Europe under extreme duress

[wink]

If the war can end with Russia beaten but still in non-military control of Crimea then internecine warfare can likely be avoided.

What would this look like? I can't picture any kind of Russian control of Crimea without military bases, or Russian Navy port access.

 

[Griz882]

What would this look like? I can't picture any kind of Russian control of Crimea without military bases, or Russian Navy port access.

Another good question! Perhaps a DMZ from the Gulf of Arabat down to the Black Sea that runs westward to the Ukrainian border? The eastern bulge of the peninsula could hold military units. That would allow Russia to “defend” the Black Sea but not threaten the Ukraine.

But…I’m totally spitballing here!

 

[Flash]

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.

I think the places that specialize in more specific areas than the places that do more general stuff. It is a benefit of having a particular set of skills developed over a long career...versus someone who moves from area to area, a bit like an Army CWO4 helo pilot vs a Major helo pilot. There are goods and bads to having both, and we have the luxury of having both, but some of the specialists really nailed their particular areas of expertise.

 

[Mirage]

Another good question! Perhaps a DMZ from the Gulf of Arabat down to the Black Sea that runs westward to the Ukrainian border? The eastern bulge of the peninsula could hold military units. That would allow Russia to “defend” the Black Sea but not threaten the Ukraine.

But…I’m totally spitballing here!

Do you think Putin/Russia will allow an invasion of Crimea, which they have now claimed for almost a decade as Russian territory? Putin has said he will use nukes if it is invaded. If you are right that it is so important it is the CoG, then he might not be bluffing.

If you think the answer is "no, he will not allow an invasion without nukes being used it necessary", then would Ukraine be wise to attack that CoG? Would we be wise to allow that (insofar as we can control them)? If not, is there another CoG you see that is more vulnerable?

 

[Griz882]

Do you think Putin/Russia will allow an invasion of Crimea, which they have now claimed for almost a decade as Russian territory? Putin has said he will use nukes if it is invaded. If you are right that it is so important it is the CoG, then he might not be bluffing.

If you think the answer is "no, he will not allow an invasion without nukes being used it necessary", then would Ukraine be wise to attack that CoG? Would we be wise to allow that (insofar as we can control them)? If not, is there another CoG you see that is more vulnerable?

First of all I don’t think one can “invade” their own territory…just kidding.

Currently I don’t believe Ukraine has the military capability to successfully attack Crimea, much less keep it against a determined counterattack. Should Crimea fall it will come in the forth or fifth year of the war (yes, I think it could last that long) when Putin is so weak that the will of the people will be too much to overcome - in effect the hyper-nationalism I noted earlier will be significantly tarnished making the operation possible. More likely an international peace settlement will include the issue as I described (Russian control but substantially demilitarized).

As for nukes, I don’t believe it is a matter of what Putin “wants” or “orders.” I’m not convinced his Strategic Rocket Forces will execute the order. They know what would follow and likely don’t want that. At one level I’m not sure Russian missile systems are up to three task - we have seen some remarkable Potemkin Village stuff when it comes to the Russian military. More importantly the officers of the RVSN RF hold the crème-de la-crème of jobs…good living standards, lots of respect, top of the line kind of stuff. They might not want to risk all of that for one old, angry Czar with a death wish.

To your last question an alternative CoG might be to politically/psychologically/militarily strip another piece from Russia’s hide. Imagine deep cover Ukrainian operatives manage to convince the people of Belarus to rise up against Lukashenko and rid themselves of the imperial Moscow yoke! Putin can’t fight the Ukrainians, a revitalized Belarusian people, and the world. The impact would be similar to directly striking Russian culture…by taking away what they imagine they are. (Side note, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out CIA is already working with the survivors of Charter 97 or something similar).

 

[Spekkio]

Do you think Putin/Russia will allow an invasion of Crimea, which they have now claimed for almost a decade as Russian territory? Putin has said he will use nukes if it is invaded. If you are right that it is so important it is the CoG, then he might not be bluffing.

If you think the answer is "no, he will not allow an invasion without nukes being used it necessary", then would Ukraine be wise to attack that CoG? Would we be wise to allow that (insofar as we can control them)? If not, is there another CoG you see that is more vulnerable?

You can't attack a CoG without conducting offensive operations. As much as Ukraine is holding their own, they're not capable of doing that.

This war ends whenever Putin gets tired of fighting it, which is the same strategy employed against us in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[Mirage]

You can't attack a CoG without conducting offensive operations. As much as Ukraine is holding their own, they're not capable of doing that.

This war ends whenever Putin gets tired of fighting it, which is the same strategy employed against us in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Uhhh.. what?

If you don't know what a CoG is in this context, you need not reply.

 

[Spekkio]

Uhhh.. what?

If you don't know what a CoG is in this context, you need not reply.

I think that you need to dust off your copy of On War and maybe revisit your JPME I syllabus learning outcomes section.

Russia's COG in any military conflict is the will of Putin and his Oligarchs. To break this in a short timeframe, Ukraine would need to attack Russia with enough success to credibly threaten Putin's political power. That's not feasible with Ukraine's current military capabilities. So the long term strategy is to hold Russia at bay until Putin (or his successor) essentially says "fuck it, I'm done."

 

[Mirage]

I think that you need to dust off your copy of On War and maybe revisit your JPME I syllabus learning outcomes section.

Russia's COG in any military conflict is the will of Putin and his Oligarchs. To break this in a short timeframe, Ukraine would need to attack Russia with enough success to credibly threaten Putin's political power. That's not feasible with Ukraine's current military capabilities. So the long term strategy is to hold Russia at bay until Putin (or his successor) essentially says "fuck it, I'm done."

Dude you just said you can't attack a CoG without conducting offensive operations, and you think I need to revisit JPME? You followed that by explaining that Ukraine can target your chosen CoG by defending only, proving your first point wrong (and rightly so).

 

[Spekkio]

Dude you just said you can't attack a CoG without conducting offensive operations, and you think I need to revisit JPME? You followed that by explaining that Ukraine can target your chosen CoG by defending only, proving your first point wrong (and rightly so).

Clausewitz said you can't attack a COG without conducting offensive operations, and this is what JPME teaches. The best you can achieve is a stalemate, which is where Ukraine sits right now.

Clausewitz: It should be observed that the strategic defensive, though it is stronger than the offensive, should serve only to win the first important successes. If these are won and peace does not follow immediately, we can gain further successes only through the offensive. For if we remain continually on the defensive, we run the great risk of always waging war at our own expense. This no state can endure indefinitely. If it submits to the blows of its adversary without ever striking back, it will very likely become exhausted and succumb. We must begin, therefore, using the defensive, so as to end more successfully by the offensive.

Ukraine doesn't have that capability.

 

[Random8145]

You can't attack a CoG without conducting offensive operations. As much as Ukraine is holding their own, they're not capable of doing that.

This war ends whenever Putin gets tired of fighting it, which is the same strategy employed against us in Iraq and Afghanistan.

IMO, the war will end when Putin's forces are thoroughly ground down, which they have already been significantly. Iraq and Afghanistan the U.S. had the capability to conduct indefinitely because our country is far richer and the damage to the military in terms of casualties and equipment loss were tiny in comparison to this war. Russia has lost pretty much about 100,000 personnel so far and 1400 tanks thus far, along with other vehicles and equipment. And these personnel were their best soldiers. Their industrial base is far weaker than the West's and they are dealing with heavy sanctions. They are getting help from China, Iran, and North Korea, but that likely only will amount to so much.

Meanwhile, Ukraine is getting continued support from the West. The West needs to hold out and continue their support and hopefully the Ukrainians can grind down Putin's remaining forces. Putin has been able to pull about another 200,000 troops via conscription and offering prisoners the "opportunity" to fight, but the level of training and equipping of those troops is going to be very questionable. Putin clearly couldn't supply his "professional" forces, so supplying another 200,000 is going to be a big challenge.

Also questionable is their will to fight. This isn't World War II where the Germans were burning entire villages and mass killing the people and the Soviets were psychologically invigorated to fight back to save the nation. That is the Ukrainians this time. The Russians are just having to fight because Putin says so.

Putin's forces seem to be amassing in the East of Ukraine for a likely major offensive soon (provided this isn't a deception like the Ukrainians pulled last fall). So how both sides fare in that will be a determining factor as well.

 

[Spekkio]

You can have an opinion, and that's fine. I'm sure there are people who have an opinion that we should target deflation rather than inflation. But facts are facts, and the way the Russian government is structured means they'll wage war until Putin doesn't want to.

That is, unless, an ally wants to intervene and remove Putin and his oligarchs from power.

 

[Random8145]

You can have an opinion, and that's fine. I'm sure there are people who have an opinion that we should target deflation rather than inflation. But facts are facts, and the way the Russian government is structured means they'll wage war until Putin doesn't want to.

That is, unless, an ally wants to intervene and remove Putin and his oligarchs from power.

Government structure doesn't mean anything if their (lack of) resources make continuing to wage war impossible after a point. If their forces get forcibly driven out of Ukraine, then the war is pretty much over.

 

[Mirage]

Clausewitz said you can't attack a COG without conducting offensive operations, and this is what JPME teaches. The best you can achieve is a stalemate, which is where Ukraine sits right now.

Ukraine doesn't have that capability.

First off, no, that is not what that quote says. Nowhere in it does he refer to his concept of a CoG.

Second, Clausewitz came up with the concept of the CoG, but it has been further developed and theorized on by others. JPME does not teach that one can only win a war by offense. That's what the Vietnamese case study can illustrate. Our CoG was our will to fight and endure casualties. It was destroyed by killing us on both the offense and defense and turning public opinion against the war through additional nonmilitary means.

Lastly, the Ukrainians do have the ability to go on the offensive. They just did that rather successfully, retaking territory. Who is to say that capability won't be improved further in the coming months and years if Russia is weakened and Ukraine is strengthened by foreign aid?

 

[Spekkio]

First off, no, that is not what that quote says. Nowhere in it does he refer to his concept of a CoG.

Second, Clausewitz came up with the concept of the CoG, but it has been further developed and theorized on by others. JPME does not teach that one can only win a war by offense. That's what the Vietnamese case study can illustrate. Our CoG was our will to fight and endure casualties. It was destroyed by killing us on both the offense and defense and turning public opinion against the war through additional nonmilitary means.

Lastly, the Ukrainians do have the ability to go on the offensive. They just did that rather successfully, retaking territory. Who is to say that capability won't be improved further in the coming months and years if Russia is weakened and Ukraine is strengthened by foreign aid?

The Vietnamese case study illustrates that were were forbidden by political leadership to take the fight to the Viet Cong in their safe havens in Laos, Cambodia, and China. And that made the war unwinnable for us because we couldn't strike their COG. The end result was the status quo, minus tens of thousands of people killed.