Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
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
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.
That’s my take on it, too.
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.
Didn’t say that. You’re putting words in my mouth and I do not appreciate it.
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?
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.
Are you implying the Ukrainian criminals would dare to convert untraceable weapons into untraceable cash?
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.
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
Thank you for making my point better than I did.
But it hasn’t proven to be better stuff. If anything, the opposite.
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.
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.
That’s informative. Thank you.
Did you check with Vladimir Vladimirovich to make sure you’ve got that story right?
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 IsraelIran 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.”
Biden crippled our energy production and increased Putin’s energy profits.
Which one is a Russian asset again?
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.
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.
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.
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?
Tell us more about “increasingly.”
Irrelevant if they’re not having enough children to replace themselves. And they’re not.
That’s the fault of Biden, and people operating more or less like him in Europe.
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.
Let me try and go for personal best.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
Sanctions from whom?
China has everyone by the short-n-curlies.
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.
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.
I think maybe a little more ‘nuanced’: