Russia Invades Ukraine XVI

[Tidewater]

This was interesting.

Caveat: this is from the Kyiv Post, so not exactly an objective source.
Still, it follows that Russian conscripts from Moscow and St. Petersburg are from politically significant families, so assigning them to units in quiet sectors makes sense and jives with past practice.
Treating Russian POWs in Ukrainian captivity humanely and letting them call home is wise on the part of the Ukrainians.

 

[Tidewater]

And, as the Kyiv Post video shows, Putin knows that NATO is no threat to Russia, despite his protestations, because he has stripped the Estonian and Latvian border of Russian troops and actually withdrawn forces from Kaliningrad for service in Ukraine.
If Putin really feared NATO aggression, Russia's border with Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland would bristle with Russian army units, but he knows NATO is no threat to Russia. In fact, he is counting on that fact. I'd bet the Russian border with those NATO countries is nothing but a picket line and some drones.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Ukraine’s bold cross-border advance in Russia has seen troops continue to take out key bridges in the western part of the country, while on Wednesday Moscow’s mayor accused Kyiv of attempting to launch “one of the largest ever” drone attacks on the capital.

Since the Ukrainian incursion began nearly two weeks ago, its forces are inching forward in Kursk and destroying key bridges in an effort to cripple Moscow’s logistical capabilities and disrupt supply routes.

Ukraine advances in Russia as Moscow mayor accuses Kyiv of ‘one of largest ever’ drone attacks

 

[4Q Basket Case]

Peter Zeihan has a new video on the Ukrainians' foray into Russia. As he's bad to do, there's a non-TF word not quite 4 minutes in. So I can't link it.

It's on YouTube under the name, "Ukraine Pushes Into Russia, Yet Nukes Didn't Fly," and is one of his longer daily videos at a bit over 11 minutes.

If you can overlook the one word, it's well worth the time. If you can't, here's a summary:

- Ukraine's incursion into Russia is in force -- about 10K troops, and it's on ground that plays to the Ukrainians' strengths.
- The Ukrainians have blown some bridges and made Russian re-supply a real headache.
- The Ukrainians are scraping the bottom of their supply of manpower, buuutttt....
- So are the Russians, who can't scrounge the men necessary to eject the Ukrainians. So the Ukrainians just might be able to meaningfully attack Belgorod, the taking of which Zeihan says is an absolute necessity for Ukraine to win.

Still, he says those aren't the most significant points.

As you might have gathered from the title of the video, Zeihan thinks the most significant thing is that Russia hasn't launched nukes. He says that at some point they probably (more on that qualification in a second) would. But in the course of this war, they've drawn lots of lines in the sand, they've all been crossed, and no nukes. If incursion into Russian territory and threatening the city necessary for the Russian prosecution of the war hasn't drawn them, what would?

The "probably" part above comes from why the Russians haven't launched. Is it because they're unwilling? Or because they're unable? We don't know.

Regardless, the lack of action from the Russians, both in terms of moving manpower into the Kursk region and in terms of not launching nuclear weapons has encouraged the western European leaders.

 

[NWGATideFan]

Peter Zeihan has a new video on the Ukrainians' foray into Russia. As he's bad to do, there's a non-TF word not quite 4 minutes in. So I can't link it.

It's on YouTube under the name, "Ukraine Pushes Into Russia, Yet Nukes Didn't Fly," and is one of his longer daily videos at a bit over 11 minutes.

If you can overlook the one word, it's well worth the time. If you can't, here's a summary:

- Ukraine's incursion into Russia is in force -- about 10K troops, and it's on ground that plays to the Ukrainians' strengths.
- The Ukrainians have blown some bridges and made Russian re-supply a real headache.
- The Ukrainians are scraping the bottom of their supply of manpower, buuutttt....
- So are the Russians, who can't scrounge the men necessary to eject the Ukrainians. So the Ukrainians just might be able to meaningfully attack Belgorod, the taking of which Zeihan says is an absolute necessity for Ukraine to win.

Still, he says those aren't the most significant points.

As you might have gathered from the title of the video, Zeihan thinks the most significant thing is that Russia hasn't launched nukes. He says that at some point they probably (more on that qualification in a second) would. But in the course of this war, they've drawn lots of lines in the sand, they've all been crossed, and no nukes. If incursion into Russian territory and threatening the city necessary for the Russian prosecution of the war hasn't drawn them, what would?

The "probably" part above comes from why the Russians haven't launched. Is it because they're unwilling? Or because they're unable? We don't know.

Regardless, the lack of action from the Russians, both in terms of moving manpower into the Kursk region and in terms of not launching nuclear weapons has encouraged the western European leaders.

IMO, he's unwilling to.
I think that's reflective there has been NO response by Putin. Not even bombing the area with conventional weapons.

If the reports are true that the Russian troops in the area are children of the well connected in Moscow, he's stuck.

If Putin starts bombing the area indiscriminately and killing some of those of those troops, Putin may find himself "next to an open window".

Whether that window is physical or political remains to be seen.

I would not be surprised if Russia is suddenly all in on more prisoner swaps.
If so, Ukraine would be stupid to let those troops go.

 

[jthomas666]

While I've no doubt that a substantial portion of Russia's nuclear arsenal is non-functional, it stretches credulity to think that ALL of them are.

More like Putin knows that all hell breaks loose if he goes there, and Russia is not in a position to defend itself.

 

[Tidewater]

N. B. Forrest said, "Hit'em where they ain't."
That is what Ukraine has done. Strategically, they are probably trying two things. Threaten sectors inside Russia to force the Kremlin to pull troops out of Ukraine to shore up defenses inside Russia.
Second, gaining Russian land which they may use as a bargaining chip in peace talks. “You give us back our land inside Ukraine, and we will give you back land inside Russia we hold.”

 

[Tidewater]

IMO, he's unwilling to.
I think that's reflective there has been NO response by Putin. Not even bombing the area with conventional weapons.

If the reports are true that the Russian troops in the area are children of the well connected in Moscow, he's stuck.

If Putin starts bombing the area indiscriminately and killing some of those of those troops, Putin may find himself "next to an open window".

Whether that window is physical or political remains to be seen.

Stalin murdered ten million or so of his countrymen.
Stalin died in his dacha.
Putin is a veteran of the KGB.

 

[NationalTitles18]

 

[4Q Basket Case]

Interesting article from The Telegraph by way of MSN:

The fall of Vladimir Putin is now only a matter of time (msn.com)

I'm not sure I agree with the author. We keep hearing that Putin is done for, but he keeps hanging on, still has way more men and materiel than the Ukrainians, but mis-management and theft have kept them from exploiting those advantages.

As someone on the board pointed out some time ago, Russian military is hard but brittle. As in, it's really tough to break. But when it does break, it shatters. We'll have to wait to see how long that takes.

For reasons I don't understand, the Russian people will tolerate several boatloads of abuse from their own government before hitting back. We're hearing snippets here and there about the beginnings of popular pushback. But we've heard that in the past and I don't see that they're anywhere near the point that Putin can't use force to shut them up.

The author makes an interesting point that it might be a mistake to fixate on the front lines, citing the end of WW1 as an example. He says that, as of the Armistice, Germany still held most of Belgium, a bit of France, most of Poland and the Baltic States, and really hadn't been beaten back all that much. But they had run out of money, the German people's support of the war had crumbled under economic damage, and the army had begun to mutiny under massive casualties fighting a war that they no longer believed they could win.

There might be some parallels, but I don't see where the Russians are approaching that limit.

 

[Tidewater]

At 5:22, she mentions that the US refused to allow Ukrainian forces to kill Putin using American weapons.
She said "the Pentagon" declined, but that is a decision made at Dept. of State.
I am not sure why DoS is so pro-Russian or why the President does not tell them that the removal of Putin would be a very beneficial thing for American interests in eastern Europe. Executive order 12333 (issued by Reagan): “Prohibition on Assassination. No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” Section 2.12 of the order prohibits indirect participation in activities prohibited by the order, stating: “Indirect participation. No agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order.” E.O. 12333 is still in force.

That said, this is not the US government killing Putin. This is the Ukrainian government killing Putin using US-provided weapons. There would likely be residue that would implicate the US and, even if the CIA were completely uninvolved, the Russians would say it was the CIA anyway.

Still, if Putin were to leave this planet, it would be good for all involved, but I guess it needs to be a Russian finger on the trigger when the time comes.

 

[Tidewater]

Interesting article from The Telegraph by way of MSN:

The fall of Vladimir Putin is now only a matter of time (msn.com)

I'm not sure I agree with the author. We keep hearing that Putin is done for, but he keeps hanging on, still has way more men and materiel than the Ukrainians, but mis-management and theft have kept them from exploiting those advantages.

As someone on the board pointed out some time ago, Russian military is hard but brittle. As in, it's really tough to break. But when it does break, it shatters. We'll have to wait to see how long that takes.

For reasons I don't understand, the Russian people will tolerate several boatloads of abuse from their own government before hitting back. We're hearing snippets here and there about the beginnings of popular pushback. But we've heard that in the past and I don't see that they're anywhere near the point that Putin can't use force to shut them up.

The author makes an interesting point that it might be a mistake to fixate on the front lines, citing the end of WW1 as an example. He says that, as of the Armistice, Germany still held most of Belgium, a bit of France, most of Poland and the Baltic States, and really hadn't been beaten back all that much. But they had run out of money, the German people's support of the war had crumbled under economic damage, and the army had begun to mutiny under massive casualties fighting a war that they no longer believed they could win.

There might be some parallels, but I don't see where the Russians are approaching that limit.

The Soviets and Germans signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk on 3 March 1918, a few months after the Bolshevik coup d'etat in Petrograd but eight months before the armistice in the west.
The Treaty ceded territory to Germany (basically Poland and Lithuania and a hunk of Latvia).

The treaty also gave Germany and Austria-Hungary an "occupation zone" in the Baltic States (the rest of Latvia and Estonia) and Ukraine. Note that the solid line is for German occupation and the dashed line for Austria-Hungary).

If Germany had won the war in the west, they probably would have kept a lot of the territory in the east.
This was a bad deal for Russia but the Bolsheviks signed it because the world workers' revolution was about to happen and they would get that territory back for nothing soon anyway (or for the most theoretical, countries would not mean anything soon so who cares what we "give up" as long as we get peace.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

A new Zeihan video on recent developments in the Ukraine war. This one is about 6:30 long and doesn't have any non-TF words. So here's the link:

A New War in Ukraine || Peter Zeihan (youtube.com)

Summary: A lot of things are going Ukraine's way. In particular, (1) they're doing a really good job of impeding / stopping Russia's ability to supply fuel and ammo, and (2) they're inflicting horrendous casualties while taking only heavy ones.

But there are a couple of things that aren't going Ukraine's way. Particularly, the Russians are throwing everything they have at capturing a city into which 7 rail lines converge. Zeihan says that if the Ukrainians lose it, they can still resupply their forces, but it'd be a much more complicated process and would impede concentration of forces for a focused response.

And the Ukrainians are having trouble scraping together the manpower to fully exploit the opportunities they have created for themselves. So I'm not sure that taking heavy casualties in order to inflict horrendous ones is a sustainable trade for Ukraine.

IOW, suppose casualties are 5 or 6 to 1 ** in Ukraine's favor. But if they need 8 or 10 to 1** to make it sustainable, it's not enough.

So we'll see how the next couple of weeks turn out.

** Note: I made up these numbers only for purposes of illustrating the problem. Zeihan doesn't make a guess as to the true ratios and I have no idea.

 

[Tidewater]

Amateurs study tactics, professional study logistics. This is a case in point.
I had never heard of Proletarsk, so I looked it up.

In other words, it is way inside Russian territory. Good on the Ukrainians for attacking it. I suspect they have long-range drones or, more likely, they have special ops or intelligence service guys nearby with short-range drones or other portable weapons to get these tanks a-burning.

As for Pokrovsk, it is northwest of Donetsk. Lose that and Ukraine has a much more difficult task, but Russia does not necessarily need to take it to make the Ukrainians' task more difficult. If they get close enough to reliably hit the rail lines with artillery, then it is almost as good.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

Looks like the Ukrainians have developed an in-house version of the Tomahawk missile:

Ukraine discloses details of secret Palyanytsya missile (defence-blog.com)

Zelensky presents every Russian soldier's worst nightmare (msn.com)

Details regarding warhead size and effective range are classified and therefore not mentioned.

Still, looks like the Ukrainians are unusually clever and resourceful.

 

[crimsonaudio]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1827415450399228285

 

[crimsonaudio]

I get that desperation drives innovation, but I also wonder how much help Ukraine is getting from the likes of the DoD/CIA, shortening the developmental period for these weapons.

 

[AWRTR]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1827415450399228285

Great video. I hope it's super effective for them. I've been following what's happening pretty closely since they invaded Russian territory. I don't know how they drive the Ukraine out without pulling out of territory they hold inside of Ukraine. This is a wild war. Russia is being crippled by this war over the long term. They can replace hardware, but the soldiers they are losing are irreplaceable when you look at their demographics. They are in a bad place demographically, and this war is speeding up that process.

According to Zeihan they have lost the ability to resupply Crimea effectively. The bridges are blown and they have lost supply ships as well.

 

[Tidewater]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1827415450399228285

Those dumb Ukrainians. The landing gear fell off when it took flight. How's that thing going to land?

 

[Go Bama]

They can replace hardware, but the soldiers they are losing are irreplaceable when you look at their demographics

I’m not disputing what you are saying because I have read the same thing in other places. According to what I can dig up, the Russians have lost 580,000 soldiers. That’s significantly more than the US lost in all wars since WWI.

Still, Russia has a population of 147,000,000, so roughly 73.5 million men. I have a hard time understanding why people think they are running out of recruits.

United States: war fatalities1775-2024| Statista

The American Civil War is the conflict with the largest number of American military fatalities in history.

www.statista.com