Decision Time in Ukraine

 

In the Land of Confusion podcast covering the six-month anniversary of the start of the Ukraine War, I stated that the behavior of the Ukrainians over the last six weeks struck me as consistent with their shaping the battlefield for an offensive around Kherson. The types of strikes that Ukraine had been making were designed to isolate Russian forces in Kherson by cutting supply routes, destroying ammo and fuel dumps, and forcing the Russian aircraft out of Crimea.  I thought it would start in September, likely mid-September.

It appears I was off by a week or two. Both Ukrainian and Russian sources are reporting that such an offensive has begun.  At this point, both sides are declaring they are winning. That, too, is to be expected.

I will make another prediction: This offensive probably means the war will end within the next ten weeks. I am not predicting who will win — just that this battle will likely settle the war. If the Ukrainians succeed, the Russians will be playing the British at Yorktown. If the Russians succeed in stopping the Ukrainians, the Ukrainians will be playing the Germans in the Ardennes. In short, the loser will lack the military assets to continue the war.

We will know better in a week who the likely winner is.

Published in Military
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 202 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Also, and I think this is relevant to the original point I was trying to implicitly allude to, size or better sophisticated equipment or whatever else can frequently be a crutch that leads to bad strategy for either undermining a perceived weaker opponent or simply having a lot of confidence in their superior manpower.

    What these battles demonstrate is that

     

    1) superior strategy can overcome a deficit in military capacity and

    2) it is those with highly limited means and the perceived underdog that are most likely to rely heavily on strategy and tactics.

    • #31
  2. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Seawriter (View Comment):

    I think that anyone who believes Biden willingly supports the Ukraine is an optimistic fool. Prior to the war, Biden was signaling his paymaster Putin the US would stand by and do nothing if Russia annexed Donbas and Luhansk. Further, when Putin actually invaded, the first thing he did was offer Zelinsky a free ride out of town. (“I don’t need a ride, I need ammunition.”) Since then, Biden has been making big promises and delivering on them reluctantly and slowly. I suspect Biden wants Russia to win, but has been forced to support Ukraine due to public opinion.

    That’s my take on it, too. 

    • #32
  3. Seawriter Contributor
    Seawriter
    @Seawriter

    Stina (View Comment):
    Lileks wasn’t discussing tactics and strategy. He was comparing equipment quality.

    And the Greeks at Salamis and the English against the Armada had better equipment than the Persians and Spanish. American and British equipment in the Wars of American Independence were roughly equal. 

    • #33
  4. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Doug Watt (View Comment):

    Neither score is anything to be proud of but any belief that a Russian victory and an invasion of Ukraine is just, deserved, and a virtuous war is nonsense.

    Didn’t say that. You’re putting words in my mouth and I do not appreciate it.

    • #34
  5. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Seawriter, I’m not specifically familiar with the terrain around Kherson, but I understand that there are some important river crossings.  If the bridges are destroyed, won’t the Ukrainians have the same trouble as the Russians in crossing the relevant river or rivers?

    Is it really that difficult for modern armies to cross rivers?  My impression is that armies deal with this fairly effectively.  Losing a bridge is a setback, but it’s not clear that it’s a big setback.

    The Yorktown analogy doesn’t seem to fit, to me.  At Yorktown, the British had a small army bottled up on a peninsula.  The Russians in Ukraine have a continuous front, and can fall back across the relevant river or rivers, can’t they?  Moreover, I wouldn’t expect the Russians to put large forces in such a vulnerable position.  Modern artillery has much longer range, and the Russians have missiles and air forces with even greater range.

    I heard a recent report from Col. Douglas Macgregor, on Judge Napolitano’s podcast, indicating that the Russians are about to launch a significant offensive with superior troops — that the Russians have been using lower-quality troops for the last month or so, while gathering their better forces.  I don’t know whether or not Macgregor is correct about this.

    Back in June, Ukraine said that it needed 1,000 howitzers, 500 tanks, 300 multiple launch rocket systems, and 2,000 armored vehicles to achieve heavy weapons parity with the Russians.  I don’t know how much has been sent.  This AP report about a month ago indicates that Ukraine received a dozen HIMARS and “several” other rocket systems, 200 heavy artillery pieces, and 300 Soviet T-72 tanks.  It’s not clear whether the artillery and tanks were provided before or after the Ukrainian request in June.  Other reports say that there are 16 HIMARS systems in Ukraine.

    Seawriter, do you have information suggesting that Ukraine has received the quantity of equipment that they said, two months ago, would be necessary to repel the Russians?

     

    • #35
  6. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    Is it really that difficult for modern armies to cross rivers?  My impression is that armies deal with this fairly effectively.  Losing a bridge is a setback, but it’s not clear that it’s a big setback.

    Hasn’t Russia recently been making threats to the effect of, “Don’t you dare destroy the bridges in the land that we’ve invaded?”   I haven’t followed closely enough to be sure of which bridges they’re talking about, but people covering the war on YouTube have been talking a lot about bridges in recent months. 

    But there was that highly publicized incident near Izyum several weeks ago where Russia tried and failed to make a river crossing in a place that didn’t have a bridge.  

    • #36
  7. DonG (CAGW is a Scam) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Scam)
    @DonG

    Doug Watt (View Comment):
    Russia is ranked higher than Ukraine when it comes to corruption. Ukraine is ranked at 122 among 180 nations. Russia is ranked at 136. The higher the score the more corrupt a nation is.

    Are you implying the Ukrainian criminals would dare to convert untraceable weapons into untraceable cash? 

    • #37
  8. Raxxalan Member
    Raxxalan
    @Raxxalan

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):

    Seawriter (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    I’m not going to go into strategy specifics, but I would point out that winners in wars aren’t always who has the best military capability.

    examples:

    Salamis

    British Navy vs Armada

    American Revolution

    I could argue that the winners were the side that had the best military capability in all three of those. Having a large army doesn’t matter if you cannot get it to the battlefield. Additionally, in all three the victors either had superior weapons or tactics or both.

    Then, North Viet Nam/Viet Cong vs. USA.

    What you’re doing, Seawriter, is defining “best military capability” as being whatever led to victory.

    Otherwise, thank you for a perceptive and stimulating post.

    Except militarily the US defeated both the Viet Cong and the NVA.  We just didn’t stay and then didn’t support the South Vietnamese.   The Vietnamese learned the most important lesson about fighting the US you can wait them out. 

    • #38
  9. Seawriter Contributor
    Seawriter
    @Seawriter

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Seawriter, I’m not specifically familiar with the terrain around Kherson, but I understand that there are some important river crossings.  If the bridges are destroyed, won’t the Ukrainians have the same trouble as the Russians in crossing the relevant river or rivers?

    Is it really that difficult for modern armies to cross rivers?  My impression is that armies deal with this fairly effectively.  Losing a bridge is a setback, but it’s not clear that it’s a big setback.

    The Yorktown analogy doesn’t seem to fit, to me.  At Yorktown, the British had a small army bottled up on a peninsula.  The Russians in Ukraine have a continuous front, and can fall back across the relevant river or rivers, can’t they?  Moreover, I wouldn’t expect the Russians to put large forces in such a vulnerable position.  Modern artillery has much longer range, and the Russians have missiles and air forces with even greater rang

    If the Ukrainians are launching an assault they have bridging equipment with them. Especially if they intend to cross rivers. All armies have them, including the Russian army. (The Ukrainians targeted Russian pontoon bridges with artillery in the east, waiting until a tank brigade was crossing before destroying the bridge and the tank brigade on it.) Since the Russians lack the artillery flexibility Ukraine has, I suspect the Ukrainians can set down a pontoon bridge, cross, and take down the bridge after crossing before the Russians can target the bridge. Especially since the Ukrainians know where they are crossing and the Russians probably do not.

    The rivers in the region around Kherson are deep and unfordable. Whenever the Russians set up bridges the Ukrainians knock them down. The Russians have limited amounts of bridging material. (Both side do, but the Ukrainians have been keeping there’s in reserve, while the Russians have been using – and losing – theirs.) Without bridges the Russians can fight with their AFVs and tanks, but they cannot withdraw them if things go badly. 

    Moreover they can only fight as long as they have food, fuel , and ammunition. The Russian troops in the Kherson pocket also have extremely long and rickety  supply lines that run through the Crimea. Which the Ukrainians have also been hitting. So they run the real risk of running out of fuel, converting their armor into stationary fortifications. Which are short of ammo.

    That means  there is a possibility the Ukrainians can occupy ground between the Russians in Kherson, with the Russians on the wrong side of the river (very little different than getting trapped on a peninsula in Virginia).  Even under those circumstances they might be able to get their troops out if they abandon their vehicles. Doing that leaves the vehicles in the hands of the Ukrainians. 

    Is this a done deal? By no means. If the Russians react quickly they might be able to stop the Ukrainians from encircling them. In that case it is the Ukrainians – with long, exposed flanks – who get cut off and destroyed. But the Yorktown analogy is relevant, once you realize the difficulty of crossing rivers with inadequate bridging. Possibly the Falaise Pocket is a better analogy, but the rivers turn Kherson into a peninsula 

    • #39
  10. Doctor Robert Member
    Doctor Robert
    @DoctorRobert

    Raxxalan (View Comment):

    I could argue that the winners were the side that had the best military capability in all three of those. Having a large army doesn’t matter if you cannot get it to the battlefield. Additionally, in all three the victors either had superior weapons or tactics or both.

    Then, North Viet Nam/Viet Cong vs. USA.

    What you’re doing, Seawriter, is defining “best military capability” as being whatever led to victory.

    Otherwise, thank you for a perceptive and stimulating post.

    Except militarily the US defeated both the Viet Cong and the NVA.  We just didn’t stay and then didn’t support the South Vietnamese.   The Vietnamese learned the most important lesson about fighting the US you can wait them out. 

    Thank you for making my point better than I did. 

    • #40
  11. Hang On Member
    Hang On
    @HangOn

    James Lileks (View Comment):
    Thing is, the Ukes have the West to supply them with better stuff.

    But it hasn’t proven to be better stuff. If anything, the opposite.

    James Lileks (View Comment):
    They have massive artillery for indiscriminate city destruction, but that requires depots, which go boom when one smart American-made device pays a visit.

    It’s the Ukrainians who have been shelling civilians indiscriminately. The CIA propaganda isn’t true. The Russians have fired more precision weapons in the last month than the Americans have since the first Gulf War. And the Russians have destroyed many more depots than the Ukrainians/Nato contractors have.

    James Lileks (View Comment):

    The Ukrainian government is resolute not to let the invader win, because eff those guys. Different motivations produce different mindsets which produce different results. “Vehemence and resoluteness” do not seem to characterize the Russian grunts, few of whom are probably all het up about the Z crusade anymore. 

    Yeah, rah, rah, rah. Then there’s reality. And it isn’t good for the Ukrainians.

    The Russians listed demilitarization as one of their objectives.  They are doing that by killing Ukrainian soldiers with constant pounding with all those what you claim are inferior weapons. The Ukrainians meanwhile are taking shelter in towns and using human shields.

    • #41
  12. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Seawriter (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Seawriter, I’m not specifically familiar with the terrain around Kherson, but I understand that there are some important river crossings. If the bridges are destroyed, won’t the Ukrainians have the same trouble as the Russians in crossing the relevant river or rivers?

    Is it really that difficult for modern armies to cross rivers? My impression is that armies deal with this fairly effectively. Losing a bridge is a setback, but it’s not clear that it’s a big setback.

    The Yorktown analogy doesn’t seem to fit, to me. At Yorktown, the British had a small army bottled up on a peninsula. The Russians in Ukraine have a continuous front, and can fall back across the relevant river or rivers, can’t they? Moreover, I wouldn’t expect the Russians to put large forces in such a vulnerable position. Modern artillery has much longer range, and the Russians have missiles and air forces with even greater rang

    If the Ukrainians are launching an assault they have bridging equipment with them. Especially if they intend to cross rivers. All armies have them, including the Russian army. (The Ukrainians targeted Russian pontoon bridges with artillery in the east, waiting until a tank brigade was crossing before destroying the bridge and the tank brigade on it.) Since the Russians lack the artillery flexibility Ukraine has, I suspect the Ukrainians can set down a pontoon bridge, cross, and take down the bridge after crossing before the Russians can target the bridge. Especially since the Ukrainians know where they are crossing and the Russians probably do not.

    The rivers in the region around Kherson are deep and unfordable. Whenever the Russians set up bridges the Ukrainians knock them down. The Russians have limited amounts of bridging material. (Both side do, but the Ukrainians have been keeping there’s in reserve, while the Russians have been using – and losing – theirs.) Without bridges the Russians can fight with their AFVs and tanks, but they cannot withdraw them if things go badly.

    Moreover they can only fight as long as they have food, fuel , and ammunition. The Russian troops in the Kherson pocket also have extremely long and rickety supply lines that run through the Crimea. Which the Ukrainians have also been hitting. So they run the real risk of running out of fuel, converting their armor into stationary fortifications. Which are short of ammo.

    That means there is a possibility the Ukrainians can occupy ground between the Russians in Kherson, with the Russians on the wrong side of the river (very little different than getting trapped on a peninsula in Virginia). Even under those circumstances they might be able to get their troops out if they abandon their vehicles. Doing that leaves the vehicles in the hands of the Ukrainians.

    Is this a done deal? By no means. If the Russians react quickly they might be able to stop the Ukrainians from encircling them. In that case it is the Ukrainians – with long, exposed flanks – who get cut off and destroyed. But the Yorktown analogy is relevant, once you realize the difficulty of crossing rivers with inadequate bridging. Possibly the Falaise Pocket is a better analogy, but the rivers turn Kherson into a peninsula

    That’s informative. Thank you.

    • #42
  13. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Hang On (View Comment):

    James Lileks (View Comment):
    Thing is, the Ukes have the West to supply them with better stuff.

    But it hasn’t proven to be better stuff. If anything, the opposite.

    James Lileks (View Comment):
    They have massive artillery for indiscriminate city destruction, but that requires depots, which go boom when one smart American-made device pays a visit.

    It’s the Ukrainians who have been shelling civilians indiscriminately. The CIA propaganda isn’t true. The Russians have fired more precision weapons in the last month than the Americans have since the first Gulf War. And the Russians have destroyed many more depots than the Ukrainians/Nato contractors have.

    James Lileks (View Comment):

    The Ukrainian government is resolute not to let the invader win, because eff those guys. Different motivations produce different mindsets which produce different results. “Vehemence and resoluteness” do not seem to characterize the Russian grunts, few of whom are probably all het up about the Z crusade anymore.

    Yeah, rah, rah, rah. Then there’s reality. And it isn’t good for the Ukrainians.

    The Russians listed demilitarization as one of their objectives. They are doing that by killing Ukrainian soldiers with constant pounding with all those what you claim are inferior weapons. The Ukrainians meanwhile are taking shelter in towns and using human shields.

    Did you check with Vladimir Vladimirovich to make sure you’ve got that story right?  

    • #43
  14. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    I’m having a hard time figuring out what the administration wants. It’s obviously not anything beneficial to America as Biden doesn’t want to put America’s interests first. He’s corrupted by Ukraine. Trump tried to look into it, but a Blue Falcon staff officer, more loyal to Ukraine, was upset the Trump wasn’t following his foreign policy and leaked the conversation. Then the Deep State impeached Trump.

    Then Biden sends mixed messages to Putin. He leaks intelligence in the months leading up to the invasion under the auspices of showing the world Putin’s true intentions. The Intelligence Community crows about how that’s a success, but it didn’t prevent the invasion. Biden said that he was okay with a minor invasion.

    After the invasion he states that Putin can’t stay in power and a Senator calls for Putin’s assassination. That takes away any negotiating power we had to bring the two sides to a peace table. Russia won’t want a country calling for its leader to be removed at the negotiating table. At the same time, the administration is using Russia to help broker the destroy Israel Iran nuclear talks.

    Since November, the talking points have included, ‘Could you imagine Ukraine if Trump was in charge?’. Si se pweaday! He was president for four years. During that time Putin didn’t invade a country. Trump increased our energy production and crippled Putin economically. And, if the leak is true, told him, “Nice minarets you have there. If you get ambitions, I’ll nuke them.”

    • #44
  15. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):
    Trump increased our energy production and crippled Putin economically.

    Biden crippled our energy production and increased Putin’s energy profits.

    Which one is a Russian asset again?

    • #45
  16. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Doug Watt (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Somehow people seem convinced that Ukraine suddenly ceased being the world’s money laundromat the moment Russia attacked. No, dude, the laundering simply accelerated. And now there was a made-to-order excuse for throwing more money into the machine.

    Russia is ranked higher than Ukraine when it comes to corruption. Ukraine is ranked at 122 among 180 nations. Russia is ranked at 136. The higher the score the more corrupt a nation is.

    Neither score is anything to be proud of but any belief that a Russian victory and an invasion of Ukraine is just, deserved, and a virtuous war is nonsense.

    Link

    Sad how “conservatives” have swallowed all the agitprop coming out of Moscow.  Makes me sick.  Makes me start to question a lot of things around here.

    • #46
  17. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Sad how “conservatives” have swallowed all the agitprop coming out of Moscow. Makes me sick. Makes me start to question a lot of things around here.

    Look who threw you a like. That should also cause you to question things.

    • #47
  18. Unsk Member
    Unsk
    @Unsk

    I have rarely seen more stupid comments at Ricochet.

    First of all this war will absolutely not be over soon.

    Biden originally provoked this war because Biden’s puppet masters wanted a protracted long war in Ukraine and they will get it. His puppet masters  have already accomplished many of their goals:  impoverishing Europe, inflicting great pain and suffering in the US which may lead to an economic collapse, destroying the previous American Dollar led economic worldwide order and greatly diminishing America’s power and influence around the world.

    It is becoming increasingly clear that Russia had two main military goals in their attack: protecting ethnic Russians in the Donbas and creating a buffer between Ukraine and Russia. None of the previous comments seem to understand that Putin will protect  ethnic Russians to the hilt and he has and will continue to do so. Russia has a huge demographic problem and it needs all the ethnic Russians it can get.

    Russia has achieved  what originally I think they wanted to achieve but as the Ukraine recent nasty behavior has perhaps altered those goals. Among a  host of issues, the  Biden led talk and actions of bringing in American fighters, bringing longer range artillery, the shelling of civilian areas  in Crimea, the shelling of the Russian held nuclear power plant and the assassination of a Russian political leader perhaps are changing Russian goals.

    The bringing in of American jets and long range artillery will likely lead to Russia grinding out a much larger buffer zone in Ukraine as well as taking Odessa.  The Russians, even though many have seen them as the aggressor, have restrained their actions; the latest provocation by Ukraine may change that.  This war may get nastier in a hurry.

    The European support for Ukraine is dying quicky because of their tremendous suffering. Soon it may be only American pushing Ukraine onward, but true to form, there are reports that much of the American armament promised by Biden has not yet arrived and will not completely arrive for a long time. The Ukrainians are simply way outgunned and they  will continue to be ground up by the Russians.

    The Russians, unlike America and Europe,  meanwhile are profiting greatly from this war. Russia has never been more powerful.  Russia apparently is forming a natural gas “OPEC”  with Iran and Qatar, which will corner 71% of the world’s natural gas reserves.  Welcome to extremely high nat gas prices forever. Someone please tell that to Jay Powell. It  already formed a new “G8 or 9 or 10”  trade alliance with China, India, Indonesia, Turkey, Iran, Brazil and Mexico, with likely additions of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. This new trade group has greater GDP than the  original G7 and this new trade group threatens to diminish American trading power greatly.

    This Ukraine war has been a monumental screw up of the first order, and may never be rectified to  benefit American Interests during any of our lifetimes.

    • #48
  19. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    If the Russians should pull out a victory for their side, this would be an astounding feat, as they are facing a nation that has multiples of their entire military budget to use against them.

    The 80 billi0n bucks that our already broke federal government  initially bestowed on them is the equivalent of the entire Russian defense budget for one year. And that Russian  defense outlay has to contain resources to deal with nations other than the Ukraine as well.

    I have lost track of how much additional monies we have given to the Ukraine, but it would not surprise me if the padding we are allowing their military forces to use is now  1.5 times that of Russia’s annual military budget.

    Additionally, if memory serves me, all the other NATO nations except two  have coughed up significant sums of monies to aid the Ukrainian people. I think Poland and Hungary are the only nations who so far have not contributed the required tithing to this wonderful new Empire of money laundering, corruption, and neo-Nazi troops.

     

    • #49
  20. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    Stina (View Comment):

    Also, and I think this is relevant to the original point I was trying to implicitly allude to, size or better sophisticated equipment or whatever else can frequently be a crutch that leads to bad strategy for either undermining a perceived weaker opponent or simply having a lot of confidence in their superior manpower.

    What these battles demonstrate is that

    1) superior strategy can overcome a deficit in military capacity and

    2) it is those with highly limited means and the perceived underdog that are most likely to rely heavily on strategy and tactics.

    All one has to do to see the truth of your statement is to reflect on the many wars that the USA has engaged in since WWII, and how we have only managed to win one of those wars.(The Korean War ended up a tie.)

    The war we actually won was fought against the tiny island state of Grenada in the 1980’s, and even so, it took our Navy and air support three days to do it.

    Was it the cockiness and arrogance of those generals who designed the losing strategy in the losing wars we fought?

    Or rather was it that it certainly benefits our Military/Industrial contractors to have wars stretch out for decades as long as the monies keep flowing to Raytheon, Honeywell, Lockheed Martin, Black Water, Boeing, and other contenders for the huge slice of military pie that our annual budget perpetually allows for?

     

    • #50
  21. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Unsk (View Comment):
    It is becoming increasingly clear that Russia had two main military goals in their attack:

    Tell us more about “increasingly.”

    • #51
  22. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):
    Trump increased our energy production and crippled Putin economically.

    Biden crippled our energy production and increased Putin’s energy profits.

    Which one is a Russian asset again?

    • #52
  23. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Unsk (View Comment):
    It is becoming increasingly clear that Russia had two main military goals in their attack: protecting ethnic Russians in the Donbas and creating a buffer between Ukraine and Russia. None of the previous comments seem to understand that Putin will protect  ethnic Russians to the hilt and he has and will continue to do so. Russia has a huge demographic problem and it needs all the ethnic Russians it can get.

    Irrelevant if they’re not  having enough children to replace themselves.  And they’re not.

    • #53
  24. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Unsk (View Comment):
    The Russians, unlike America and Europe,  meanwhile are profiting greatly from this war. Russia has never been more powerful.  Russia apparently is forming a natural gas “OPEC”  with Iran and Qatar, which will corner 71% of the world’s natural gas reserves.  Welcome to extremely high nat gas prices forever. Someone please tell that to Jay Powell. It  already formed a new “G8 or 9 or 10”  trade alliance with China, India, Indonesia, Turkey, Iran, Brazil and Mexico, with likely additions of Saudi Arabia and Egypt. This new trade group has greater GDP than the  original G7 and this new trade group threatens to diminish American trading power greatly.

    That’s the fault of Biden, and people operating more or less like him in Europe.

    • #54
  25. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Unsk (View Comment):
    This Ukraine war has been a monumental screw up of the first order, and may never be rectified to  benefit American Interests during any of our lifetimes.

    Also Biden’s fault, and Putin’s and somewhat parts of Western Europe (those that foolishly decided to trust Russia for energy), but absolutely not Ukraine’s.

    • #55
  26. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Unsk (View Comment):

    I have rarely seen more stupid comments at Ricochet.

    Let me try and go for personal best.

    Biden originally provoked this war because Biden’s puppet masters wanted a protracted long war in Ukraine and they will get it. His puppet masters have already accomplished many of their goals: impoverishing Europe, inflicting great pain and suffering in the US which may lead to an economic collapse, destroying the previous American Dollar led economic worldwide order and greatly diminishing America’s power and influence around the world.

    Who are these puppet masters?

    I would agree that many of these outcomes (Europe in recession, energy crisis, diminishing of US dollar as global reserve currency with profound impact on the US ability to manage its deficit and therefore economy) have become more, rather than less, likely –  but that’s due to the West’s response (sanctions, de-SWIFTING) rather than the war itself.

    The response was arrogant, unrealistic and short sighted.  But I don’t see the West wanting these outcomes, or anybody in the West benefiting from them.

    (I know there’s that whole ‘CCP did it’ thing but I don’t believe it.  Petty greed for donations from the people who set up and run the Institute for the Study of War is a more likely culprit.)

    The bringing in of American jets and long range artillery will likely lead to Russia grinding out a much larger buffer zone in Ukraine as well as taking Odessa. The Russians, even though many have seen them as the aggressor, have restrained their actions; the latest provocation by Ukraine may change that. This war may get nastier in a hurry.

    It’s a real possibility.  Though apart from some minor incursions the war has not spilled over into the Russian Federation proper, and they’ll want to avoid that.

    The European support for Ukraine is dying quicky because of their tremendous suffering.

    I don’t think the sanctions were really Europe’s idea.  We went from ‘Nordstream 2 about to open and Ukraine will not join NATO’ in Feb to ‘EU plans to wean itself off Russian Energy’ today.  Somebody got pushed – and when you see where the recession is landing (first) you can guess by whom.

    The Russians, unlike America and Europe, meanwhile are profiting greatly from this war.

    In the short to medium term (at least) Russia will suffer from being cut off from new technologies from the West, with China hesitant to provide the equivalent due to fear of sanctions.  In the long term – who knows?  But in the long term who knows about the West either?

    And the underlying economic logic of the European and Russian economies integrating remains, just due to geography and the resources each brings to the table.  NATO’s whole ‘and the Russians out’ thing has a pushing water uphill aspect to it.

     

    • #56
  27. DrewInWisconsin, Oik Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oik
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Zafar (View Comment):
    with China hesitant to provide the equivalent due to fear of sanctions.

    Sanctions from whom?

    China has everyone by the short-n-curlies.

    • #57
  28. Doug Watt Member
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Doug Watt (View Comment):

    Neither score is anything to be proud of but any belief that a Russian victory and an invasion of Ukraine is just, deserved, and a virtuous war is nonsense.

    Didn’t say that. You’re putting words in my mouth and I do not appreciate it.

    Drew is right I should have made two separate comments. You can view the original by clicking on Doug Watt view comment. So, I offer my apologies to Drew

    There are individuals that buy into the Corruption theory of Ukraine. All well and good. Make no mistake Putin has his fanboys in the US. Drew is not one of them.

    Biden as Vice President squeezed Ukraine on behalf of his son. Left unsaid the Burisma oligarchs were Russian sympathizers. Trump tried to squeeze Ukraine.

    The former Navy petty officer now a You Tuber that poses as a Navy Seal is a Putin fanboy. When the Task and Purpose website questioned him about the Navy Seal story, he went silent with Task and Purpose. The Duran website is run by two individuals who have ties to Russian state media. One of whom was disbarred in the UK for stealing from a client.

    • #58
  29. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Seawriter (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Seawriter, I’m not specifically familiar with the terrain around Kherson, but I understand that there are some important river crossings. If the bridges are destroyed, won’t the Ukrainians have the same trouble as the Russians in crossing the relevant river or rivers?

    Is it really that difficult for modern armies to cross rivers? My impression is that armies deal with this fairly effectively. Losing a bridge is a setback, but it’s not clear that it’s a big setback.

    The Yorktown analogy doesn’t seem to fit, to me. At Yorktown, the British had a small army bottled up on a peninsula. The Russians in Ukraine have a continuous front, and can fall back across the relevant river or rivers, can’t they? Moreover, I wouldn’t expect the Russians to put large forces in such a vulnerable position. Modern artillery has much longer range, and the Russians have missiles and air forces with even greater rang

    If the Ukrainians are launching an assault they have bridging equipment with them. Especially if they intend to cross rivers. All armies have them, including the Russian army. (The Ukrainians targeted Russian pontoon bridges with artillery in the east, waiting until a tank brigade was crossing before destroying the bridge and the tank brigade on it.) Since the Russians lack the artillery flexibility Ukraine has, I suspect the Ukrainians can set down a pontoon bridge, cross, and take down the bridge after crossing before the Russians can target the bridge. Especially since the Ukrainians know where they are crossing and the Russians probably do not.

    The rivers in the region around Kherson are deep and unfordable. Whenever the Russians set up bridges the Ukrainians knock them down. The Russians have limited amounts of bridging material. (Both side do, but the Ukrainians have been keeping there’s in reserve, while the Russians have been using – and losing – theirs.) Without bridges the Russians can fight with their AFVs and tanks, but they cannot withdraw them if things go badly.

    Moreover they can only fight as long as they have food, fuel , and ammunition. The Russian troops in the Kherson pocket also have extremely long and rickety supply lines that run through the Crimea. Which the Ukrainians have also been hitting. So they run the real risk of running out of fuel, converting their armor into stationary fortifications. Which are short of ammo.

    That means there is a possibility the Ukrainians can occupy ground between the Russians in Kherson, with the Russians on the wrong side of the river (very little different than getting trapped on a peninsula in Virginia). Even under those circumstances they might be able to get their troops out if they abandon their vehicles. Doing that leaves the vehicles in the hands of the Ukrainians.

    Is this a done deal? By no means. If the Russians react quickly they might be able to stop the Ukrainians from encircling them. In that case it is the Ukrainians – with long, exposed flanks – who get cut off and destroyed. But the Yorktown analogy is relevant, once you realize the difficulty of crossing rivers with inadequate bridging. Possibly the Falaise Pocket is a better analogy, but the rivers turn Kherson into a peninsula

    We have quite a factual disconnect here, Seawriter.  I’m not sure about your sources of information.

    You seem to suggest that the Ukrainians have artillery superiority over the Russians.  My impression is that the Russians have overwhelming superiority, about 15:1.  If I recall correctly, this is what the Ukrainians said in early June, when they were begging for more weapons — which they didn’t get.  They asked for 3oo rocket launchers, and it appears that they got 15.

    So my impression is that your engaging in a bit of wishful thinking.  I don’t know, though, because I’m not very confident in any sources of information.

    • #59
  30. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    DrewInWisconsin, Oik (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    with China hesitant to provide the equivalent due to fear of sanctions.

    Sanctions from whom?

    China has everyone by the short-n-curlies.

    I think maybe a little more ‘nuanced’:

    Though Beijing has insisted on maintaining normal trade relations with Russia, its apprehension about violating the sanctions is clear from trade data in the tech sector. The cost-benefit logic is evident: The Russian market made up less than 2% of Chinese tech exports in 2021, while getting cut off from key chip suppliers in the U.S. or elsewhere because of Western sanctions would be catastrophic for China’s tech giants. In March, Chinese shipments of laptops and smartphones to Russia plummeted by more than 40% and 60%, respectively, while exports of telecommunications network equipment fell by a whopping 98%…China’s leading drone maker, halted operations in Russia…

    …Similar behaviors have emerged in China’s financial sector, where reliance on access to the dollar-dominated international financial system is high and the consequences of sanctions violations are taken very seriously. Though Chinese banks have extensive yuan-denominated services and assets in Russia, any potential benefits of sanctions busting pale in comparison to a loss of access to the U.S. dollar clearing system…ICBC and BoC reportedly stopped financing purchases of Russian commodities…UnionPay, China’s state-owned payments network, has refused to work with sanctioned Russian banks, including Sberbank, despite the market opportunity left open by Visa, Mastercard and American Express after their exit from Russia.

    The energy sector’s behaviors are among the most complicated…Countries around the world, including U.S. allies in the Indo-Pacific region and Europe, are enticed by deeply discounted energy from Russia as they seek to keep inflation in check amid fragile post-COVID economic recovery. While global oil prices have soared above $100 a barrel (in part due to the sanctions), Russian Urals crude was trading at $30-some less per barrel than the European benchmark Brent as of June 30. This opportunity is too tantalizing to pass up. China has surpassed Germany as the No. 1 buyer of Russian fossil fuels since the start of the Ukraine war…But the $13 billion China spent on Russian energy supplies in that time is less than one-seventh the $97 billion spent by the EU…

    Some business activities inevitably fall in a gray zone…This may turn out to be the case with the five Chinese companies identified for U.S. export restrictions on June 28 for their alleged “support to Russia’s military and/or defense industrial base.” All five are electronics firms without global name recognition… based on the Department of Commerce language and the scope of the firms’ business, it’s possible the companies were providing Russian industrial enterprises with critical parts that could be used in the defense sector—an activity Washington interprets as supporting Moscow’s war effort, while Beijing may see as normal trade relations.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.