Great post. There's no doubt something seriously weird is going on with Russian decision making. Very, very weird! (Another weird thing to me is why chose end February with the spring thaw making movement off roads almost impossible, putting huge constraints on their abortive northern offensive towards Kiev - and making the retreat v difficult without having to abandon a lot of hardware).
Oh by the way I have read that the Donbass republics initially had big problems with Ukies targeting their bridges but solved it by laying huge metal plates across the bridges, which were impervious to rockets and artillery shells. Not sure if this is true, but if it is, why didn't the Russians do the same in Kherson (with far bigger resources)?
An innocent if still stupid explanation could be that Moscow expected at first – and held onto the belief for far too long – that once the Ukrainian forces collapsed the Russian forces would use the bridges to flood western Ukraine with their own forces. That might have gone on for a few months; what they’re thinking now, I have no idea.
That is also my thinkink. But what is the reason that they almost never targered bridges and similar vital infrastructure points on roads and railways suppliying from the west? Are they out of reach or?
Also, no point in broadcasting to the whole world critical military information like an unsolicited retreat from a fortified city, which approaches are layered with trenches and that can be easily covered by friendly artillery fire from the other side of the river.
Then I guess, if they don't keep pushing towards Crimea, at least 5 of the 8 Ukrainian brigades in the Kherson region will be redeployed in the Donbass, so overall this withdrawal decision is nonsensical.
Word is, Americans are open to talks, provided the war closes with Ukraine recapturing Kherson.
As commenter Bezuhov would indeed point out, the goal of severing the energy supplying from Russia into Europe has largely been achieved. Now Germans need to buy much more expensive American LNG, or use smaller gas pipelines from Norway in order to complement what's left coming form a damaged NordStream. On their part, Russians are happy with increased oil prices. So the party which will have picked the shortest straw out of this war will be the EU. And the Ukraine, which in fact apparently refuses the idea of peace talks.
So I think this retreat thing is pretty much in flux right now. We'd need to see Kherson deserted first, in order to believe it.
Excellent post. Totally agree with your conclusions on the military side of the campaign. The way it was and continues to be executed by the Russian side defies their own military science guidelines on how a war should be conducted. Many of the retired Russian military, including Konstantin Sivkov, former officer of the Staff General now deputy director of the Academy of Rocket and Artillery Sciences (a military think tank), have expressed that opinion.
But if military portion of this campaign is so blatantly off the mark on how the modern warfare should be conducted, this only leaves us to direct our attention to a level higher, to politics and see who is on the losing and the winning end of this "strange war". The main beneficiary in the short to mid term is US. Democrats' incessant focus on using Ukraine as a weapon against Russia that continued for 9 years is paying off. As a result they have subdued Europe, capital flight to the United States, demonstration of the military prowess after humiliation in Afghanistan. US reasserts itself as a top dog, at least among its vassals and the countries where they can twist their arms enough to make them do what State Department wants. 52 countries that voted in UN against Russian resolution opposing glorification of Nazi ideology is a pretty precise list of the countries that are going to follow US' direction no matter what. In prior years number of countries voting against this resolution was only 2, (US and Ukraine) today we have 2+50. Obviously EU is getting a short stick here - energy shortages and higher prices, losing a sizeable Russian market for high profit margin goods, another refugee crisis, unhappy population, even further reduction in political sovereignty. For Russia, along with many negatives, such as a significant lowering of position in international power ranking where it was considered not a great economic power but a significant military power, now no more - many see that the bear is not that scary and has got got claws made of cardboard. That military humiliation is going to have a long negative effect on Russia. On the positive side for Russia - this war is a jolt, both for the system and for society. It uncovered that Russian military was a cash cow for generals serving their personal enrichment goals, that economy based only on extraction and export of natural resources is a way to nowhere. That society, if it wants to survive during difficult periods, can't be based only on consumerism. That ruling power structures in Russia are inadequate for handling of current challenging situation and so forth. Russia now stands before a very difficult choice, either change rapidly or to disappear in a shape and form we know it now, as USSR did in 1991. China rips benefits from this conflict - broader access to Russian natural resources at a lower price and increased sale of their own high margin products replacing Europe in the sizeable Russian market. Same applies to India. Obviously on the beneficiary side of this war are the Globalists and their plan for Great Reset. COVID pandemic didn't come close to the damage to world economy that this war did in terms of inflation and disruptions to supply chain and previously established trading schemes.
Now, did Putin understand all of the nuances of who will be a loser and who is going to be a winner because of his military intervention campaign globally, when he ordered Russian troops to move into Ukraine in February? I think he did and this was a part of the agreed upon game. His assertion that Russia was forced to attack first because Ukraine was ready to start offensive in March is a total nonsense. Russia would have been in a much more advantageous position if Ukraine started this war first. But he couldn't wait since a) Full scale Ukrainian offensive on republics wasn't certain and b) Global planners could not wait and depend on the whims of a comedian Zelensky to start the war. They had to go to Putin who is famous for sticking to his commitments to the "Western partners". Did Putin understand the complete spectrum of risks that this action creates for Russia and his personal power and even physical survival? No, I think that his advisors have purposely presented diminished risks, overstated Russian military capabilities and perhaps they were victims of bad Intel about Ukraine themselves, coming from the people like the exchanged for 160 Azov regiment soldiers former Ukrainian opposition leader, Medvedchuk.
So my conclusion about this war is that it isn't driven by the military goals in a traditional sense. Both Russia and the United States, but in the first place the global planners with a good degree of influence on the official leadership of the countries, want this conflict to go for a period of time needed to achieve other goals, principally related to nearing conditions needed for the Great Reset, that in practicality means population reduction, greater command over remaining population using converged digital-medical-social means of manipulation and control, introduction and take over of financial markets by CBDCs that will also be used as one of the principal means of control, reduction of consumption by the remaining population switching most of proteins to insect and artificial sources and many other "smaller" changes spanning from education, gender policies, hiring practices etc. This is why we see in this war a certain caution preventing one side from gaining a clear victory. Russia looks like it fights with one hand behind its back, on constant retreat after very successful first 10 days of the operation, refusing to do what is needed to break Ukrainian supply lines flowing to the Eastern front. At the same time US and the West in general despite the rhetoric still didn't give Ukraine long range missiles, modern fighter jets and effective air defense systems in sufficient quantities. Conflict continues with the use of mostly Soviet weaponry on both sides that dates back 30 years +++, serving two main goals the way I see it - destroying infrastructure built by Soviets over the 70 years and killing in large quantities men of productive age on both sides. When the set but not stated goals for this war are going to be achieved? This is hard to say. But my projection is that by mid spring next year all sides including Ukraine, Russia, population of the Western countries will reach a sufficient level of exhaustion from this conflict so that it would have to be at least suspended and each side is going to declare itself a victor.
Here is an interesting video that was release on February 24th of this year, where Russian businessman industrialist, Vladimir Boglaev, the head of the mechanical foundry factory in the city of Cherepovets expressed his opinion on how this war is very likely not a part of scenario that Russia wanted to play, but was rather a result of a third party influence that made Putin to act the way he did. Original video was produced and published on February 24th of this year, translated to English version appeared only a day ago, November 9, 2022. Despite the fact that this video is now 9 months old, it still didn't loose its relevance.
One possible explanation being put out there is they want the enemy to come so they can destroy them.
It's a war of attrition if they cut the bridges the Ukraine army would remain intact on the other side & be a long term problem.
By allowing them to advance they have the excuse to cut them down thus reducing their forces.
The longer the war goes on the more flee the country further reducing its strength and mobilisation efforts.
The same goes for towns & cities in the war zone, a slow advance allows those in the East that support Russia to remain or flee to Russia, those that support Ukraine to flee to Ukraine, so it's a least bad form of ethic clensing
A country might not want to advertise this policy as it would be seen as morally repugnant, but if you wanted to gain control over a country probably an effective way to do this
Well my spontaneous thought is, the only circumstance that this strategy makes sense is, that Russia would try to take the middle Dnepr crossings herself in a grand push, fast eneough to prevent UA from blowing them up herself. Considering how clunky Russias move was hitherto, this seems super unlikely. Btw... what do you guys think about the like of Douglas Mc Gregor, who is frequently interviewed by all kinds of supsiciously fake looking right wing alternative news channels and who constantly chants the hymn of Ukraines imminnent collapse and grand Russian offensive operation on the door?
For educational purposes to bring that elite faction of the US into the light for the russian alt-media sphere as well..Let me introduce the Council for National Policy..Council for National Policy..Funded in 1981 by the former evangelical preacher Tim Lahey and originally financed by Nelson Bunker Hunt,Nelson Rockefeller,the Unification Church aka Moon sect,the Coke and Coors,Regnery Family,among others. Members of the CNP were involved in the Iran-Contra affair,funding of Al-Quaida,and the PNAC document..Every republican presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan,also Donald Trump, spoke in front of CNP members before getting nominated as candidate on the republican convention. Every head of the CNP with one exception was also member of the Knights of Malta. The CNP doesn't publish membership lists itself but lists were leaked and the CNP didn't deny the authenticity of the lists. To name a few famous former or current members of the CNP now..Mike Pence,Rudy Giuliani,Mike Pompeo,John Bolton,Steve Bannon.Michael Flynn,Erik Prince,Peter Thiel,Kenneth Blackwell,Betsy Devos,Tom Fitton(Judicial Watch),Oliver North(I
ran-Contra affair),Paul Craig Roberts,Richard deVos,Joseph Coors,Pierre du Pont,Jerry Falwell,Edwin Feulner(Heritage Foundation),Foster Friess(financed Turning Point USA with Charlie Kirk),Jesse Helms,Nelson Bunker Hunt,Herbert William Hunt,Jack Kamp,Tim Lahey,Larry McDonald(also John Birch Society),Edwin Meese the third,Charles Missler,Grover Norquist,Larry Pratt,Pat Robertson,Phyllis Schlafly,General John Singlaub(Iran-Contra affair,Cleon Skousen(Mormon mafia),Edward Teller(inventor of the neutron bomb),Richard Viguerie,Paul Weyrich etc...Here an introduction into the Council for National Policy..https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXKGLoMod2GV6_Wm8hu2mStPHp4_SdiBh, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZCGpI_-GMo
The obvious explanation is that the Russian leadership is incompetent, with a system in which any criticism is banned so that mistakes never get corrected. That explanation fits the facts very well.
Great post. There's no doubt something seriously weird is going on with Russian decision making. Very, very weird! (Another weird thing to me is why chose end February with the spring thaw making movement off roads almost impossible, putting huge constraints on their abortive northern offensive towards Kiev - and making the retreat v difficult without having to abandon a lot of hardware).
Oh by the way I have read that the Donbass republics initially had big problems with Ukies targeting their bridges but solved it by laying huge metal plates across the bridges, which were impervious to rockets and artillery shells. Not sure if this is true, but if it is, why didn't the Russians do the same in Kherson (with far bigger resources)?
An innocent if still stupid explanation could be that Moscow expected at first – and held onto the belief for far too long – that once the Ukrainian forces collapsed the Russian forces would use the bridges to flood western Ukraine with their own forces. That might have gone on for a few months; what they’re thinking now, I have no idea.
That is also my thinkink. But what is the reason that they almost never targered bridges and similar vital infrastructure points on roads and railways suppliying from the west? Are they out of reach or?
Excellent post. Depressing in the extreme.
Also, no point in broadcasting to the whole world critical military information like an unsolicited retreat from a fortified city, which approaches are layered with trenches and that can be easily covered by friendly artillery fire from the other side of the river.
Then I guess, if they don't keep pushing towards Crimea, at least 5 of the 8 Ukrainian brigades in the Kherson region will be redeployed in the Donbass, so overall this withdrawal decision is nonsensical.
Word is, Americans are open to talks, provided the war closes with Ukraine recapturing Kherson.
As commenter Bezuhov would indeed point out, the goal of severing the energy supplying from Russia into Europe has largely been achieved. Now Germans need to buy much more expensive American LNG, or use smaller gas pipelines from Norway in order to complement what's left coming form a damaged NordStream. On their part, Russians are happy with increased oil prices. So the party which will have picked the shortest straw out of this war will be the EU. And the Ukraine, which in fact apparently refuses the idea of peace talks.
So I think this retreat thing is pretty much in flux right now. We'd need to see Kherson deserted first, in order to believe it.
You are a moron with no idea what has been going on. I look forward to your admission to this some time early 2023.
Excellent post. Totally agree with your conclusions on the military side of the campaign. The way it was and continues to be executed by the Russian side defies their own military science guidelines on how a war should be conducted. Many of the retired Russian military, including Konstantin Sivkov, former officer of the Staff General now deputy director of the Academy of Rocket and Artillery Sciences (a military think tank), have expressed that opinion.
But if military portion of this campaign is so blatantly off the mark on how the modern warfare should be conducted, this only leaves us to direct our attention to a level higher, to politics and see who is on the losing and the winning end of this "strange war". The main beneficiary in the short to mid term is US. Democrats' incessant focus on using Ukraine as a weapon against Russia that continued for 9 years is paying off. As a result they have subdued Europe, capital flight to the United States, demonstration of the military prowess after humiliation in Afghanistan. US reasserts itself as a top dog, at least among its vassals and the countries where they can twist their arms enough to make them do what State Department wants. 52 countries that voted in UN against Russian resolution opposing glorification of Nazi ideology is a pretty precise list of the countries that are going to follow US' direction no matter what. In prior years number of countries voting against this resolution was only 2, (US and Ukraine) today we have 2+50. Obviously EU is getting a short stick here - energy shortages and higher prices, losing a sizeable Russian market for high profit margin goods, another refugee crisis, unhappy population, even further reduction in political sovereignty. For Russia, along with many negatives, such as a significant lowering of position in international power ranking where it was considered not a great economic power but a significant military power, now no more - many see that the bear is not that scary and has got got claws made of cardboard. That military humiliation is going to have a long negative effect on Russia. On the positive side for Russia - this war is a jolt, both for the system and for society. It uncovered that Russian military was a cash cow for generals serving their personal enrichment goals, that economy based only on extraction and export of natural resources is a way to nowhere. That society, if it wants to survive during difficult periods, can't be based only on consumerism. That ruling power structures in Russia are inadequate for handling of current challenging situation and so forth. Russia now stands before a very difficult choice, either change rapidly or to disappear in a shape and form we know it now, as USSR did in 1991. China rips benefits from this conflict - broader access to Russian natural resources at a lower price and increased sale of their own high margin products replacing Europe in the sizeable Russian market. Same applies to India. Obviously on the beneficiary side of this war are the Globalists and their plan for Great Reset. COVID pandemic didn't come close to the damage to world economy that this war did in terms of inflation and disruptions to supply chain and previously established trading schemes.
Now, did Putin understand all of the nuances of who will be a loser and who is going to be a winner because of his military intervention campaign globally, when he ordered Russian troops to move into Ukraine in February? I think he did and this was a part of the agreed upon game. His assertion that Russia was forced to attack first because Ukraine was ready to start offensive in March is a total nonsense. Russia would have been in a much more advantageous position if Ukraine started this war first. But he couldn't wait since a) Full scale Ukrainian offensive on republics wasn't certain and b) Global planners could not wait and depend on the whims of a comedian Zelensky to start the war. They had to go to Putin who is famous for sticking to his commitments to the "Western partners". Did Putin understand the complete spectrum of risks that this action creates for Russia and his personal power and even physical survival? No, I think that his advisors have purposely presented diminished risks, overstated Russian military capabilities and perhaps they were victims of bad Intel about Ukraine themselves, coming from the people like the exchanged for 160 Azov regiment soldiers former Ukrainian opposition leader, Medvedchuk.
So my conclusion about this war is that it isn't driven by the military goals in a traditional sense. Both Russia and the United States, but in the first place the global planners with a good degree of influence on the official leadership of the countries, want this conflict to go for a period of time needed to achieve other goals, principally related to nearing conditions needed for the Great Reset, that in practicality means population reduction, greater command over remaining population using converged digital-medical-social means of manipulation and control, introduction and take over of financial markets by CBDCs that will also be used as one of the principal means of control, reduction of consumption by the remaining population switching most of proteins to insect and artificial sources and many other "smaller" changes spanning from education, gender policies, hiring practices etc. This is why we see in this war a certain caution preventing one side from gaining a clear victory. Russia looks like it fights with one hand behind its back, on constant retreat after very successful first 10 days of the operation, refusing to do what is needed to break Ukrainian supply lines flowing to the Eastern front. At the same time US and the West in general despite the rhetoric still didn't give Ukraine long range missiles, modern fighter jets and effective air defense systems in sufficient quantities. Conflict continues with the use of mostly Soviet weaponry on both sides that dates back 30 years +++, serving two main goals the way I see it - destroying infrastructure built by Soviets over the 70 years and killing in large quantities men of productive age on both sides. When the set but not stated goals for this war are going to be achieved? This is hard to say. But my projection is that by mid spring next year all sides including Ukraine, Russia, population of the Western countries will reach a sufficient level of exhaustion from this conflict so that it would have to be at least suspended and each side is going to declare itself a victor.
Here is an interesting video that was release on February 24th of this year, where Russian businessman industrialist, Vladimir Boglaev, the head of the mechanical foundry factory in the city of Cherepovets expressed his opinion on how this war is very likely not a part of scenario that Russia wanted to play, but was rather a result of a third party influence that made Putin to act the way he did. Original video was produced and published on February 24th of this year, translated to English version appeared only a day ago, November 9, 2022. Despite the fact that this video is now 9 months old, it still didn't loose its relevance.
https://youtu.be/D2bkGCLHNMg
One possible explanation being put out there is they want the enemy to come so they can destroy them.
It's a war of attrition if they cut the bridges the Ukraine army would remain intact on the other side & be a long term problem.
By allowing them to advance they have the excuse to cut them down thus reducing their forces.
The longer the war goes on the more flee the country further reducing its strength and mobilisation efforts.
The same goes for towns & cities in the war zone, a slow advance allows those in the East that support Russia to remain or flee to Russia, those that support Ukraine to flee to Ukraine, so it's a least bad form of ethic clensing
A country might not want to advertise this policy as it would be seen as morally repugnant, but if you wanted to gain control over a country probably an effective way to do this
It's so much nonsensical! It makes me think to the Covid managment!
Well my spontaneous thought is, the only circumstance that this strategy makes sense is, that Russia would try to take the middle Dnepr crossings herself in a grand push, fast eneough to prevent UA from blowing them up herself. Considering how clunky Russias move was hitherto, this seems super unlikely. Btw... what do you guys think about the like of Douglas Mc Gregor, who is frequently interviewed by all kinds of supsiciously fake looking right wing alternative news channels and who constantly chants the hymn of Ukraines imminnent collapse and grand Russian offensive operation on the door?
For educational purposes to bring that elite faction of the US into the light for the russian alt-media sphere as well..Let me introduce the Council for National Policy..Council for National Policy..Funded in 1981 by the former evangelical preacher Tim Lahey and originally financed by Nelson Bunker Hunt,Nelson Rockefeller,the Unification Church aka Moon sect,the Coke and Coors,Regnery Family,among others. Members of the CNP were involved in the Iran-Contra affair,funding of Al-Quaida,and the PNAC document..Every republican presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan,also Donald Trump, spoke in front of CNP members before getting nominated as candidate on the republican convention. Every head of the CNP with one exception was also member of the Knights of Malta. The CNP doesn't publish membership lists itself but lists were leaked and the CNP didn't deny the authenticity of the lists. To name a few famous former or current members of the CNP now..Mike Pence,Rudy Giuliani,Mike Pompeo,John Bolton,Steve Bannon.Michael Flynn,Erik Prince,Peter Thiel,Kenneth Blackwell,Betsy Devos,Tom Fitton(Judicial Watch),Oliver North(I
ran-Contra affair),Paul Craig Roberts,Richard deVos,Joseph Coors,Pierre du Pont,Jerry Falwell,Edwin Feulner(Heritage Foundation),Foster Friess(financed Turning Point USA with Charlie Kirk),Jesse Helms,Nelson Bunker Hunt,Herbert William Hunt,Jack Kamp,Tim Lahey,Larry McDonald(also John Birch Society),Edwin Meese the third,Charles Missler,Grover Norquist,Larry Pratt,Pat Robertson,Phyllis Schlafly,General John Singlaub(Iran-Contra affair,Cleon Skousen(Mormon mafia),Edward Teller(inventor of the neutron bomb),Richard Viguerie,Paul Weyrich etc...Here an introduction into the Council for National Policy..https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXKGLoMod2GV6_Wm8hu2mStPHp4_SdiBh, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZCGpI_-GMo
The obvious explanation is that the Russian leadership is incompetent, with a system in which any criticism is banned so that mistakes never get corrected. That explanation fits the facts very well.