Bullets don't fly without supply...
I really, really, really can't express how much I hate agreeing with that statement. But the war in Ukraine is proving how true it is.
*It appears that Iran just launched 6(?) cruise missiles that hit a US consulate under construction in Iraq…
At first I thought about writing a post about the military situation in Ukraine, propaganda and critical thinking in the West, and the implications of the current situation for the future. That is way too much for a single post, so this will be part one of three and the focus will be upon the military situation.
Now, I think it’s important to understand that the global situation is still incredibly dangerous. A direct confrontation between the United States or any NATO country and Russia would almost certainly start WW3. WW3 would set the stage for nuclear exchanges - ESPECIALLY because the Russian military has been exposed as a paper tiger. That may seem backward, but let me explain. If Russia’s military was comparable to the United States, or even NATO without us, then they could fight and potentially achieve their military goals in a conflict. Combined with that, it is far-fetched that a Western Nation would use nuclear weapons first without being directly threatened. So Russia would have to go through other countries to reach France or the United Kingdom (they are the two European countries with nukes).
That translates to time: time for the militaries to grind themselves to a halt, and time for diplomacy to work. Also, it allows for retreat without loss of face for the aggressor. If the Russians only wanted Ukraine and Poland but controlled half of Germany, then they could give that up in negotiations. It’s a Cold War-esque example, but it works. Right now though, Russia’s military is not a near-peer power, so a direct conflict with the United States and NATO would end with Russian troops defending their border. That’s where the case for nukes becomes easier to make. If you believe you’re facing annihilation, then you’ll want to take as many of the enemy with you as possible.
Russia essentially wants to be as strong as the USSR was perceived to be. However, the only way they have any military parity with the West is by threatening to use nukes. The problem is that down that path lies only mutual destruction.
What makes the situation even more dangerous is that Russia is now threatening to hit the supply lines to Ukraine. Hitting transfer points in Poland would count as a, attack on NATO and trigger Article 5. Also, it is questionable whether they could pull off a strike. We are deploying Patriot missile systems to Poland, and multiple NATO countries have assets in the air to see such a strike coming.
At some level, it’s all just a mess; sorting through propaganda vs. information vs. misinformation vs. misinformed inferences is difficult.
But the ‘ground truth’ of the tactical situation is easier to comprehend. Three weeks ago, most people (myself included) thought of Russia as a dangerous enemy. I would even have made the case that due to their proud heritage and cultural differences, they were more dangerous tactically than the Chinese. Now, I don’t know. If the Russians are better than or comparable to the Chinese, that’s embarrassing.
The Russians are sustaining massive losses of armor to Ukrainian ambushes. Sometimes this is due to good tactics on the Ukrainian side (proof that American units that have been training the Ukrainians since 2014 did their job well). But other times, it’s just flat out stupidity from Russian commanders who should know better. For example, recently, an armored column pushed closer to Kyiv and bunched up on the road. Ukrainian artillery rained down on their heads. Any Russian commander worth his salt should’ve know that someone would’ve pre-plotted the road.
Also, the Russians are struggling logistically. Supply convoys are constantly getting hit by Ukrainian SOF. At this point, it is an open question whether the Russians are supplying themselves or the Ukrainians better.
Further, Russia has failed to achieve air superiority, which is frankly incredible. The Ukrainians have made excellent use of their anti-air systems and are inflicting losses on the Russians at a higher rate than the losses their air force is sustaining. Of all the surprises of the war, I think this has been the biggest. Reportedly, Ukraine still has combat-effective aircraft and are flying 5-10 sorties a day. Also, Ukraine is making excellent use of Turkish-made drones (the Bayraktar TB2). Videos have shown these drones hitting Russian anti-air systems and possibly even command posts.
It’s also interesting that Ukraine owns the night. Russia either didn’t field NVG technology or it is radically outclassed by what Ukraine is using.
Further, Ukraine has a famous muddy season which has already claimed many Russian vehicles. These stuck vehicles have either been towed away by Ukrainian farmers, destroyed, or repurposed by Ukrainians. The mud is being aided by what appears to be cheap, poorly-maintained tires.
Someone made the astute observation that Russia is fighting a two-front war. One front is against Ukraine the other is against the embedded corruption within the Russian Armed forces. Also, while some people have compared the Russian advance to the slow start of the Iraq invasion, it’s worth pointing out that Americans were not the ones surrendering *en masse*, where many times Russians have surrendered in groups.
I am starting to wonder if Russia is going to lose this conflict. Russia has larger reserves of all kinds of equipment than the Ukrainians, but not all of that is in theater. Plus, at what level do their losses become unsustainable?
Even if Russia commits to sending more units to Ukraine or uses Syrian Army soldiers, their equipment is likely to be of the same quality. If Russia is determined to conquer all of Ukraine, then they will suffer heavy losses. More likely, they just desire to seize Kyiv and force some kind of capitulation. The problem is that to do so they will have to engage in lots of urban conflict. Operating in an urban environment is incredibly stressful and vicious and requires sound small unit tactics. Think of Fallujah and Ramadi - only now the combatants are being supplied with the best of the western world’s armories. It would be a nightmare situation for Russian soldiers, especially since they haven’t demonstrated any infantry competence this entire time. (It is possible that whatever experienced infantry they had perished in the failed airborne/air assault operations.) On the job training during war is a very costly and Darwinian way to acquire competence.
Now, warfare often hinges on crazy things. Perhaps there is a coup in Russia. Perhaps some Wagner group mercenaries kill President Zelensky. Perhaps Russia hits targets in Poland and NATO enforces a no-fly zone that somehow doesn’t turn into WW3. Or perhaps Ukraine becomes modern Russia’s Afghanistan. Right now, unless Russia changes tactics or commits a new wave of troops, I think they will lose any offensive momentum and be unable to advance. However, if Putin is willing to pay any price to conquer Ukraine, then it’s likely that eventually Kyiv will fall and will look like Grozny. The mere fact that it’s even a question proves that Russia is nowhere close to being a near-peer power or a superpower.
It goes to show that yes, republics have an advantage in warfare. Machiavelli talked about how fiercely free people would fight to preserve their freedom. I understand that it is in vogue on the right to emphasize the corruption of Ukraine. However, the strongest evidence that the people of Ukraine feel like their country is free is in how they are resisting the advance of the Russians.
Remember, this is part 1 of 3.
Bonus Pics:
