Reply to the Doctor
I recently posted an article about the (in) famous mineral “deal” – along with a graphic taken from a British source.
Discount Plague Doctor pointed out something ….
Just wanted to point out that the map in question reflects the usual age-old Western obsession with "big arrow movements" (can't remember who created this brilliant description) and cities as "victory points", which reflects classic tabletop wargames used to train officers since at least the Napoleonic era.
Being an avid gamer myself, one thing most wargame systems have in common is one scores points, therefore victory, by owning victory points which are laid out on the map, biggest and fattest usually being the enemy capital, in a set number of turns. Note how personnel and equipment losses are not factored in.
This translates neatly into the "western" way of war: quick offensives aimed directly at major urban centres, usually followed by declaring "mission accomplished" and decades long guerrilla.
The Russian SMO instead went for the opposite strategy: slow and steady, grinding down any and all possible armed opposition. Its objective is _disarming_ Ukraine, not conquer it. By western wargame standards, it would be a total failure as it didn't occupy Kiev in a few weeks. That there's quite a huge chunk of the cognitive dissonance we're seeing from most Western "elites".
My reply….
You are quite right. The photo is just what the Brits are thinking, fhey can be said to “think”.
As yes, “war games”! Not Russian strategy.
As I have been saying from the beginning, first comes “demilitarization” —as the good doctor says “disarming” the Ukrainians. Then denazification. Then….
Best is to persuade the Ukrainians to demilitarize and denazify themselves — and help them find what they really want and need. Ironically, Western efforts to carpet-bag Ukraine and its resources may help that process.
Another point is that the Russians don’t regard this as an “invasion”. That’s Western thinking, as the Good Doctor says. Alex at Black Mountain Analysis did a superb analysis on strategic option a couple of years ago, if I recall .
Western military people like Scott Ritter are always advocating this kind of “big arrow“ strategy a long . Which I keep on criticizing.
If you look at the map, Ukraine is BIG! You see a very LONG “big arrow”, and an exposed supply line, vulnerable on the flanks . You need a huge army for this and complete control of the air, not to mention really, really good ISR.
It may be a long way to Tipperary but longer from Dnipro to Lviv. And when you get there, what then?
All possible but at what cost? And what are the benefits?
The current slo-mo war of attrition is better— even if it takes time, with major gains in terms of attrition over another year to come — and with a couple more years to engineer solutions. The Fat Lady is still taking singing lessons.
The end will be the same – lunch in Lviv – but it will take much, much longer than a Western type military movement. Frustrating for people like Trump, Americans think short term— quarterly profit and loss —Russians, long-term.
Consider: this conflict -- the war-that -is-not-a war— really started in 2014. Here we are 11 years later!
The Russians are winning, leaving all options open, with minimal casualties while their economy, industry, and society grows, along with national unity and integrity– incrementally and exponentially . They are not in a hurry. Time is on their side.
And they are not in this to expand the federation territorially but to protect what they have.
History, as I suggest in my special article, is on their side, too.
Time is not on the side of the west, as it declines and slides into the abyss.
Kudos to Discount Plague Doctor for strategic acumen!f
As I mentioned in my earlier post, Article 3 of the Putin series, “End of Civilization” is out. If you have problems with downloads let me know.
Excellent post and comment by the doctor.
this is not the beginning of WWIII - it's the final chapter of WWII