They probably have their own version of this research based on a series of 20 extensive interviews with combat-experienced Russian commanders and soldiers...
And because these commanders and soldiers don't want to end up in a Siberian prison or worse, they report everything is going according to plan, there are no losses in the russian army, russian weapons have no analogs anywhere in the world and Kiev will soon be taken.
> The report is based on open-source intelligence information and a series of 20 extensive interviews with combat-experienced Ukrainian commanders and soldiers.
> This report pursues two simple questions throughout ten dimensions: What are the Ukrainians doing particularly well? And what can we in NATO, the EU, and beyond learn from them?
Interesting research although it seems a little subjective.
I learned in my high school English lessons that evidently is kind of a false friend and that I should use 'obviously' rather than something that mean 'according to evidence'. It was Oxford's English though, so the meaning in real life might have changed now.
My point is that there is a plethora of alternatives which would be more concise in conveying whatever the authors had in mind. "Evidently" is a weasel word in this case, and it's just leaving us readers to speculate and argue.
"Evidently" is used in the executive summary. If we need to read the report to disambiguate the executive summary, then that's just a shitty executive summary.
Delusional research. Why not 20 similar interviews of French Foreign Regions? There are many Russians, Americans and French there that joined Wagner. Also, Russia has this at SMO level, meanwhile Americans had it at war level with Afghanistan, Vietnam and Iraq. All 3 concluded with American defeats especially humiliating with the recent Kabul flee. It is best the research higlights why this war shouldnt happen in the first place and analysed Minsk 1 and 2 failures by West (especially French and Germans to adhere to). Also, China is entering this war with military support (sending drones, equipments and mercs). Ukrainians will prevail...like Libya where many of its people suffering and participate in fresh trades. I dont think this is what we want how Ukrainian prevail.
I found the article to read like pro-Ukraine propaganda.
The only "seed of doubt" they throw in is that to win territory, Ukraine will have to pivot from small-unit warfare to brigade-level operations, and they will find that pivot difficult. It will require not just lots of armour and ammunition, but a big change in training and command. I think the authors may have understated that problem.
I also thought the authors might be in danger ot urging NATO commanders to "fight the last war", i.e. the Ukraine war. The Ukrainian doctrine might be applicable in the defence of e.g. Baltic states; but Ukrainian terrain and conditions are rather particular.
The observation that NATO should drastically accellerate the development cycle for weapons systems, build less huge, expensive weapons and lots of cheap, simple disposable weapons is bang on. NATO's weapons systems aren't designed for use by a mobilized population; they're designed to enrich big arms companies. By contrast, Ukrainians are building weapons from off-the-shelf drones and homemade grenade release mechanisms.
> but Ukrainian terrain and conditions are rather particular.
Wide open spaces and cold weather aren't unique to Ukraine, and their impact on large offensives was well documented going back to Napoleon. The WW2 Germans wrote extensively about the challenges there.
> NATO's weapons systems aren't designed for use by a mobilized population; they're designed to enrich big arms companies
Who do you think will be manufacturing these cheap, simple, disposable weapons? This means instead of shipping expensive systems now contactors go for bulk sales.
NATO systems are complex but highly effective at fighting large, combined arms wars. Mobilizing population means you're desperate.
> By contrast, Ukrainians are building weapons from off-the-shelf drones and homemade grenade release mechanisms.
Artillery and high-end spotting drones, not crappy DFI quadcopters and grenades', are still the #1 killer by a long shot. HIMARS -- long range missiles -- were a serious game changer. Shit-tier drones aren't going to with the war; ACATMS and Excalibur shells might.
I hope Ukraine can beat Russia and liberate it's territory in 2014 borders, but it's far from a done deal. Currently Russia produces more ammo than all NATO countries combined. Ukraine allies need to open new assembly lines for ammo production, as a successful attack on the pretty well prepared Russian defences will take a ton of artillery shells.
Looks like Russia mobilized over half a million soldiers so far (while officially stating 300K). Their military factories are working on 3 shifts 24/7. When they produce enough equipment and weapons no doubt they'll do a new wave of mobilization. Long term Russia can mobilize more soldiers than Ukraine, so NATO has to compensate by supplying Ukraine with big amount of artillery, tanks, fuel, equipment and most importantly ammo.
i think terms like troops, army, etc. have potential to be 'newspeak'. in every case we are talking about citizens. and whats most worrying if things get really hot ... reservists then conscription. just ask russians and ukranians ... or vietnam vets. personally im very worried about the prospect of world war but media seems to be fueling this hero brave pro-war attitude and people seem to be buying it! putin must be punished for his crimes, but do not pretend that us and nato are any better
> media seems to be fueling this hero brave pro-war attitude
I don't think any serious media is pro-war, it's more like we have two choices: (1) either send weapons, or (2) watch Ukrainians die and become slaves of Putin. This is a tough moral choice because either involves killing, but we don't have the luxury of having more choices. If we don't do anything, Ukrainians will suffer. If we ask Urkainians to surrender, they won't even listen because they know how cruel their fate will be.
ofc you can call army troops citizens as well. But then going back to your question if they're prepared for it, well I hope so because that's the army's job to be prepared.
But I don't think you original question whether citizens are prepared was aiming only at "army citizens" but regular citizens. And for this I don't see why would regular citizens be conscripted. Currently Ukraine is able to hold russia with limited resources from the west. We have actually the opposite problem if NATO would have a full scale war with russia NATO would win too fast which is problem because it would be an existential crisis for russia and they'd have to use nuclear weapons. So no, regular citizens of NATO countries will very unlikely be conscripted for war with russia as NATO is slowly winning without a single soldier in battle.
no I don't. And I was trying to explain why I don't think so as it would escalate the conflict possibly to a nuclear one as NATO entering Ukraine would cause russia to lose very quickly
see the problem i have with this is the constant pushing of boundaries. first it was small defensive weapons. then small offensive weapons. then large defensive weapons. then large offensive weapons. now its fighter jets. whats next?
at the same time a narative is being developed in all the major media that the freedom of europe and west depends on ukranian victory. if thats the case, whats the next logical conclusion if ukraine actually begins to lose the war? to me this smells of preparation of the general population for a (much) larger war
Constant pushing of boundaries is exactly what the Russians do: first they annex Crimea (no or very limited response from the West), then they separate Donbas (no response from the West), then they finally attack Ukraine proper. Should the West have watched this with arms folded in your opinion?
We are very far from average Joe being sent to the Russian front. Partly because there is a professional army that will be involved before that, but more likely it will not, in order to avoid nuclear conflict. I think you should worry more about that than the general population being sent to Ukraine.
I disagree because russia showed it's very weak militarily. So weak that it caught by surprise everyone. Again we have the opposite problem and that's for Ukraine not winning too fast and that's why NATO is suppling weapons very carefully and slowly. You said that we're pushing boundaries but I see it as pushing boundaries centimeter by centimeter while being miles away from what you call a larger war. So in conclusion there won't be much larger war simply because there is no larger enemy.
We wanted to send help from day one but we were afraid because Putin in its famous speech when announcing the war threatened using nuclear bombs against any country that would help Ukraine. So we had to start small.
The alternative is that we are afraid, we do nothing, and once Putin finishes off with Ukraine, he is ready to invade the ex-Eastern bloc countries, and then go further West. Because if everybody is afraid, who is going to stop him?
Getting some really strong OSINT probe vibes here.
But yes, it's possible that NATO forces could enter the fight. There are already large quantities of NATO troops in Poland, Estonia, etc. Entire US, British, French, etc. brigades on standby.
This isn't new -- we've played these games for damn near 50 years of Cold War. Most of the leaders of NATO, to include Putin and Biden, were Cold Warriors and grew up during that era. They know the game and what's at stake.
But that means lots of staredowns, not necessarily a lot of fighting. Ukraine isn't NATO -- hell, 50 years ago UKR was USSR, and would have been shooting at NATO forces -- and if they need to be sacrificed to collapse the Russian government then so be it. Welcome to Realpolitik.
To that end NATO will prop them up as much as needed to continue grinding down Russian military and economic forces. I believe they will let UKR collapse and be taken over instead of sending troops; only if NATO forces are attacked directly, or maybe if nukes are involved, will NATO do anything more than it is now. Furthermore, it's possible that Ukraine actually wins -- they appear to be absorbing, at high cost mind you, the renewed Russian offensive, and may soon be able to hit back with their own...
You should study pre-WW2 history, what happened when Hitler anschlussed Austria, Czechia, then invaded Poland and then turned west. Meanwhile the allied powers tried to close their eyes and were thinking that if they leave Hitler be there will be peace. It cost the world 6 years and a few million dead people to prove this idea wrong.
And if you think that the western world is not any better than Putin, well, I wish you a very happy life somewhere in Russia...
> you would send me to russia for having a different opinion?
No, you totally misread that. I did not want to send you anywhere.
I just wish people put their money where their mouth is. If you are living in a developed country it's easy to romanticize a communist dictatorship (or not communist anymore - who cares), where writing your opinion in a public forum would actually get you in real trouble (as in prison, or worse), as opposed to another forum user writing a critical response to your message.
> if you study history of rise of fascism it all began with supression of differeing opinions
Am I suppresssing you now? Or to take one step further, are you calling me a nazi, just because I don't agree with you and I dare to reply? Wow.
> first they came for the jews, but i was not jewish. then they came for the communists, but i was not a communist ... then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me
And what does this quote have to do with anything in this thread?
my money is litteraly where my mouth is. where i also pay my taxes. you on the other hand told me my place is in russia. no its not. its in my homeland which i love. and no i dont see a contradiction between pointing out the hypocricy of my government and wanting to live where i live. on the contrary i voice my opinions because i belive that the people who live where i live deserve better. and i do for the reccord believe that the involvement of my government in the wars led by the US for the past three decades were a crime. it is because of these crimes that we have fed the likes of people like putin to become popular
> you on the other hand told me my place is in russia.
For the last time, I did not. You wrote:
> do not pretend that us and nato are any better
To which my reply was that if you really think so, then you have no idea what you are talking about, and maybe it would help your understanding if you tried the Russian way of things. Figuratively, not literally.
Neither do Ukrainians. But they don't have much of a choice really.
> Already too many people died on both sides.
And who started that?
> This is not my war and I don’t want to get involved in any way.
> I’m 40 years old and I want to care for my family (daughter & girlfriend).
Yeah, as do Ukrainians, but they can't because someone wants to kill them just because they didn't like the idea of no longer being Ukrainians.
> It’s a shame the Western world and Ukraine deceived Russia with the Minsk accords.
Ukrainians wanted to be working more closely with the west. Would you like to be relocated to Russia, or going to prison and your daughter going to orphanage if you didn't want to be Russian [0]?
Russia wasn't compelled. It was Putin who felt it was his time to become "Putin the Great" and to "solve the Ukrainian issue"[0] by invading a sovereign country.
Can anything be done? I don't think we can do much except supplying weapons. Putin can not admit defeat, that's unthinkable for him. So he will send many young and old men to die, until the political situation changes, but I don't believe it can happen anytime soon.
I feel it's likely the Ukraine will be disillusioned if NATO is able to librate them.
Because from my understanding, the USA only has granted loans to Ukraine (though EU might have gifted some weapons). If NATO wins the war, it's likely the USA wants payback for the loans. And the most obvious way is to "colonise" this resource-rich [0] country with Western companies to extract the resources for cheap and send to the west.
For post-Communist countries the alternative is quasi-colonization by Russia, France-Germany, or America. That's the only choice the country is truly free to make. It's better to use American weapons, than to be targeted by Russian weapons. French-German weapons are too capricious.
“There is an axiomatic policy — don’t poke the bear — that’s been around for decades,” said Cliff Kupchan, chairman of the Eurasia Group, a political risk assessment firm in Washington. “The Ukrainians are turning that policy on its head. And the bear has proven remarkably pokable.”
If you want to win Westerners over, don't try to shut down any discussion using the most primitive methods.
> All the Western politicians that are pushing for war
Your comment has many factual mistakes, but this is by far the best - you write this as if the NATO attacked Russia, and not the other way around... did you notice that Russia is not only "pushing" the war, but actually attacking another country, not the other way around? That Russians soldiers are in Ukraine, not Ukrainian soldiers in Russia?
> I do feel Russia has had a very valid argument regarding the NATO threat
This is exactly what the Russian propaganda states - they are somehow OK to attack because they feel threatened. I don't remember any occasion after WW2 when Russia was attacked on its home land... especially not by NATO.
Maybe next time they attack your country we can just let them have it, after all, they might be threatened by you and you don't want to get involved in any way, anyway...
> too many people died on both sides
Yes, let's not forget the massacres in Bucha and the other war crimes Russia has committed. What do you propose we do with that? Just close your eyes, since it was not you or your family that they killed, and you don't want to get involved anyway?
Make no mistake, the US would roll the Mexican army if China start setting up shop there. In fact, JFK just about nuked the Soviet Union over a similar situation in the Caribbean.
> And I do feel Russia has had a very valid argument regarding the NATO threat
Do I also have a valid reason to barge into your home, rape and slaughter you, your girlfriend and daughter, steal and ruin your furniture if I believe that you pose imaginary threat to me?
> It’s a shame the Western world and Ukraine deceived Russia with the Minsk accords, as Germany recently admitted [0]. We didn’t have to be in this situation.
You mean how Western world and Russia deceived Ukraine with Budapest memorandum?
Had they kept nuclear weapons, Russia would stay put or risk having European part of Russia transformed into nuclear wasteland.
> I’m totally from the Netherlands
> NATO, US poke the bear
> I don’t want to fight *this* war
> Think of children
> US sabotaging pipeline
> Germany is a lapdog
> Phony Minsk accords
All in all, weak try, Ivan, here are your 15 rubles.
As a guy born in the Netherlands, you have incredibly poor understanding of the European security and geopolitics. Let me answer point to point:
> I don’t want this war to continue.
Nobody wants, but it's Russia who started it. Russia started a genocidal war of conquest against another peaceful and sovereign country. If Russia stops fighting it, then the war will end. If Ukraine will stop fighting it, then Ukraine will cease to exist as an independent nation.
> And I do feel Russia has had a very valid argument regarding the NATO threat and USA has been aware of this for a long time, still they decided to poke the bear.
Why do you disregard the threat from Russia to Poland, Baltics and Finland, and other eastern flank countries? These countries joined NATO for a reason. They were not asked to join, they were not compelled to join. They joined because they are much smaller and live next to a heavily armed and unstable Russian dictatorship. It is incredible how Russian propaganda tries to paint a nuclear-armed and heavily militarized country as a victim.
> USA sabotaged the Russian-German pipeline
Conspiracy theory with no evidence.
> Germany has proven to be a lap dog of US interests
Huh?
> It’s a shame the Western world and Ukraine deceived Russia with the Minsk accords
It is a shame there are a lot apologetics of the Russian fascism. Unfortunately, there were a lot of callers for peace with the "we don't want war" slogans when Nazis were taking over Europe during the World War II. Some even greeted them with flowers, despite all the artocities, including in your country. Well.. history doesn't repeat itself but it certainly rhymes.
> And I do feel Russia has had a very valid argument regarding the NATO threat and USA has been aware of this for a long time, still they decided to poke the bear.
There's a good talk from Mike McFaul at Stanford [1] who outlines how Russia under Putin for the longest time was interested in joining NATO. Putin saw NATO as an opportunity, not a threat. NATO is a scapegoat - what Putin really seems to be afraid of is the fall of dictatorships and the rise of democracies around him, and he thinks the US is behind it. So he is anti-US, but the whole anti-NATO thing is a false narrative - Putin is anti-democracy. The talk explains it very well.
> USA sabotaged the Russian-German pipeline and all Western mass media acts like nothing has happened.
Why would the US do that? I don't see the motivation. The current narrative, that it was a faction of the Ukraine, seems the most plausible to me. Russia had no incentive to blow it up either.
> All the Western politicians that are pushing for war will not be on the frontlines themselves and most likely neither will their children.
True. But then again, right now we're in a situation where most politicians are actually rather conservative about the war. Just think about how long it took for heavy artillery and tanks to be shipped to Ukraine. Even now that the US and Germany are sending tanks, very few European nations are following suit - not even some that previously touted loudly that they were ready to send them, and that only Germany was holding them back.
Both Europe and the US are acting rather carefully, for better or worse. The West is definitely not in the business of warmongering.
> It’s a shame the Western world and Ukraine deceived Russia with the Minsk accords, as Germany recently admitted [0]. We didn’t have to be in this situation.
Unfortunately it's paywalled, but I did sign up (their 1€ trial offer was cheap enough, and I'm German, so easy for me to read). I don't think the WSWS article you linked to cites fairly. While the citation is accurate, it jumps over one main fact:
At the time when the Minsk agreement was made, Russia had illegally de-facto annexed parts of Ukraine. Everyone knew it, even though Russia called it "separatists". Putin didn't have the guts to start an all-out war back then, that took a few more years, but the fact that the majority of these separatists were Russian soldiers was widely reported back then already. Given that Russia had started destabilising Ukraine and annexing parts of it, Merkel's comment of buying the Ukraine time to prepare for more aggressive action from Russia is perfectly reasonable, and in hindsight also the correct political action.
Russia wasn't deceived with the Minsk accords. Russia was already the aggressor back then. We wouldn't have this war if Russia wasn't invading its neighbour.
> The current narrative, that it was a faction of the Ukraine, seems the most plausible to me. Russia had no incentive to blow it up either.
But why would a Ukrainian faction not publicly claim the biggest successful sabotage act against Russian infrastructure? Ukrainian side had no qualms about claiming the Crimea bridge sabotage, or drone strikes deep in Russian territory.
> Even worse: USA sabotaged the Russian-German pipeline and all Western mass media acts like nothing has happened. Germany has proven to be a lap dog of US interests by staying silent on the matter.
Interestingly, the story is still unfolding on this one, going through:
* "it's obviously the Russian, stupid",
* "wait, no, it's not obviously the Russian, we don't have any proof"
* "thinking about it, it's probably not the Russian, let us investigate"
* "Russian propaganda claims it's the USA, but no-one really believe them anymore, because 'previous year'"
* "previously famous journalist claims it's the USA on his blog, but hardly anyones believe him, because 'anonymous source quoted on a blog'"
* "US intelligence claims it was Ukraine based on undisclosed sources". [1]
For some reason, "the evil western media" does not seem to have too much trouble accusing Ukraine of sabotages - but we're still playing the "whose undisclosed source do we believe ?" game.
Don't insult your intelligence (pun intended) pretending you know better than anyone.
We'll wait and see and humbly acknowledge that this one will probably remain in shadow for a while.
However, I suspect the "It's obviously the CIA, stupid" narrative will go on forever. It's just too catchy. "On ne prête qu'aux riches".
Oh, it's no rocket science that the USA have been against the pipeline for a while, that they have been pressuring Germany to reduce dependency on Russia for strategic reason, and that they have a vested interest in the pipeline going away (since they are themselves selling gas to replace it.)
Which just makes them _one_ of the many parties that have an intereset in blowing up the pipeline. Again, it's really tempting to jump to this conclusion, not at all unreasonnable or unrealistic, it's just that there _are_ alternatives, and we're still in the mist about that.
It's not rocket science, it's much worse: it's geopolitics. At least in rocket science, you have launches as a "moment of truth" (rocket up / rocket not up.) We love it in HN because it's both very hard to do and very simple to interpret.
Politics ? The exact opposite. Very simple to lie / deceit / build narrative, hardly impossible to get a clear answer on anything - you can always add a "rail in the pool" and build a "credible" alternative narrative.
(My personnal "favorite guess", which is really nothing than that, would be that Ukraine would have done it with some light support (trainging ? intelligence ?) from the USA, while Germany was just "looking the other way". This would provide a "win" for Ukraine, "plausible deniability" for the USA, and "one negoctiation chip less" for Russia to put pressure on Germany - sometimes, constraints are liberating. Pure speculation. No data. I won't feel bad if it ends up being wrong. Would feel better if the war could just stop tomorrow.)
I suppose the closest thing we have to an "arbitrer of truth" will be the Nordics-based investigation ? Sweden is not in NATO yet, Norway and Denmark do not seem particularly hawkish (but I could be wrong), yet they don't have friendly ties to Russia, it's weird stuff happening "close to home"... who knows ?
Knowing this is not exactly in my circle of control. I'm more interested in how we're going to make EU neither "Russian-gas dependant", nor "US-gas dependant", nor "Middle-East-gas dependant".
You speak just like my Russian friends. It seems they are convinced that the war was started by the West, that Russia has to protect itself against the attack and so on. It simply makes no any sense.
The production question is a little more subtle than that. Russia has been running down it's huge stocks of Soviet era artillery ammo and it's not producing enough to replace it. Plus it's not all in great condition as some of it is very old. So far Ukraine has been able to be far far more efficient than Russia, which has just been using a bombardment philosophy. Note that it's not just ammo but also barrels as they also get used up and need replacing. Russia can no longer maintain the kind of bombardment it was doing last summer. And they have nearly no capacity to replace the sophisticated guided missiles they've used up, whereas those are available to NATO, and we've seen those be a lot more effective than the dumb artillery.
NATO has large stocks of 155mm shells. But they can also buy them because it's become a standard outside of the non Russian influence world. South Korea has a huge production and stock that is under negotiation.
Numbers around mobilization are really iffy. I watched an opposition Russian politician yesterday saying no more than 200,000 had been drafted, so your number is the opposite direction to his. I bet even the Kremlin doesn't know the true number due to the way the regions were instructed to draft.
RF also has virtually no modern logistics for ammo storage or transport. They have no forklifts and few cranes. Most ordnance is moved via rail and then by hand (!). They can't seem to pour a flat enough concrete pad for forklifts to run atop.
Even if they had all that, they are outranged by NATO missiles, so all ammo dumps have to be very far away from the front (90+ km). Munitions and supplies must be moved in small and uneven batches on poor roads and with overworked crews and equipment over multiple days.
UA forces share some of these issues, but not as badly.
> RF also has virtually no modern logistics for ammo storage or transport. They have no forklifts and few cranes. Most ordnance is moved via rail and then by hand (!). They can't seem to pour a flat enough concrete pad for forklifts to run atop.
Do you have a source for that. The last part (especially) is pretty unbelievable. I would assume that the techniques for pouring flat concrete isn't new, and even if they didn't have it, they could just make forklifts with bigger wheels or something. For instance, here's a US military forklift driving on gravel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forklift#Counterbalanced_forkl....
I do understand the Russians are much more focused on rail for military transport compared to the US, which then let them make design choices that have made it hard to switch to truck transport.
> I'm unsure of what source would be appropriate here. I can't point you to a lack of a thing, by definition.
1. You can point to a source with some authority talking about the lack of a thing. Which shouldn't be too hard, since, unless you're ex-Russian Army logistics, you must have learned those claims from somewhere.
2. You can point to a source talking talking about Russian Army logistics, that shows them "moving things by hand" when forklifts would be more appropriate.
3. You can point to a source talking about how all forklifts require really flat concrete, and not all countries can make it because [reasons]. However, you probably can't do that because that would contradict the example I gave of a forklift operating on gravel.
Woah. Ok dude, I'll try to help you out here, but be advised that I am not a super duper expert on these things. Just a rando on HN.
Most of my evidence here is fueled by what I've been seeing and hearing via the internet, so take it with a grain of salt. I'm, thankfully, not in theater. That said, these sources do seem to be 'experts' of some sort or another behind their own fog of war:
War on the Rocks, podcast and online
Foreign Policy Magazine, online edition
Washington Post, print and online
New York Times, print and online
Philips P O'Brien, publications and twitter
Trent Telenko, interviews and podcasts and twitter
ChrisO_wiki, twitter
Go ahead and look in the older work if you're curious to find more out about the logistical mountain that RF is facing. The concrete thing, though a bit curious, does seem to bear out in photos of their ammo dumps and RF's inability to cure a pad before rebar is stolen (WaPo, NYT, and ChrisO_wiki are good on this issue). Gravel isn't going to work for such repeated use in wet conditions. To move those loads you'd need very large tires to distribute the weight, something like a JCB. Something that RF also seems to be without. Like, they really do seem to be that corrupt and incompetent.
A half dozen general references to things like the New York Times don't count as a source for the claim, since it's totally impractical for someone to track down where you got your information and read more.
> The concrete thing, though a bit curious, does seem to bear out in photos of their ammo dumps and RF's inability to cure a pad before rebar is stolen (WaPo, NYT, and ChrisO_wiki are good on this issue).
However, the reasoning you give here makes the claim more credible, since it makes clear the problem is corruption not technology.
"Weapons investigators in Kyiv found that at least one Russian Kh-101 cruise missile used in widespread attacks there on Nov. 23 had been made no earlier than October."
> ...whereas those are available to NATO, and we've seen those be a lot more effective than the dumb artillery.
They are, but I'm under the impression that NATO/the US would also quickly use up their cruise missile stockpiles in the event of a hot war.
> NATO has large stocks of 155mm shells. But they can also buy them because it's become a standard outside of the non Russian influence world. South Korea has a huge production and stock that is under negotiation.
South Korea isn't allowing any of their equipment or ammunition to be exported to Ukraine. The best that enables is for Western countries to play musical chairs and give Ukraine a greater share of their stockpiles/production from other sources.
Russia will most likely mobilize and throw about 500k of soldiers at the war. This has been done before by Russia in previous wars. We will probably see the fruits of support and resources by the end of this summer. I’m hoping.. praying that the Ukrainians are able to fight off this zombie invasion
I've been following daily updates about Ukraine war from few popular channels that I can highly recommend. For those interested:
- Denys Davydov (Ukrainian, most frequent updates, also has telegram channel which has a lot more battleground details than what youtube allows to show)
- Jake Broe (US army veteran mostly providing American perspective)
- Arthur Rehi (Estonian providing decent summaries)
But popular support is. If you had no support from population, you would have harder time with waging war or defending. When your opponent has better propaganda and is able to spread it in your population, your population is slowing you down. We currently have better quality propaganda, and can spread it easily thanks to the internet. Russians can spread their propaganda but have worse quality, so they don't have support in west. We can't spread our propaganda easily in Russia, so Russians believe in their side. Those Russians who saw both sides mostly left Russia.
And you're seriously oversimplifying the situation, lacking in depth knowledge on the topic. Following the news, given the often precarious state of journalism, is not enough to have a "contrarian" (actually mainstream) opinion.
The fact is that the example of Afghanistan clearly shows what a puppet state is like, and what happens if it is left without a supporting army. There were US soldiers backing the afghan government, yet when they left (actually, even _before_ they left) the whole country collapsed.
There are no US or other NATO soldiers in Ukraine (apart from privateers). They get material support, but nobody else is fighting for them. Yet they repelled the initial, vastly overpowering Russian attack, and they have been able to hold their lines for the past year pretty well.
The EU or the US is not fighting a war against Russia in a classical sense. If they were you would notice, because we are talking about nuclear powers. It would most probably be a rather short war.
Ukraine had a few aircraft, but they stand zero chance against the VVS and their long range air-to-air missiles. Nor do they have any real counter (SEAD) to Russian ground-based anti-air systems.
This works both ways, though, as Ukrainian AA is also very effective.
96 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 220 ms ] thread> Evidently, Ukraine will prevail.
> The report is based on open-source intelligence information and a series of 20 extensive interviews with combat-experienced Ukrainian commanders and soldiers.
> This report pursues two simple questions throughout ten dimensions: What are the Ukrainians doing particularly well? And what can we in NATO, the EU, and beyond learn from them?
Interesting research although it seems a little subjective.
Also, if you need to write "evidently", then it's probably not that evident.
1 in an evident manner : clearly, obviously
2 on the basis of available evidence
(It can be used ironically for whatever that word means, but, ironically every word can be)
(From Merriam-Webster)
The only "seed of doubt" they throw in is that to win territory, Ukraine will have to pivot from small-unit warfare to brigade-level operations, and they will find that pivot difficult. It will require not just lots of armour and ammunition, but a big change in training and command. I think the authors may have understated that problem.
I also thought the authors might be in danger ot urging NATO commanders to "fight the last war", i.e. the Ukraine war. The Ukrainian doctrine might be applicable in the defence of e.g. Baltic states; but Ukrainian terrain and conditions are rather particular.
The observation that NATO should drastically accellerate the development cycle for weapons systems, build less huge, expensive weapons and lots of cheap, simple disposable weapons is bang on. NATO's weapons systems aren't designed for use by a mobilized population; they're designed to enrich big arms companies. By contrast, Ukrainians are building weapons from off-the-shelf drones and homemade grenade release mechanisms.
Wide open spaces and cold weather aren't unique to Ukraine, and their impact on large offensives was well documented going back to Napoleon. The WW2 Germans wrote extensively about the challenges there.
> NATO's weapons systems aren't designed for use by a mobilized population; they're designed to enrich big arms companies
Who do you think will be manufacturing these cheap, simple, disposable weapons? This means instead of shipping expensive systems now contactors go for bulk sales.
NATO systems are complex but highly effective at fighting large, combined arms wars. Mobilizing population means you're desperate.
> By contrast, Ukrainians are building weapons from off-the-shelf drones and homemade grenade release mechanisms.
Artillery and high-end spotting drones, not crappy DFI quadcopters and grenades', are still the #1 killer by a long shot. HIMARS -- long range missiles -- were a serious game changer. Shit-tier drones aren't going to with the war; ACATMS and Excalibur shells might.
Looks like Russia mobilized over half a million soldiers so far (while officially stating 300K). Their military factories are working on 3 shifts 24/7. When they produce enough equipment and weapons no doubt they'll do a new wave of mobilization. Long term Russia can mobilize more soldiers than Ukraine, so NATO has to compensate by supplying Ukraine with big amount of artillery, tanks, fuel, equipment and most importantly ammo.
I don't think any serious media is pro-war, it's more like we have two choices: (1) either send weapons, or (2) watch Ukrainians die and become slaves of Putin. This is a tough moral choice because either involves killing, but we don't have the luxury of having more choices. If we don't do anything, Ukrainians will suffer. If we ask Urkainians to surrender, they won't even listen because they know how cruel their fate will be.
at the same time a narative is being developed in all the major media that the freedom of europe and west depends on ukranian victory. if thats the case, whats the next logical conclusion if ukraine actually begins to lose the war? to me this smells of preparation of the general population for a (much) larger war
We are very far from average Joe being sent to the Russian front. Partly because there is a professional army that will be involved before that, but more likely it will not, in order to avoid nuclear conflict. I think you should worry more about that than the general population being sent to Ukraine.
The alternative is that we are afraid, we do nothing, and once Putin finishes off with Ukraine, he is ready to invade the ex-Eastern bloc countries, and then go further West. Because if everybody is afraid, who is going to stop him?
But yes, it's possible that NATO forces could enter the fight. There are already large quantities of NATO troops in Poland, Estonia, etc. Entire US, British, French, etc. brigades on standby.
This isn't new -- we've played these games for damn near 50 years of Cold War. Most of the leaders of NATO, to include Putin and Biden, were Cold Warriors and grew up during that era. They know the game and what's at stake.
But that means lots of staredowns, not necessarily a lot of fighting. Ukraine isn't NATO -- hell, 50 years ago UKR was USSR, and would have been shooting at NATO forces -- and if they need to be sacrificed to collapse the Russian government then so be it. Welcome to Realpolitik.
To that end NATO will prop them up as much as needed to continue grinding down Russian military and economic forces. I believe they will let UKR collapse and be taken over instead of sending troops; only if NATO forces are attacked directly, or maybe if nukes are involved, will NATO do anything more than it is now. Furthermore, it's possible that Ukraine actually wins -- they appear to be absorbing, at high cost mind you, the renewed Russian offensive, and may soon be able to hit back with their own...
And if you think that the western world is not any better than Putin, well, I wish you a very happy life somewhere in Russia...
No, you totally misread that. I did not want to send you anywhere.
I just wish people put their money where their mouth is. If you are living in a developed country it's easy to romanticize a communist dictatorship (or not communist anymore - who cares), where writing your opinion in a public forum would actually get you in real trouble (as in prison, or worse), as opposed to another forum user writing a critical response to your message.
> if you study history of rise of fascism it all began with supression of differeing opinions
Am I suppresssing you now? Or to take one step further, are you calling me a nazi, just because I don't agree with you and I dare to reply? Wow.
> first they came for the jews, but i was not jewish. then they came for the communists, but i was not a communist ... then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me
And what does this quote have to do with anything in this thread?
For the last time, I did not. You wrote:
> do not pretend that us and nato are any better
To which my reply was that if you really think so, then you have no idea what you are talking about, and maybe it would help your understanding if you tried the Russian way of things. Figuratively, not literally.
HTH, and have a nice day.
> And if you think that the western world is not any better than Putin, well, I wish you a very happy life somewhere in Russia...
you said that on the basis of me saying that western foreign policy is no better than putins. it is not. neither now and definitely not historically
Neither do Ukrainians. But they don't have much of a choice really.
> Already too many people died on both sides.
And who started that?
> This is not my war and I don’t want to get involved in any way.
> I’m 40 years old and I want to care for my family (daughter & girlfriend).
Yeah, as do Ukrainians, but they can't because someone wants to kill them just because they didn't like the idea of no longer being Ukrainians.
> It’s a shame the Western world and Ukraine deceived Russia with the Minsk accords.
Ukrainians wanted to be working more closely with the west. Would you like to be relocated to Russia, or going to prison and your daughter going to orphanage if you didn't want to be Russian [0]?
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/03/01/russia-child...
I’m not sure this question leads anywhere.
I’d like to know, what must be the case for Russia to be able to withdraw from Ukraine?
They may have started, but I’ve heard a claim that for strategic reasons, Russia was compelled to invade; compelled to continue the invasion.
Even if that’s not true, what can the EU do while Ukraine is defending so that Russia is incentivised to switch from war to commerce?
Can anything be done? I don't think we can do much except supplying weapons. Putin can not admit defeat, that's unthinkable for him. So he will send many young and old men to die, until the political situation changes, but I don't believe it can happen anytime soon.
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-60562240
> Germany has proven to be a lap dog of US interests by staying silent on the matter.
Yes this is the very pillar of NATO, the other is to keep Russia out and this pillar is shaking.
Because from my understanding, the USA only has granted loans to Ukraine (though EU might have gifted some weapons). If NATO wins the war, it's likely the USA wants payback for the loans. And the most obvious way is to "colonise" this resource-rich [0] country with Western companies to extract the resources for cheap and send to the west.
---
[0]: https://www.britannica.com/place/Ukraine/Resources-and-power
In case anyone is wondering this is line is very telling.
It's Russian propaganda -- anyone who uses it has been consuming Russian media.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/26/briefing/russia-ukraine-w...
“There is an axiomatic policy — don’t poke the bear — that’s been around for decades,” said Cliff Kupchan, chairman of the Eurasia Group, a political risk assessment firm in Washington. “The Ukrainians are turning that policy on its head. And the bear has proven remarkably pokable.”
If you want to win Westerners over, don't try to shut down any discussion using the most primitive methods.
Your comment has many factual mistakes, but this is by far the best - you write this as if the NATO attacked Russia, and not the other way around... did you notice that Russia is not only "pushing" the war, but actually attacking another country, not the other way around? That Russians soldiers are in Ukraine, not Ukrainian soldiers in Russia?
> I do feel Russia has had a very valid argument regarding the NATO threat
This is exactly what the Russian propaganda states - they are somehow OK to attack because they feel threatened. I don't remember any occasion after WW2 when Russia was attacked on its home land... especially not by NATO.
Maybe next time they attack your country we can just let them have it, after all, they might be threatened by you and you don't want to get involved in any way, anyway...
> too many people died on both sides
Yes, let's not forget the massacres in Bucha and the other war crimes Russia has committed. What do you propose we do with that? Just close your eyes, since it was not you or your family that they killed, and you don't want to get involved anyway?
Do I also have a valid reason to barge into your home, rape and slaughter you, your girlfriend and daughter, steal and ruin your furniture if I believe that you pose imaginary threat to me?
> It’s a shame the Western world and Ukraine deceived Russia with the Minsk accords, as Germany recently admitted [0]. We didn’t have to be in this situation.
You mean how Western world and Russia deceived Ukraine with Budapest memorandum? Had they kept nuclear weapons, Russia would stay put or risk having European part of Russia transformed into nuclear wasteland.
> I’m totally from the Netherlands > NATO, US poke the bear > I don’t want to fight *this* war > Think of children > US sabotaging pipeline > Germany is a lapdog > Phony Minsk accords
All in all, weak try, Ivan, here are your 15 rubles.
> I don’t want this war to continue.
Nobody wants, but it's Russia who started it. Russia started a genocidal war of conquest against another peaceful and sovereign country. If Russia stops fighting it, then the war will end. If Ukraine will stop fighting it, then Ukraine will cease to exist as an independent nation.
> And I do feel Russia has had a very valid argument regarding the NATO threat and USA has been aware of this for a long time, still they decided to poke the bear.
Why do you disregard the threat from Russia to Poland, Baltics and Finland, and other eastern flank countries? These countries joined NATO for a reason. They were not asked to join, they were not compelled to join. They joined because they are much smaller and live next to a heavily armed and unstable Russian dictatorship. It is incredible how Russian propaganda tries to paint a nuclear-armed and heavily militarized country as a victim.
> USA sabotaged the Russian-German pipeline
Conspiracy theory with no evidence.
> Germany has proven to be a lap dog of US interests
Huh?
> It’s a shame the Western world and Ukraine deceived Russia with the Minsk accords
It is a shame there are a lot apologetics of the Russian fascism. Unfortunately, there were a lot of callers for peace with the "we don't want war" slogans when Nazis were taking over Europe during the World War II. Some even greeted them with flowers, despite all the artocities, including in your country. Well.. history doesn't repeat itself but it certainly rhymes.
There's a good talk from Mike McFaul at Stanford [1] who outlines how Russia under Putin for the longest time was interested in joining NATO. Putin saw NATO as an opportunity, not a threat. NATO is a scapegoat - what Putin really seems to be afraid of is the fall of dictatorships and the rise of democracies around him, and he thinks the US is behind it. So he is anti-US, but the whole anti-NATO thing is a false narrative - Putin is anti-democracy. The talk explains it very well.
> USA sabotaged the Russian-German pipeline and all Western mass media acts like nothing has happened.
Why would the US do that? I don't see the motivation. The current narrative, that it was a faction of the Ukraine, seems the most plausible to me. Russia had no incentive to blow it up either.
> All the Western politicians that are pushing for war will not be on the frontlines themselves and most likely neither will their children.
True. But then again, right now we're in a situation where most politicians are actually rather conservative about the war. Just think about how long it took for heavy artillery and tanks to be shipped to Ukraine. Even now that the US and Germany are sending tanks, very few European nations are following suit - not even some that previously touted loudly that they were ready to send them, and that only Germany was holding them back.
Both Europe and the US are acting rather carefully, for better or worse. The West is definitely not in the business of warmongering.
> It’s a shame the Western world and Ukraine deceived Russia with the Minsk accords, as Germany recently admitted [0]. We didn’t have to be in this situation.
This is the article that your source refers to: https://www.zeit.de/2022/51/angela-merkel-russland-fluechtli...
Unfortunately it's paywalled, but I did sign up (their 1€ trial offer was cheap enough, and I'm German, so easy for me to read). I don't think the WSWS article you linked to cites fairly. While the citation is accurate, it jumps over one main fact:
At the time when the Minsk agreement was made, Russia had illegally de-facto annexed parts of Ukraine. Everyone knew it, even though Russia called it "separatists". Putin didn't have the guts to start an all-out war back then, that took a few more years, but the fact that the majority of these separatists were Russian soldiers was widely reported back then already. Given that Russia had started destabilising Ukraine and annexing parts of it, Merkel's comment of buying the Ukraine time to prepare for more aggressive action from Russia is perfectly reasonable, and in hindsight also the correct political action.
Russia wasn't deceived with the Minsk accords. Russia was already the aggressor back then. We wouldn't have this war if Russia wasn't invading its neighbour.
---
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wbzf0ix2G5I
You are honestly making this statement without deceipt?
The West is in the warmongering business.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/02/24/war-is-great-fo...
This is outweighed by far by the effects on everyone else. Or as the article you cite puts it:
"In other words, a humanitarian, geopolitical, and economic disaster for the world..."
But why would a Ukrainian faction not publicly claim the biggest successful sabotage act against Russian infrastructure? Ukrainian side had no qualms about claiming the Crimea bridge sabotage, or drone strikes deep in Russian territory.
Interestingly, the story is still unfolding on this one, going through:
* "it's obviously the Russian, stupid",
* "wait, no, it's not obviously the Russian, we don't have any proof"
* "thinking about it, it's probably not the Russian, let us investigate"
* "Russian propaganda claims it's the USA, but no-one really believe them anymore, because 'previous year'"
* "previously famous journalist claims it's the USA on his blog, but hardly anyones believe him, because 'anonymous source quoted on a blog'"
* "US intelligence claims it was Ukraine based on undisclosed sources". [1]
For some reason, "the evil western media" does not seem to have too much trouble accusing Ukraine of sabotages - but we're still playing the "whose undisclosed source do we believe ?" game.
Don't insult your intelligence (pun intended) pretending you know better than anyone.
We'll wait and see and humbly acknowledge that this one will probably remain in shadow for a while.
However, I suspect the "It's obviously the CIA, stupid" narrative will go on forever. It's just too catchy. "On ne prête qu'aux riches".
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/07/us/politics/nord-stream-p...
- Condoleeza Rice [2014]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btk_Ldd3NF0
- Biden & Schulz [2022]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OS4O8rGRLf8
- US warns German port of crushing sanctions [2020]: https://www.dw.com/en/nord-stream-2-us-senators-threaten-ger...
Which just makes them _one_ of the many parties that have an intereset in blowing up the pipeline. Again, it's really tempting to jump to this conclusion, not at all unreasonnable or unrealistic, it's just that there _are_ alternatives, and we're still in the mist about that.
It's not rocket science, it's much worse: it's geopolitics. At least in rocket science, you have launches as a "moment of truth" (rocket up / rocket not up.) We love it in HN because it's both very hard to do and very simple to interpret.
Politics ? The exact opposite. Very simple to lie / deceit / build narrative, hardly impossible to get a clear answer on anything - you can always add a "rail in the pool" and build a "credible" alternative narrative.
(My personnal "favorite guess", which is really nothing than that, would be that Ukraine would have done it with some light support (trainging ? intelligence ?) from the USA, while Germany was just "looking the other way". This would provide a "win" for Ukraine, "plausible deniability" for the USA, and "one negoctiation chip less" for Russia to put pressure on Germany - sometimes, constraints are liberating. Pure speculation. No data. I won't feel bad if it ends up being wrong. Would feel better if the war could just stop tomorrow.)
I suppose the closest thing we have to an "arbitrer of truth" will be the Nordics-based investigation ? Sweden is not in NATO yet, Norway and Denmark do not seem particularly hawkish (but I could be wrong), yet they don't have friendly ties to Russia, it's weird stuff happening "close to home"... who knows ?
Knowing this is not exactly in my circle of control. I'm more interested in how we're going to make EU neither "Russian-gas dependant", nor "US-gas dependant", nor "Middle-East-gas dependant".
NATO has large stocks of 155mm shells. But they can also buy them because it's become a standard outside of the non Russian influence world. South Korea has a huge production and stock that is under negotiation.
Numbers around mobilization are really iffy. I watched an opposition Russian politician yesterday saying no more than 200,000 had been drafted, so your number is the opposite direction to his. I bet even the Kremlin doesn't know the true number due to the way the regions were instructed to draft.
Even if they had all that, they are outranged by NATO missiles, so all ammo dumps have to be very far away from the front (90+ km). Munitions and supplies must be moved in small and uneven batches on poor roads and with overworked crews and equipment over multiple days.
UA forces share some of these issues, but not as badly.
Do you have a source for that. The last part (especially) is pretty unbelievable. I would assume that the techniques for pouring flat concrete isn't new, and even if they didn't have it, they could just make forklifts with bigger wheels or something. For instance, here's a US military forklift driving on gravel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forklift#Counterbalanced_forkl....
I do understand the Russians are much more focused on rail for military transport compared to the US, which then let them make design choices that have made it hard to switch to truck transport.
1. You can point to a source with some authority talking about the lack of a thing. Which shouldn't be too hard, since, unless you're ex-Russian Army logistics, you must have learned those claims from somewhere.
2. You can point to a source talking talking about Russian Army logistics, that shows them "moving things by hand" when forklifts would be more appropriate.
3. You can point to a source talking about how all forklifts require really flat concrete, and not all countries can make it because [reasons]. However, you probably can't do that because that would contradict the example I gave of a forklift operating on gravel.
Most of my evidence here is fueled by what I've been seeing and hearing via the internet, so take it with a grain of salt. I'm, thankfully, not in theater. That said, these sources do seem to be 'experts' of some sort or another behind their own fog of war:
War on the Rocks, podcast and online
Foreign Policy Magazine, online edition
Washington Post, print and online
New York Times, print and online
Philips P O'Brien, publications and twitter
Trent Telenko, interviews and podcasts and twitter
ChrisO_wiki, twitter
Go ahead and look in the older work if you're curious to find more out about the logistical mountain that RF is facing. The concrete thing, though a bit curious, does seem to bear out in photos of their ammo dumps and RF's inability to cure a pad before rebar is stolen (WaPo, NYT, and ChrisO_wiki are good on this issue). Gravel isn't going to work for such repeated use in wet conditions. To move those loads you'd need very large tires to distribute the weight, something like a JCB. Something that RF also seems to be without. Like, they really do seem to be that corrupt and incompetent.
> The concrete thing, though a bit curious, does seem to bear out in photos of their ammo dumps and RF's inability to cure a pad before rebar is stolen (WaPo, NYT, and ChrisO_wiki are good on this issue).
However, the reasoning you give here makes the claim more credible, since it makes clear the problem is corruption not technology.
That's not true: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/05/us/politics/cruise-missil...:
"Weapons investigators in Kyiv found that at least one Russian Kh-101 cruise missile used in widespread attacks there on Nov. 23 had been made no earlier than October."
> ...whereas those are available to NATO, and we've seen those be a lot more effective than the dumb artillery.
They are, but I'm under the impression that NATO/the US would also quickly use up their cruise missile stockpiles in the event of a hot war.
> NATO has large stocks of 155mm shells. But they can also buy them because it's become a standard outside of the non Russian influence world. South Korea has a huge production and stock that is under negotiation.
South Korea isn't allowing any of their equipment or ammunition to be exported to Ukraine. The best that enables is for Western countries to play musical chairs and give Ukraine a greater share of their stockpiles/production from other sources.
Musical chairs indeed but pretty direct ones:
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/11/politics/us-artillery-sou...
I mean that's pretty much just throwing the chair at someone.
- Denys Davydov (Ukrainian, most frequent updates, also has telegram channel which has a lot more battleground details than what youtube allows to show)
- Jake Broe (US army veteran mostly providing American perspective)
- Arthur Rehi (Estonian providing decent summaries)
> Provide basic military training and basic medical training to large parts of society
as an opening recommendation. Are they serious? Why would we bother? It is obvious that the Russian army can't challenge the NATO army as it stands.
But stories are just that, stories. And the war is not being decided in the information space.
Also, despite "...with combat-experienced...", it feels like no skin in the game.
There are no US or other NATO soldiers in Ukraine (apart from privateers). They get material support, but nobody else is fighting for them. Yet they repelled the initial, vastly overpowering Russian attack, and they have been able to hold their lines for the past year pretty well.
The EU or the US is not fighting a war against Russia in a classical sense. If they were you would notice, because we are talking about nuclear powers. It would most probably be a rather short war.
Indeed we learned that WW1 style trench warfare is still a thing, so you need cannon fodder, howitzers and shells.
Alternatively, one might try diplomacy like Bismarck (who was fired by the emperor before WW1 and replaced by neocon equivalents).
I'd add "put a lot of anti-missile defence around your power plants" as trying to break civilians seems to be Putin's favorite ploy.
This works both ways, though, as Ukrainian AA is also very effective.