Russia/Ukraine conflict

[wdolson]

Russia's military adventurism goes far beyond Ukraine. Appeasement is a terrible idea, not least because the other side is run by psychopaths. Has the Churchill lesson been forgotten ?

When the Chamberlain government fell, there was an appeasement faction that almost beat out Churchill for PM. If they had won, the best Britain could hope for is ending up like Vichy France, a servile puppet state in Germany's orbit. A large swath of the British population probably would have ended up doing slave labor.

Sometimes I wonder (hope) that Elon is simply saying pro Moscow talking points in order to balance himself out with the support he’s done for Ukraine. (Ie Starlink - which is absolutely massive because otherwise this war would probably be over already, and SpaceX so the US is not dependent on Russia for astronauts). Imagine if he was solely pro Ukraine on top of all that. Talk about painting a major target on his back.

Or maybe he is just saying what he thinks. If so, he should probably go there to see it first hand and talk to the people directly.

I think Elon has been influenced by the company he has kept the last couple of years.

 

[Tiger]

Sometimes I wonder (hope) that Elon is simply saying pro Moscow talking points in order to balance himself out with the support he’s done for Ukraine. (Ie Starlink - which is absolutely massive because otherwise this war would probably be over already, and SpaceX so the US is not dependent on Russia for astronauts). Imagine if he was solely pro Ukraine on top of all that. Talk about painting a major target on his back.

Or maybe he is just saying what he thinks. If so, he should probably go there to see it first hand and talk to the people directly.

For example people living in Moscow, they probably might feel like they are living in Europe, that's how distanced they feel from the war (or any means of affecting the war):

 

[heltok]

 

[Artful Dodger]

10 Jul: INSANE ATTACK. Russians Lose 200 MEN, 21 TANKS & BMPS IN 20 MINUTES | War in Ukraine (2 hrs ago)

Spoiler: Video

 

[petit_bateau]

When the Chamberlain government fell, there was an appeasement faction that almost beat out Churchill for PM. If they had won, the best Britain could hope for is ending up like Vichy France, a servile puppet state in Germany's orbit. A large swath of the British population probably would have ended up doing slave labor.

If Chamberlain's government had not rearmed Britain then it wouldn't have mattered which faction had gained control. The UK only managed to enter WW2 with a scant sufficiency of armanents/etc due entirely to the strategic positioning of the Chamberlain period. Every time I hear the memes of Churchill, Chamberlain, and appeasement being trotted out I realise how little is understood of real-world strategic history.

"Archival records of cabinet discussions in the late 1930s show a clear-eyed understanding of Nazi duplicity. Far from quailing at the massing jackbooted Nazi hordes, Chamberlain was the architect of British rearmament. In 1936, while Chancellor of the Exchequer, he began a vast, costly modernization of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force (RAF) and continued this policy when he became Prime Minister a year later. ................The crucial point is that Chamberlain did not shy from conflict. He simply wanted it to occur at the most advantageous moment for the country he led. "

Churchill, just like some other rabid useful idiots, has a long history of seeking wars and conflicts for political reasons. His biographies and many hagiographies are entirely self-serving and (imho) he does not deserve the adulation that many give him. Take a look at one of Churchill's previous warmongering episodes for example.

Chanak Crisis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The British well knew this - that Churchill was a very limited person - that is why he was resoundingly voted out even before the end of WW2.

1945 United Kingdom general election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

By contrast Zelenksy is an anti-Churchill. Zelensky did his absolute best to avoid this war. He was elected on an anti-war platform as the least antagonistic towards Russia, and even after the Russian invasion started he was still prepared to enter into peace talks that included a promise of no-NATO, loss of Crimea, etc. As we know that all ended with Bucha.

 

[AudubonB]

I do not wish this thread to begin focusing on the Great Britain of ninety years ago.

 

[nativewolf]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1678700834199162881

Expect lots of news from NATO summit today.

 

[nativewolf]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1678699217202860034

Another general. This time a competent one

 

[nativewolf]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1678687173783191552

Interesting if true. I was watching it happen and thought to myself that the tactical nukes had been kept in that city they bypassed. Of course this is an interview with the head of Ukrainian Intelligence, target #1 for the FSB, he could be lying , bending truth, etc. Interesting point though.

 

[lolachampcar]

I do not wish this thread to begin focusing on the Great Britain of ninety years ago.

But the points being made are relevant.

 

[wdolson]

If Chamberlain's government had not rearmed Britain then it wouldn't have mattered which faction had gained control. The UK only managed to enter WW2 with a scant sufficiency of armanents/etc due entirely to the strategic positioning of the Chamberlain period. Every time I hear the memes of Churchill, Chamberlain, and appeasement being trotted out I realise how little is understood of real-world strategic history.

"Archival records of cabinet discussions in the late 1930s show a clear-eyed understanding of Nazi duplicity. Far from quailing at the massing jackbooted Nazi hordes, Chamberlain was the architect of British rearmament. In 1936, while Chancellor of the Exchequer, he began a vast, costly modernization of the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force (RAF) and continued this policy when he became Prime Minister a year later. ................The crucial point is that Chamberlain did not shy from conflict. He simply wanted it to occur at the most advantageous moment for the country he led. "

Churchill, just like some other rabid useful idiots, has a long history of seeking wars and conflicts for political reasons. His biographies and many hagiographies are entirely self-serving and (imho) he does not deserve the adulation that many give him. Take a look at one of Churchill's previous warmongering episodes for example.

Chanak Crisis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The British well knew this - that Churchill was a very limited person - that is why he was resoundingly voted out even before the end of WW2.

1945 United Kingdom general election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

By contrast Zelenksy is an anti-Churchill. Zelensky did his absolute best to avoid this war. He was elected on an anti-war platform as the least antagonistic towards Russia, and even after the Russian invasion started he was still prepared to enter into peace talks that included a promise of no-NATO, loss of Crimea, etc. As we know that all ended with Bucha.

I know AudubonB has requested this be brought back to the current situation, but I will just say that I was talking about Lord Halifax, not Chaimberlain.

But steering back to the present and touching on history more broadly, leaders who can inspire people sometimes appear on the stage at the right time. Churchill was a one trick pony, but the trick he could do was the trick needed at the time. Zelensky did try to avoid the war, but when he was thrust into the role of a wartime leader, he rose to the challenge and became the inspiring leader Ukraine needs.

Zelensky has put himself in personal danger on several occasions to inspire the Ukrainians. He knows that his government would continue without him, he has ensured good people are heading up all the right positions and if the Russians do kill him, he becomes a martyr and Ukraine will fight even harder. I don't think he wants to die, he talks about how much he misses his kids and he appears to have a very good relationship with his wife, but he also knows that if he were to die, it would boost Ukraine's resolve.

Zelensky is more like Roosevelt in WW II. Right after Pearl Harbor Roosevelt say down with the leadership of the military and his cabinet and gave them a lot of flexibility to conduct the war in the way they felt was best. He still made the political decisions, but the war was conducted by the Pentagon. He knew that while he was a big fan of the navy and had been Assistant Secretary of the Navy in the Wilson administration, he was not a military man and knew others knew the details better than he did. Instead he did all he could to inspire America like Zelensky is inspiring Ukraine. Churchill inspired Britain too, which is his greatest contribution, but he was more hands on than Roosevelt.

Democracies can fumble around quite a bit and take longer to come to conclusions than authoritarian states, but when attacked democracies tend to respond better and get better buy in from the public than authoritarian states. Authoritarians make the state all about them and they become synonymous with the state. So those who don't like the authoritarian leader often can be ambivalent about fighting for the dictator.

In a democracy people feel more ownership of the government and even if the guy at the top isn't their guy, they will be more likely to fight for their country.

There are exceptions. Stalin managed to get the Russian people all in to defeat the Germans, and France fell apart pretty quickly in May 1940, but generally the people of a healthy democracy tend to fight with more vigor than the people of a dictatorship.

 

[SageBrush]

Democracies can fumble around quite a bit and take longer to come to conclusions than authoritarian states, but when attacked democracies tend to respond better and get better buy in from the public than authoritarian states. Authoritarians make the state all about them and they become synonymous with the state. So those who don't like the authoritarian leader often can be ambivalent about fighting for the dictator.

Are dictator states more likely to be the aggressor ? There is a distinct difference between being willing to die for the dictator, Vs fighting a defensive war.

 

[AudubonB]

Two posts deleted - apparently, one self-destructed as it sensed the Incoming.

I hope this does not begin a pattern for this thread.

 

[nativewolf]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1678736085055045632

Useful additions. The patriot systems could be quite useful but it is ..incomplete, two launchers? No command no radar?

Any and all IFV needed. Tanks don't hurt at least.

 

[JRP3]

Operator Starsky discusses Russian propaganda efforts

 

[petit_bateau]

As far as I can see it has taken UKR one month to reach the flanks of Robotdyne which is a quarter of the way to Tokmak.

There are four dry season months ahead, and one behind us.

Tokmak is where the main rail line comes inland most, we've all long since noted that.

Behind that is another line

Robotdyne is the first of the full defensive lines the Russians have built. Tokmak itself is so critical that it has a third ring to itself.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1678517000463589376

Russian field fortifications in Ukraine

Satellite imagery shows trenches and barriers span the front line in Ukraine

read.bradyafrick.com

This has all long been expected by both sides.

Where does Russia expect Ukraine’s counterattack? Overview of defensive lines

As Ukraine gathers forces for the counteroffensive, Russia continues to build defensive lines on a massive scale. The lines are especially formidable in the southwestern part of Zaporizhzhia Oblast, where many observers expect the main Ukrainian assault to strike. But defenses have been...

kyivindependent.com

see also

https://twitter.com/bradyafr

esp

Russian field fortifications in Ukraine

Satellite imagery shows trenches and barriers span the front line in Ukraine

read.bradyafrick.com

 

[BitJam]

How is the war going -- Mid July 2023

IMO this is a good analysis of why the Ukrainian counter-offensive has been slower than expected. Anders goes into more detail than "it's the air power stupid!" (which is true).

He makes the distinction between maneuver warfare and attrition warfare. With maneuver warfare you try to outsmart your enemy and move around quickly to outflank them. Patton's breakout across Europe and his dash to the besieged Bastogne come to mind as well as Germany's Kesselschlacht. Attrition warfare is the opposite. It is older and more primitive where you try to exhaust the enemy over time. Trench warfare of World War One is a good example.

The West provided Ukraine with a lot of equipment for maneuver warfare such as tanks and AFVs. Ukraine started their offensive with maneuver warfare and it didn't work. The Western donations were based on their underestimate of the competence of the Russian military. Perhaps more important, the West almost always does attrition warfare before they do maneuver warfare and they use air power and long range missiles to carry it out.

Despite Ukraine's many pleas, the West did not provide aircraft or enough long range missiles for Ukraine to conduct attrition warfare from a distance. So they are forced to slog it out and perform attrition warfare on the ground. The idea is that once the Russian forces are softened up enough, Ukraine can switch back to maneuver warfare and put the Western tanks and AFVs to good use. Unfortunately, Ukraine has not yet reached Russia's first fortified line of defense.

This attrition/maneuver view is summarized in Phillips P. Obrien's substack:

Weekend Update #36: 500 days

The New Battle of Kherson, Cluster Munitions, Erdogan snubs Putin, Ukraine and NATO

phillipspobrien.substack.com

as four phases:

1. Maneuver warfare (failed)
2. Attrition of Russian artillery (where we are now)
3. Attrition of Russian manpower (cluster munitions)
4. Maneuver warfare again

IMHO this makes much more sense than the silly WSJ claim that Russian barbed wire is holding up the Ukrainians. OTOH, the West is far from blameless in this perspective. It's unfortunate that the West withheld aid that would have allowed Ukraine to perform rapid attritional warfare and now seems to moan and complain that the offensive is taking longer than expected.

In addition, this view can even make sense of the early losses of a few pieces of Western equipment at the "start" of the offensive. Ukraine needed to show the West why they (Ukraine) have to do a slow attritional slog before being able to effectively use the Western maneuver equipment.

Ukraine is faced with the harsh reality that they need to demonstrate some significant progress this summer in order to justify getting more military aid from the West. ISTM they are doing the best they can with the hand that was dealt them.

 

[wdolson]

Are dictator states more likely to be the aggressor ? There is a distinct difference between being willing to die for the dictator, Vs fighting a defensive war.

Modern democracies don't often start wars. The US is the exception in this regard, though US wars aren't wars of territorial expansion. By modern I mean post WW II. Pre-WW II there were a number of colonial expansion wars on the part of democracies, most pre-WW I.

I think authoritarians are more likely to start a war than a democracy. I would have to sit down and work out the numbers, but the definitions are hazy around the edges. Russian elections are currently a sham, but they do have them so it's much further over on the dictatorship spectrum than Turkey which may have had some vote tampering in their recent elections, but there was some question of whether Erdogan was going to win re-election. Brazil has moved towards the dictator end of the spectrum in recent years, but it's recent election had an upset win that saw Bolsanaro out.

Whether a country is a democracy or a dictatorship has a lot of gray area.

Also defining what's a war or not is hazy. In the last year there was fighting between India and China, Azerbaijan and Armenia, and in the Balkans. We these wars?

Two posts deleted - apparently, one self-destructed as it sensed the Incoming.

I hope this does not begin a pattern for this thread.

There have been the occasional dust up here, but generally people are civil.

 

[navguy12]

Zelenskiy fails in effort to secure invitation to join Nato at Vilnius summit​

Zelenskiy fails in effort to secure invitation to join Nato at Vilnius summit

Leaders of military alliance sign off on declaration that does not give Ukraine firm membership timetable

www.theguardian.com

 

[wdolson]

Zelenskiy fails in effort to secure invitation to join Nato at Vilnius summit​

Zelenskiy fails in effort to secure invitation to join Nato at Vilnius summit

Leaders of military alliance sign off on declaration that does not give Ukraine firm membership timetable

www.theguardian.com

I'm not surprised. They don't know how long the war will last and how it will turn out. Ukraine is doing the right things now to get into NATO, but they have had a history of corruption. If they continue to root out corruption as they have been doing the last 16 months, they are in good shape, but if they return to their old ways of Zelensky gets replaced by an idiot who takes them in the wrong direction, NATO doesn't want to make promises.

The resolution is a dangling carrot. If Ukraine continues down the path they're on, they are a shoe in, but they also need to do the work.