Russia and Ukraine

[Thumpalumpacus]

Might-makes-right isn't a good recipe for international relations.

balance of power, or might, is the only good recipe for international relations.   any excess of power corrupts absolutely as the behavior of the US with invasion of iraq and arbitrary unilateral withdrawal from essentially all treaties governing what it can do to establish nuclear hegemony since 2003 shows.   Preventing the US from being able to further nullify what is really the only check on US ability to go where it wish and does what it wishes is made all the more vital when the US has proven to have become so degenerate since the end of the cold war as to prove capable of putting a trump at the trigger of half of the world’s nuclear arsenals.   The only such check, or balancing power to american power, available in the next 5-10 years is the Russian strategic nuclear deterrence.    So a US controlled NATO must not have Ukraine,  nor must any EU that, when push comes to shove, proves too short sighted or spineless to do anything but be totally permissive of the American geostrategic agenda in Europe.

1) China has nuclear forces that we are certainly cautious of, and rightfully so.

2) International diplomacy was capable of preventing major wars between Great Powers from 1945 to the present, not counting the proxy wars that all major powers, not just the US, partook of, so this is a slanted reading of history.

3) The US doesn't "control" NATO. This claim is a gross exaggeration.

4) Preventing a Ukraine membership in NATO did not require a bloody war, but now that the Russians are in it, they'll figure that out for themselves, I reckon ... at a high cost.

---

exactly what does a division being destroyed mean?  

Generally speaking, it means that the division can no longer exert combat power enough to influence a battle.

and how much of what is meant is true?   there have been a lot of over the top propaganda claims about casualties inflicted, but my impression is ukrainian exaggeration and falsifications have been more egregious than Russian ones.

It's possible that the Ukrainians are exaggerating, but given the tide of events the last couple of weeks, and given the numerous and amateurish supply issues the RF Army has faced since the war's beginning, it is believable.

Did you read the article?

---

It's what their units are actually designed for.  A western style (read :us) assault was never a credible option for their structure.  The operational difference of us and russian units can be read plainly in the numerical disparity.  An american unit is comprised in such a way as it can attack, fail..reatreat, and defend, without being "destroyed".  Russian units are just big enough to attack and succeed.....or... to offer stiff defense - but there is no margin for failure in either task before destruction.  When units organized that way were ordered to attack, and then failed, it compromised their primary ability to defend as well.

It's the difference between applying combat power at the point of contact, and applying mobility to decide the point of contact.

The organic logistical resources for a Russian division are paltry enough that without combat, they can expect to move maybe 150 miles off the railhead/jump-off before having to pause or regroup. Without combat. Once they apply their artillery, which is a major part of their ground doctrine, that mileage shrinks.

Here's a detailed look at the issues the RF Army has with organic transport. It's in the context of a Russian invasion of NATO, granted, but it still presents problems in the face of the determined Ukrainian defense we've seen, and bears reading. If you find the time to do so, I'd sure appreciate your ground-pounder's opinion on the points it makes. Its summation:

The Russian army will be hard-pressed to conduct a ground offensive of more than 90 miles beyond the borders of the former Soviet Union without a logistics pause. For NATO, it means it can worry less about a major Russian invasion of the Baltic states or Poland and a greater focus on exploiting Russian logistic challenges by drawing Russian forces further away from their supply depots and targeting chokepoints in the Russian logistic infrastructure and logistic force in general. It also means that Russia is more likely to seize small parts of enemy territory under its logistically sustainable range of 90 miles rather than a major invasion as part of a fait accompli strategy.

From the Russian perspective, it does not appear that they are building their logistic forces with fait accompli or blitzkrieg across Poland in mind. Instead, the Russian government has built an ideal army for their strategy of “Active Defense.” The Russian government has built armed forces highly capable of fighting on home soil or near its frontier and striking deep with long-range fires. However, they are not capable of a sustained ground offensive far beyond Russian railroads without a major logistical halt or a massive mobilization of reserves.

[link above]

Still, it's a vanity project for a dictator who's already reached his "my people don't deserve me" moment...so, there's no amount of reconstituting forces that would be too much for Uncle Vlad.

In for an inch, in for a mile.