm getting increasingly pessimistic about the direction of this SMO. Russia has been supposedly degrading Ukraine's offensive capability for months, yet they're so afraid of their current potential that they abandon what is now Russian territory? I really don't understand this.
Given Russia's superiority in artillery, air power, drones, tanks and every other sort of weaponry, what is there to be afraid of? Can't the forces in Kherson be supplied by helicopters and air drops if worst came to worst? I would think that Russia would have had the capability to decimate any frontal attack by Ukraine, and indeed, would relish it given their advantages. Surely keeping hold of Kherson would have pinned masses of Ukranian troops worried about a push to Nikolayev
My opinion after the Kharkov region debacle, was that the Russian military leadership was incompetent; this latest move adds to that assessment.
The fact that only now there is an overall theatre commander also indicates that prior to this appointment, the SMO was an ad hoc operation, which, quite frankly, is insane.
My other thought is that there has been a deal made, as Russia has reached the culmination of their efforts; they have been exposed as a paper tiger. This will only embolden NATO to push for their complete capitulation. Pursuing this strategy of half-measures was a failure.
I hope I'm wrong and that the Russian military is far more capable than we've seen thus far, but I won't be getting my hopes up.
I don't think Russia is "afraid", however providing a 100% certainty that the Ukraine will not, by some means (with NATO help), blow up the dam and flood the city, is simply impossible. There is too much risk associated with relying on a position that can in an instant cause you mass casualties, massive loss of equipment, and the possible isolation and encirclement of some units.
This decision will relieve a great strain and worry on the part of the generals as they consider troop losses. Position wise, Russia will now have to prepare another angle of attack if they seek to take Odessa by land.
This was prudent and correct military strategy in my opinion. Having taken Kherson, they were able to funnel out those citizens who preferred Russian governance, and now have a strategic vantage (east side of the river) from which to shell and otherwise inflict large casualties on the occupying Ukrainian forces. The meat grinder strategy.
I don't think Russia is concerned with the short term PR game, they know that in the end, a victory on their terms will trump all the minor psychological victories being heralded by the collective West.
My thoughts almost to a "T"!
You said it all - nothing to add!!
Something else to consider: Alexander Mercouris noted that he saw the Russian OOB for the Kherson region and it included all of the Russian paratroop units. He reasoned that these specialized units were being wasted fighting a defensive battle in this region and one reason to pull out (not the only one) is to rest and refit them for operations elsewhere. He also noted that no new troops, from the 82k sent to the front from the mobilization, went to Kherson.
If he is correct then it makes even more sense to reset the lines and reorganize the troops from that front.
I watched the same Alexander Mercouris video [I'm a big fan of the Duran boys].
I agree with his analysis.
The fact that he came up with the observation regarding the illogicalness of having all the Russian paratroop units on the west side of Kherson fighting a defensive war - BEFORE he found out that the General had made the same observation - is a big kudo to Alexander's perspicacity.
I support the General on this call.
Or they were taking heavy attrition and needed to be reconstituted, the British army was right to withdraw from gallipoli, doesn't mean the campaign was a success.
And apparently the Ukrainians have found intact s-300's left behind by the russian army.
There was no news, even on the Ukrainian front, that Russia was taking heavy losses in Kherson. Whatever "attrition" you're talking about is new information.
The so-called leaving behind of S-300 is supported by no evidence other than a couple grainy images that seem to have no location source but have been splashed around social media. If you have real evidence we'd all be interested.
All S-300 were deployed behind the Dnieper. It might be old Ukrainian S-300.
An intelligent person knew Moscow was setting itself for disaster 7 years ago with the Ghivi cult.
Everything about Putin's engagement to this day from those choices in 2015, to embrace clowns like Farage, Trump, Ghivi, Surkov, Strelkov, flows from that. If you thought it all through, you knew that Russia was doomed one way or another thanks to delusional foundations of Surkov's bullshit.
You give as reason for rejecting option 3: "I find this unlikely for a variety of reasons. First off, such a deal would represent an extremely pyrrhic Russian victory - while it would achieve the liberation of the Donbas (one of the explicit goals of the SMO) it would leave Ukraine largely intact and strong enough to be a perennial thorn in the side, as an inimical anti-Russian state. There would be the problem of probable further Ukrainian integration into NATO, and above all, the open surrender of an annexed regional capital".
I agree. But this is exactly the reason why option 4 is deeply problematic too, yet you do not mention it there! I would argue that overall there might be short to medium term tactical reasons for abandoning Kherson west of the Dnieper but there are huge longer term strategic disadvantages that far outweigh the shorter term ones.
I also do not agree that this was a decision made by a general. Decisions of this import are always made by the top political leadership, Putin and his circle, and it is clear (given that preparations were being made well ahead) that this preceded Surovikin's appointment and was almost certainly made clear to him that it was a condition of his appointment (hence his effectively preparing the ground for it in his first address, before he would have been able to make a detailed appraisal of his command).
Oh, and taking your argument that it was the supply difficulty across the Dnieper caused by Ukrainians bombarding the crossings that was the major tactical reason for this withdrawal, can you please explain how it is that the Russians have not touched the Ukie bridges across the Dnieper, despite having vastly more powerful missiles that could easily destroy them completely? And I understand there are only 6 really critical bridges! This would make it impossible for the Ukies to supply their vastly greater forces in Eastern Ukraine, and leave them stranded there. So if that is the reason Surovikin withdrew why does he not do this? Once again, it is because Generals don't make decisions like that - its the political leadership that does.
So in trying to explain the Kherson decision, maybe you might focus on why the Russian political leadership (and not Surovikin) decided on this withdrawal and why they have decided they won't attack the Ukies bridges across the Dnieper? Could they be related; many people are beginning to think so.
I think you're stretching to say that General Surovikin did not make this decision. Up to this point, Putin and the Russian leadership have not, by all evidence I've seen, had a heavy hand in military matters in the SMO. I don't see any reason to doubt that General Surovikin is running the war without political interference now (which does not mean he doesn't report to Moscow).
Well, if so, when can we expect him to start destroying the Ukies bridges?
Antonovsky bridge was blown as well as the bridge paralleling the dam. I've read the other crossings destroyed too.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I did not mean the Kherson bridges, I meant the bridges across the Dnieper north of Kherson, up to the Belarus border through which the Ukies been supplying their armies in the Eastern Ukraine, i.e. Donbass, Kharkiv etc. If these bridges were destroyed (and Russia possesses and has been using missiles powerful enough to knock them out completely .. .with relative ease) then it would be almost impossible for the Ukrainians to supply their armies in Eastern Ukraine. (The Kherson bridges were irrelevant for that). Those troops would be stranded and effectively at the Russians mercy.
If that happened they and NATO would be begging for negotiations. So why hasn't it happened after nearly nine months? And if Surovikin is now in charge, when might we expect him to get around to this? He's had a month or so already.
I hope I've made myself clear this time.
How should Russia blow up these bridges? I have never seen any detailed engineering analysis of how it could be done. Even if it may be possible, these bridges form obvious targets that will have air defense attached to them. Attacking them, thus, provides guaranteed opportunities for the enemy to adjust his air defenses to missile types used. That may create problems further down the line. A case in point is that the Russian side had difficulties shooting down HIMARS missiles initially. The Russians having gone through a learning period, HIMARS missiles have now become almost ineffective whereever Russian air defenses can be pre-positioned.
So, the Ukies managed to incapacitate the Russians bridges making them withdraw from Kherson - and they had only HIMARS and artillery to do it with and against Russian air defenses that are much better than the Ukies ones. The Russians have far more powerful missiles - Kalibers and hypersonic. But why aren't they even trying is the question?
I take it for granted that the Kremlin had to approve Surovikin's decision to withdraw - which was a hugely important decision with heavy political ramifications, and no doubt the topic of heated and extensive debate.
I had already accepted the scenario that Surovikin had decided this, presented it to the MOD, who presented it to the Kremlin, and it was approved.
I see no reason to alter this scenario.
You think the other bridges should have already been blown up.
You seem to indicate:
1) that this is a clear and obvious military need that Surovikin should have already realized and carried out if he were "really" in charge;
2) this hasn't been done yet, so that means Surovikin doesn't make these decisions;
3) that therefore this is a political decision that the Kremlin makes.
Again, blowing the bridges might be within Surovikin's purview, but it might not - he might have to get approval to do that.
Whether he needs permission or not, I'm not sure we'll ever find out.
You make a good case for blowing the bridges.
Maybe it's on his "to do" list?
Perhaps this is in the cards but things on the battlefield are not ready yet - maybe when the other troops are deployed?
Perhaps when the Russians would be better positioned to take advantage of the related "shock and awe?"
Or it could be that they [the Kremlin/Surovikin] don't think it is necessary given the current circumstances.
Great question.
ussia is bleeding out the "donators". the more the NATO-bastards deliver, the more will be destroyed. if Russia would have decided to shred all in Western-404, destroyed the bridges, streets and railroads, NATO would have had to manage the "help" quite different, may be a more unfortunate way.
"Bleeding out"? ROTFL. Clearly, you do not understand the economic forces Russia has arrayed against it. Several US states alone have economies significantly larger than Russia's. Other issues aside, it is impossible for an economy the size of Russia's to win a war of materiel against NATO. In fact, finessing the Soviet union into fighting such a war is precisely how NATO bled the Warsaw pact dry and won the cold war. So, as long as the Ukrainians are willing to provide the soldiers, NATO will continue to supply them. Cheap at the price. Practically a rounding error <grin>. The Russians know this as well as anybody. So likely this withdrawl is part of minimizing the damage by limiting the scope of the war, meanwhile hoping for a change in the situation.
Why aren’t you running the RF military?
What humiliation? Given your analysis, which is very persuasive, Russia did the right thing. Even the uber Russiaphobe Max Boot agrees with your analysis as he admitted in his Nov 9 opinion piece in the WaPo that Putin was not mad after all. The best outcome for the SMO would be for Ukraine to finally realize that the collective west, in which they have placed all their faith, is not coming to the rescue any time soon (beyond supplying diabolical weaponry with which to commit suicide). The provocations of the collective west over several decades have only led to the bear lashing out in anger. Better admit that Russia has legitimate security concerns and act accordingly. Nothing that Russia has asked for is unreasonable.
History shows that any legitimate security concerns between Russia and the West were (and are) negotiable. The US even tolerated a Russian garrison in Cuba for decades. This is Putin taking advantage of what he thought was US weakness to indulge in an imperialist venture.
Retreating from any conquered territory is a humiliation in the Russian doctrine and in the Russian mind. Land is the only thing that then Soviets and now Russian look at. You won't understand it from the American or West European perspective.
An excellent article. AS the old saying goes "all the cards are still on the table":. Ukraine will for its own good will in time unite with Russia as they have been for centuries.
Taking this analysis with a pinch of salt as Big Serge has a habit of downplaying Ukrainian gains
"But regarding the general trajectory, I am confident predicting that Ukraine’s offensive is nearing the high water mark and will soon become a mass casualty event for the Ukrainian army. It may take a few more days for the situation to stabilize entirely, but that point is rapidly approaching and many of Ukraine’s best units face destruction."
Which was said mere hours before Izium was retaken, he then claimed THAT was the high water mark. Currently Ukraine has retaken Lyman and is probing Luhansk, which according to his initial analysis was impossible. Chances are Ukraine has retained it's offensive capabilities and with the Kherson front frozen can redeploy it to the Luhansk Oblast.
Considering how the civilian 'evacuation' probably coincided with the retreat I think it's likely the Russians used the citizens of Kherson as meatshields to allow their retreat to progress. Knowing that Kyiv would not willingly shoot it's own civilians on purpose.
Sarcasm?