Europe under extreme duress

[nittany03]

What is your opinion on the criticism that the administration is being too slow in sending equipment, saying it would be too provocative to send certain weapons only to then later send them anyway (such as tanks). IMO, they need to be more assertive in their support of Ukraine.

I have read it is believed that the Russians may try a counter offensive this Spring/Summer and/or the Ukrainians as well.

This is literally the equivalent of a virgin calling into a sex advice column. If @Flash can credibly answer this question, he won't, because it would involve exposing intelligence sources and methods. And if he doesn't have access to said things, you're asking him to bullshit about things he can't credibly talk about.

The USG is engaged in discussions about this sort of stuff well above what we can talk about on AWs, and no one who has details about that is going to spill the beans here. And if you don't understand that, your opinion doesn't matter, so why are you asking for information? Go back to Reddit.

 

[Random8145]

This is literally the equivalent of a virgin calling into a sex advice column. If @Flash can credibly answer this question, he won't, because it would involve exposing intelligence sources and methods. And if he doesn't have access to said things, you're asking him to bullshit about things he can't credibly talk about.

Well actually, I didn't know such an answer would involve that, so the answer you provided above is plenty satisfactory. Also I don't know his qualifications.

The USG is engaged in discussions about this sort of stuff well above what we can talk about on AWs, and no one who has details about that is going to spill the beans here. And if you don't understand that, your opinion doesn't matter, so why are you asking for information? Go back to Reddit.

It's a war so I am very curious about it. I would never ask for information about things if I knew it would involve people spilling classified information.To use an obvious example, I would never ask a submariner for specific details about the reactor on their submarine.

 

[MIDNJAC]

I would never ask a submariner for specific details about the reactor on their submarine.

Don't worry, you would die of boredom before they were done....

 

[Brett327]

I didn't know such an answer would involve that

I think that was his point.

 

[Flash]

What is your opinion on the criticism that the administration is being too slow in sending equipment, saying it would be too provocative to send certain weapons only to then later send them anyway (such as tanks). IMO, they need to be more assertive in their support of Ukraine.

I think they've done a great job with supplying equipment at the appropriate time. A lot of the more advanced stuff that folks are advocating sending, like tanks and fighter jets, are much more complex from the training and sustainment piece than sending artillery or MLRS systems. I've been disappointed that even some 'smarter' folks are pushing the fighter jets so hard, to make western fighter jets operated by Ukraine operationally credible it could take 2-3 years. Tanks will take less time to get trained on but the sustainment piece is big one, they take a lot of care and feeding and using them in war takes an even greater toll on them...obviously.

Overall I think the administration has done a superb job of supplying Ukraine with what it needs, when it needs it while also involving our allies in every aspect and every step of the way. We have been measured in what weapons we have supplied but have taken into consideration not only what capability we can give to the Ukrainians but what they can use as well from a training and sustainment piece.

Frankly I think this administration's Ukraine policy from the beginning has been a masterpiece in how to handle a crises like this and is a nice change from some of our more recent foreign policy fumbles of the last few years by successive administrations.

I have read it is believed that the Russians may try a counter offensive this Spring/Summer and/or the Ukrainians as well.

This is literally the equivalent of a virgin calling into a sex advice column. If @Flash can credibly answer this question, he won't, because it would involve exposing intelligence sources and methods. And if he doesn't have access to said things, you're asking him to bullshit about things he can't credibly talk about.

I would look to history as to when armies have campaigned in that region of the world and use that as a guide as to when offensives might kick off this year, that was a good indicator of when Russia was going to invade last year.

One thing to note, our intelligence community was founded at the start of the Cold War to prevent another Pearl Harbor and focused on the USSR for over 40 years. Old habits die hard and so it should be no surprise that we not only called the invasion last year well in advance but that we continue to do an excellent job of monitoring what is going on with the war.

 

[Flash]

It's a war so I am very curious about it. I would never ask for information about things if I knew it would involve people spilling classified information.To use an obvious example, I would never ask a submariner for specific details about the reactor on their submarine.

I am not sure where you are getting your info about the war but the Institute for the Study of War has excellent updates on it along with very pretty and very informative maps that are probably much more accurate than anywhere else you'll find online.

The UK's Defence Intelligence also has been a great resource about the war too, they do daily updates that let's you follow the war's progress pretty closely. And whatever you may think about what kind of info an intelligence agency will publicly disclose I will say their info is very credible.

For other reporting I've found Michael Kofman to be among the best commentators on the war for more in depth info and insight into what Russia is thinking and why they are fighting the way they are(he was born in Ukraine SSR). He is one of the few folks I'll actually take more than 3 mins to sit down and listen to about what is happening, specifically interviews with more credible think tanks and with other smarter commentators, and he is much more grounded about the war than others.

 

[Notanaviator]

I am not sure where you are getting your info about the war but the Institute for the Study of War has excellent updates on it along with very pretty and very informative maps that are probably much more accurate than anywhere else you'll find online.

The UK's Defence Intelligence also has been a great resource about the war too, they do daily updates that let's you follow the war's progress pretty closely. And whatever you may think about what kind of info an intelligence agency will publicly disclose I will say their info is very credible.

For other reporting I've found Michael Kofman to be among the best commentators on the war for more in depth info and insight into what Russia is thinking and why they are fighting the way they are(he was born in Ukraine SSR). He is one of the few folks I'll actually take more than 3 mins to sit down and listen to about what is happening, specifically interviews with more credible think tanks and with other smarter commentators, and he is much more grounded about the war than others.

Second this - if you really want to dive into not just the war itself, but broader implications and geopolitical stuff at play, subscribe to War on the Rocks. They have a range of podcasts, including more recently one that is more or less literally the Michael Kofman show, that spans the macro to the micro.

 

[Random8145]

I think they've done a great job with supplying equipment at the appropriate time. A lot of the more advanced stuff that folks are advocating sending, like tanks and fighter jets, are much more complex from the training and sustainment piece than sending artillery or MLRS systems. I've been disappointed that even some 'smarter' folks are pushing the fighter jets so hard, to make western fighter jets operated by Ukraine operationally credible it could take 2-3 years. Tanks will take less time to get trained on but the sustainment piece is big one, they take a lot of care and feeding and using them in war takes an even greater toll on them...obviously.

Overall I think the administration has done a superb job of supplying Ukraine with what it needs, when it needs it while also involving our allies in every aspect and every step of the way. We have been measured in what weapons we have supplied but have taken into consideration not only what capability we can give to the Ukrainians but what they can use as well from a training and sustainment piece.

Frankly I think this administration's Ukraine policy from the beginning has been a masterpiece in how to handle a crises like this and is a nice change from some of our more recent foreign policy fumbles of the last few years by successive administrations.

Thank you for all of the information, I do appreciate it. I do hope you are correct. Not meaning to make light of the fact that people are dying, but it is going to be extremely interesting to read about this war in the aftermath when the big books on it come out.

On the American intelligence, they did guess correctly that Russia would invade, however they got very wrong the actual capabilities of the Russian military and the Ukrainian military.

 

[Flash]

On the American intelligence, they did guess correctly that Russia would invade, however they got very wrong the actual capabilities of the Russian military and the Ukrainian military.

I'm not sure anyone expected the Ukrainians to do so well, even most Ukrainians. And while we seem to think the Russians would be a bit more competent, or to really show just basic military competence that even your most junior of soldiers should know, they got a more right than most folks assume. I just read a report that was just about as blunt as one could get in an official report, and they called it right from well before everything kicked off with the receipts (citations) to prove it.

The next few months should be interesting, especially after the coldest part of winter passes and before the ground starts to thaw too much.

 

[Random8145]

I'm not sure anyone expected the Ukrainians to do so well, even most Ukrainians. And while we seem to think the Russians would be a bit more competent, or to really show just basic military competence that even your most junior of soldiers should know, they got a more right than most folks assume. I just read a report that was just about as blunt as one could get in an official report, and they called it right from well before everything kicked off with the receipts (citations) to prove it.

The next few months should be interesting, especially after the coldest part of winter passes and before the ground starts to thaw too much.

When you say they got a lot more right than most assume, you mean our intelligence regarding the Russian military or the performance of the Russian military itself? I read an article by the leader of intelligence of the Estonian Defense Forces, he says the Russians have about 9,000 old tanks in storage. He says they probably can produce about one working tank per three stored tanks, so they should have the ability to produce about another 3,000 functional tanks still, albeit older ones. And their mobilization effort has managed to produce about another 200,000 soldiers, albeit not very well trained or equipped. Their economy also is recovering due to China. They have apparently expended a majority of their artillery ammunition and in comparison with what they were previously firing, do not have the industrial capability to produce enough replacement shells to fire at that same rate again, other than for a short period of time. They also are believed to still have lots of artillery guns though, although again older.

This war really kinda strikes me as like a miniature version of WWII on the Eastern Front. The parallels aren't the same, but it took four major battles over four years to really break the Germans: Moscow winter of 1941, Stalingrad winter of 1942, Kursk late middle of 1943, Bagration June 1944. I think similarly, we may see such play out with this war. The Russians got reversed pretty quickly, but then reestablished a defense, then the Ukrainians launched a major attack and drove them back further and took back more territory. Now we await to see what happens next.

 

[Flash]

When you say they got a lot more right than most assume, you mean our intelligence regarding the Russian military or the performance of the Russian military itself?

Just in general. A couple of things to keep in mind, the Intelligence Community, not to mention Combatant Command J2's, are pretty large and diverse in what they look at and what they analyze. Some parts of the IC did a bit better than others but overall it looks like it called what was going to happen pretty well with a few surprises in there for everyone. Frankly I don't think anyone could have predicted Zelenskyy would be using a smart phone in downtown Kyiv a day after the invasion to tell the Russians he wasn't going anywhere and to fuck off. Another thing to remember is that only so much becomes public, and intel failures are almost always better ink than successes.

I read an article by the leader of intelligence of the Estonian Defense Forces, he says the Russians have about 9,000 old tanks in storage. He says they probably can produce about one working tank per three stored tanks, so they should have the ability to produce about another 3,000 functional tanks still, albeit older ones. And their mobilization effort has managed to produce about another 200,000 soldiers, albeit not very well trained or equipped. Their economy also is recovering due to China. They have apparently expended a majority of their artillery ammunition and in comparison with what they were previously firing, do not have the industrial capability to produce enough replacement shells to fire at that same rate again, other than for a short period of time. They also are believed to still have lots of artillery guns though, although again older.

Quantity is a quality all on its own but there is a limit, and I think Russia is going to find it. At some point the Russian tanks are only going to be useful as missile sponges, which may help a little but not that much. I would be wary of what you would call 'functional', because the Russian definition and anyone else's is likely going to be drastically different.

As for their economy...recovering? Again, it really depends. Russia will likely be able to limp along indefinitely, Iran and North Korea both have been able to do so for decades now under severe sanctions, but 'recovering' to what exactly? And at what cost? Both countries have 'functioning' economies but their people suffer great deprivation, something that Russians have a long history of enduring but not under Putin. A large part of the reason that Putin has long been so popular is that he brought prosperity, in some form, to the average Russian. Money still matters to the Russian people, one of the few things that Putin backed down on due to domestic protests was trying to raise the age of pension eligibility in 2018. So it may take a while but the sanctions will start to bite sooner or later and affect the average Russian. What happens then?

 

[Random8145]

Quantity is a quality all on its own but there is a limit, and I think Russia is going to find it. At some point the Russian tanks are only going to be useful as missile sponges, which may help a little but not that much. I would be wary of what you would call 'functional', because the Russian definition and anyone else's is likely going to be drastically different.

By "functional," I mean the tank is a mostly complete tank that can be utilized as such. Now whether such old tanks would be effective against the Ukrainian forces is a totally different matter. It seems Russia is massing for an attack, so I wonder if this is the actual massing or if they are trying a deception operation like Ukraine used on them.

 

[Mirage]

Here's a question for the group... What do you think the center of gravity is for Russia in this war? Putin? Russian public opinion? Their industrial capacity to wage war? Something else?

 

[kmac]

Just in general. A couple of things to keep in mind, the Intelligence Community, not to mention Combatant Command J2's, are pretty large and diverse in what they look at and what they analyze. Some parts of the IC did a bit better than others but overall it looks like it called what was going to happen pretty well with a few surprises in there for everyone.

I‘m sure you can‘t mention it here, but I would be curious to hear your take on which parts of the IC did a bit better.

 

[Griz882]

Here's a question for the group... What do you think the center of gravity is for Russia in this war? Putin? Russian public opinion? Their industrial capacity to wage war? Something else?

Great question. I think it is a fascinating split between idealized “Russian” geography expressed through (mostly) Crimea layered with an equally idealized concept of Russian culture. Russia envisions itself as the one-time savior of the world (from fascism) and that vision is compounded by a hyper-nationalism that exists today. Geographically, Crimea is the pivot point. It grants total access to the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, has an emotional, recent, military history from the 1850’s where the Russians lost and will never forget it.

All of this brings us around to the CoG question. Should this war end with the Ukraine taking control of Crimea I believe Russia will collapse into a devastating civil war. Put simply, if the Russian myth can’t survive geographically then it can’t survive culturally. The more tribal aspects of large swaths of modern Russia will start to spall from the idea of being “Russian” over, say, being a Tartar. If the war can end with Russia beaten but still in non-military control of Crimea then internecine warfare can likely be avoided.