ウクライナの攻撃が停滞した理由
進む道は一つしかない
エドワード・ルトワック著
https://unherd.com/2023/08/why-ukraines-offensive-has-stalled/
『(※ 翻訳は、Google翻訳)
ドネツク州シヴェルスクの町近くのウクライナ軍人(ANATOLII STEPANOV/AFP、ゲッティイメージズ経由)
エドワード・ルトワック教授は、大戦略、地経学、軍事史、国際関係に関する著作で知られる戦略家兼歴史家です。
エリュトワク
2023 年 8 月 10 日
以下にファイルされています:
ロシア第二次世界大戦ウクライナウクライナ戦争戦争
共有:
ロシアのミサイルがウクライナの都市を攻撃したり、キエフの無人機がモスクワの建物を標的にしたりするたびに、その攻撃の後には電撃襲撃に値する類のメディア報道が必然的に起こる。しかし、見出しを生み出すことが彼らのほぼ唯一の功績だ。精密ミサイルは爆発物をそれほど多く投射することができず、無人機ではさらに少ない。その優れた命中精度に関しては、貴重な目標を特定できる場合にのみ効果を発揮します。これは、戦場の戦車や外洋に浮かぶ軍艦に対して行う以外には困難です。
建物に対して、小さなミサイルの弾頭や小さな無人機の突撃は確かに損害を与える可能性がありますが、実際の結果にはなりません。そしてこれは、特にヨーロッパ大陸での最後の大規模な紛争と比較した場合、戦争全体の重要な側面です。
あなたが読んでいるものが好きですか?無料の UnHerd毎日メールを受け取る
すでに登録?サインイン
1942年3月以来、英国空軍爆撃機司令部はランカスター爆撃機を通常の個別爆弾搭載量6,400kgで飛行させていたため、400機の爆撃機による最初のランカスター空襲では2,560トンが投下された。戦争が始まった。確かに、イギリスの夜間爆撃は不正確であることで悪名高く、その後多くの批判を浴びた。しかし、1945 年までに、ハンブルクやケルンなどの都市は焼け落ち、ベルリンなど他の都市は壊滅状態になりました。キエフではこれに相当することは何も起こっておらず、また起こり得ない。なぜなら、ロシアには小規模な戦略爆撃機部隊しかなく、ウクライナには戦略爆撃機部隊がないからだ。現在世界中で運用されているすべての軍用無人機は、爆撃機司令部が数晩で投下できる量の爆発物を投下することはできません。
したがって、3000年紀最初の本格的な戦争は地上で戦わなければならないが、これは西側諸国とロシアの将軍が自信を持って予測していた「ポストキネティック」のサイバー・情報戦争からのかなりの逆転である。この戦争は、西部戦線における第一次世界大戦と同様に、徹底的な、粉砕、消耗によって戦わなければならないものであり、第二次世界大戦でグデーリアン、ロンメル、パットン、ロコソフスキーらの有名人となった「機動戦」の功績はほとんどありません。第二次世界大戦、そして 1967 年と 1973 年のアリク・シャロン。
これらすべての戦争の達人は、奇襲攻撃によって不釣り合いな勝利を収めました。高速で移動する縦隊で到着した彼らの軍隊は数で大きく上回り、特定の区域を圧倒したが、前線全体に分散していた敵の大部分は時間内に介入することができなかった。
言い換えれば、「機動戦」は完全に奇襲に依存しているのです。第二次世界大戦中であっても、信頼性の高い航空写真が存在したため、戦闘前に集中した戦車、トラック、砲兵用牽引車が数週間にわたって集結するため、発見を免れることはできませんでした。しかし、攻撃陣が移動すると、彼らを監視下に置くことは困難であり、ましてや彼らの目的地を予測することは困難でした。写真撮影は夜、雲、敵戦闘機によって妨げられ、おとりや無線通信のシミュレーション、二重スパイの偽りの物語などで敵を欺くには十分以上の不確実性が残された。
このようにして、1944 年 6 月 6 日の D デイ、連合国軍が 330 マイル離れたノルマンディーに上陸する中、最強のドイツ軍装甲縦隊がカレーの背後に集結し、パットン率いる架空のアメリカ第 1 軍集団と対峙することになったのです。1950年9月のダグラス・マッカーサーの仁川上陸作戦は、それまでの数カ月間の北朝鮮の一連の勝利を無効にしたが、同様に、160マイル南にある群山への上陸を非常に精巧にシミュレートすることで完全な驚きをもたらした。
推奨読書
ウクライナはロシアの新たな攻撃を撃退できるだろうか?
デビッド・パトリカラコス著
今ではそんなことは起こり得ない。アメリカ、ロシア、その他の軍事大国は、合成開口レーダーを備えた観測衛星を保有しており、視界に関係なく、大規模な軍隊のグループはおろか、単一の戦車を明らかにすることができます。また、帰還衛星は頻繁に更新され、状況に応じて数時間で軍隊の動きを検出できます。数分ではありません。傍受、航空偵察、地上観測から得られるその他の情報は、この信頼できる情報を補足するものにすぎません。戦場の透明性を高め、奇襲作戦を不可能にし、大量の死傷者を出さずに迅速に戦闘に勝利できる機動戦を消滅させるには十分である。
初夏、ウクライナ人が築き上げた貴重な「作戦予備軍」を配備したとき、彼らがそれをどうするかについて大きな謎はなかった。ザポリージャの南のどこかを攻撃し、黒海まで戦いを挑んだのだ。これにより、ドニプロ川下流の西側に張り巡らされたロシア軍に供給する東西道路と鉄道がすべて遮断されることになる。それは大勝利への布石となり、プーチン大統領は戦争を継続するか、足止めされた軍隊を救出するために停戦交渉を行うかの選択を迫られることになる。
攻撃には 3 つのベクトルが考えられます。まず、キエフはメリトポリへの直接攻撃を開始する可能性があり、これには深さ90マイルを超える野心的な侵入攻撃が含まれることになる。あるいは、より多くのロシア軍を遮断し、より多くの領土を奪う125マイルの攻勢でベルジャンクを目指すこともできるだろう。あるいは、さらに大胆なことに、マリウポリまでの150マイルを行進する可能性もあるが、ロシア軍が反撃する前に黒海沿岸に到達するには、ナポレオン的なスピードと集中力が必要となるだろう。
これらのオプションはどれも実行可能であることが証明されていません。ウクライナ軍が訓練と展開を行っている間、ドニプロ川以南のロシア軍はおよそ625マイルに及ぶ地雷原で守られた塹壕線を掘っていた。これは西部戦線の最大範囲よりも185マイル長い。ナポレオンは、この直線的な防御のスタイルを「非常線」と呼びました。これは、長い前線に沿って敵を保持するために歩兵で作られた太いロープです。そして、彼自身の時代に、非常線が前線を守る最も愚かな方法である理由を正しく説明しました。敵は縦隊で到着し、攻撃した特定の部門を保持している少数の軍隊を簡単に突破します。
しかし再び透明な戦場がすべてを変えた。ウクライナ軍の前進をリアルタイムで監視し、ロシア軍は同数ではないにしても、彼らを迎撃するために軍隊を派遣することができるだろう。そして、たとえ数が同じだったとしても、ロシア人は地雷原と塹壕によって守られるため、戦闘は不平等になるだろう。
また、ウクライナ人がドイツ人に求め、懇願し、最終的には実質的に要求してきた巨大な 66 トンのレオパルト戦車の戦闘価値を大幅に過大評価していたことも残念でした。Leopard は米国の M1 やイスラエルの Merkava IV に匹敵します (3 両とも約 60 トンの積層装甲と高速 120 mm 砲を搭載しています)。しかし、M1とメルカバがロシアの装備部隊と対峙する際に頼りにしているものが1つ欠けている。それは、飛来する対戦車ミサイルを探知するレーダーと弾頭を粉砕する小型銃を備えたイスラエルの積極的防衛装置であるトロフィーである。
ドイツはこの装置を入手しているが、自らテストすることを主張し、ウクライナへの出荷が遅れている。トロフィーの保護がなければ、レオパルドはコルネット対戦車ミサイルで武装したロシアの戦車狩りの餌食となった。米国のジャベリンよりもはるかに単純で汎用性が低く、はるかに安価ですが、コルネットは反応装甲を打ち負かす二重弾頭により非常に効果的です。ウクライナの待望の攻撃が始まったとき、最も残念なことに、先頭に立つはずだった貴重なヒョウの一部が破壊されるという形でそれが実証されました。
厳しい制裁を受けているロシア経済と、ウクライナを支援するはるかに裕福な西側連合との間の地経学的対立から、より良い結果が生まれることを期待していた人もいるかもしれない――特に物事の始まりが非常に良かったからである。
ドイツとイタリアがロシア市場とロシアの天然ガス供給の喪失を容認しないのではないかという初期の懸念は根拠がなかったことが判明した。亡命の代わりに、ウクライナを経済的に支援する連合はヨーロッパ全土に拡大し、現在では日本や、今年1億5000万ドルのトークンを送金した韓国さえも含まれている。
この著者の作品をもっと見る
中国が戦争の準備をしている手がかり
エドワード・ルトワック著
しかし、ロシアが石油輸出と西側製品の輸入の両方を停滞させることで、おそらく交渉のテーブルに着くまで深刻な圧力を受ける可能性があるという当初の期待はすぐに消え去った。中国とは異なり、ロシアは食料と燃料の両方を自給自足しており、密輸が容易なマイクロプロセッサーやその他のハイテク品を除いて、必要なものはすべて製造できる。
トルコは表向きは米国の緊密な同盟国であるが、依然としてロシアへの多くのハイテク輸出の中継地であり、トルコの貿易業者や密売業者は他国で多くの競争を抱えている。ロシア経済に関しては、暗いニュースはあるが、それほど暗いわけではない。今年達成される成長率はわずか1.5%だが、それでもドイツの成長率(ゼロと予想される)を上回る。ロシアのインフレ率3.3%もユーロ平均の半分程度だ。ロシアの経済的降伏によって戦争は終わることはない。
したがって、進むべき道はただ一つ、民族解放の闘いにふさわしい、戦争を本格的に闘うことである。ウクライナの人口は減少しているものの、依然として3,000万人を超えており、制服を着た総数は最大で300万人(1948年のイスラエルの比率は10%)、少なくとも200万人(人口に占めるフィンランドの予備兵)になる可能性がある。これらの軍隊があれば、ウクライナはヨーロッパのほとんどの独立戦争と同じように、過酷な消耗戦によって戦いに勝利し、領土を解放することができるだろう。
ディスカッションに参加する
コメントでのディスカッションに参加するには、有料購読者になる必要があります。
私たちのジャーナリズムをサポートする志を同じくする読者に加わり、無制限の記事を読み、その他の購読者限定の特典をお楽しみください。
購読する
103件のコメント
最も投票された
マット・ハインドマン
マット・ハインドマン
2日前
「これらの軍隊があれば、ウクライナはヨーロッパのほとんどの独立戦争と同じように、過酷な消耗戦によって戦いに勝利し、領土を解放することができるだろう。」
とてもドラマチックでロマンチックな考えです。一方、現実の世界では、そのようなことが起こるためには、機能的な産業基盤を持つことが不可欠です。ウクライナにはそれがなく、西側諸国には冗談だ。現在、中国との緊張の高まりを受けて、米国は可能な限り自国の産業能力と防衛力を急速に強化している。また、紛争の可能性に備えて、これらの在庫の多くを補充する必要がある。世論の変化と相まって、米国の援助はおそらく岩のように減少するだろう。欧州の NATO 諸国は、産業能力と防衛費の弛緩により、その余力を取り戻す立場にほとんどない。一方、ロシアには良質な天然資源と人材を雇用できる膨大な人口を備えた機能的な産業基盤があります。ウクライナが現在直面している問題は、大規模な戦略や局地的な戦術よりも根本的なものである。彼らは数学的方程式の負け側にいます。
92
返事
アンハードリーダー
アンハードリーダー
1日前
マット・ハインドマンに返信
彼は、ウクライナが死ぬには3,000万人がいないということさえ知りません。彼はほとんどの西側評論家よりも再生に精通していますが、ウクライナの人口が2,000万人を下回っていることを理解するのに十分ではありません。
5
返事
ブレット・ラーソン
ブレット・ラーソン
1日前
UnHerd Readerへの返信
ディアスポラについて考えたことはないのですか?ウクライナが成功するためには、彼らを闘争に組み込む必要がある。
-5
返事
アンドリュー・フィッシャー
アンドリュー・フィッシャー
18時間前
UnHerd Readerへの返信
3700万。なぜここにいる多くの人が自分の主張を強化するために単純に何かをでっち上げているのかわかりません。
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/ukraine-population/1返事マーティン・ローガンマーティン・ローガン1日前マット・ハインドマンに返信
これは実際、2022年2月25日に人々が言っていたことだ。
この議論の問題点は、バイデンが再び戦争に負けるわけにはいかないということだ。さらにヨーロッパは、ロシアの勝利がヨーロッパの他の地域を支配し、脅かすことになることを正確に知っている。好むと好まざるにかかわらず、彼らはウクライナを支援し続けなければならないだろう。
そして、トランプ氏はいくつかの異なる罪状で有罪判決を受ける可能性が高いため、共和党からのいかなる脅威もありそうにない。トランプ氏が選挙戦から外れてしまえば、バイデン氏に勝てる共和党の代替候補者は存在しないだろう。
長期戦になりそうだ。
そして世界経済の50%がウクライナを支えている。
(ルーブルが 1 ドル 97 円も下落するとは思いもしませんでした。バスルーム用ティッシュの代替品です)
最終編集日: 1 日前 Martin Logan
-28
返事
ハリー・ストーム
ハリー・ストーム
1日前
マーティン・ローガンに返信
トランプ氏がこの方程式から抜け出すことができれば、デサンティス氏は選挙で逃げ惑うバイデン氏を完全に粉砕することになるだろう。
21
返事
マーティン・ローガン
マーティン・ローガン
1日前
ハリー・ストームへの返信
トランプに勝てなくても問題ない。
0
返事
チャールズ・スタンホープ
チャールズ・スタンホープ
1日前
マーティン・ローガンに返信
ナンセンス!
もちろん、あの硬直した愚か者バイデンには、別の戦争で「負ける」余裕がある。アメリカは近年、戦争に負けることを芸術のようなものにしていた。
残念ながら、ここでも米国でも「デモ」はこの戦争にうんざりしており、18世紀型*の妥協平和が唯一の実行可能な解決策であるという事実に直面することになるでしょう。
(※双方が勝利を主張できる和平。)
最終編集日: 1 日前 by stanhopecharles344
28
返事
ジム・ボチョ
ジム・ボチョ
1日前
チャールズ・スタンホープへの返信
戦争は、アメリカが介入する以前のウクライナ地域のほぼ半分に相当するウクライナのロシア語圏全域をロシアが占領すれば終結する。ウクライナは、米国によって完全に破壊された国の長いリストに加わった。
31
返事
チャールズ・スタンホープ
チャールズ・スタンホープ
1日前
ジム・ボチョに返信
まさに、最も公平な解決策であり、天才オットー・フォン・ビスマルクさえも承認したであろう解決策です。
15
返事
フランク・マッカスカー
フランク・マッカスカー
1日前
ジム・ボチョに返信
ごめんなさい、アメリカが侵略したのですか?左利きのロジックで出血する心は勘弁してください
-6
返事
アンナ・ブラムウェル
アンナ・ブラムウェル
1日前
ジム・ボチョに返信
関与した反政府勢力2人はウクライナ領土の約6%を占めている。かつての辺境の町キエフは今では国の中心にあることを忘れないでください。もちろん、ロシア語を母語とする人もたくさんいます。彼らはヤヌコビッチに二度投票しましたが、そのお金は国民全体に分配されています。もし私がプーチンだったら、ルガンスクとドンバス、そしてクリミアへのアクセスを与える土地を買うことを申し出ただろう。
7
返事
リアム・ブレイディ
リアム・ブレイディ
1日前
ジム・ボチョに返信
ゼレンスキーのようなロシア語話者とはどういう意味ですか?
非ロシア語を話す人だけでなく、ウクライナ人全員がロシアを軽蔑している。
1
返事
マーティン・ローガン
マーティン・ローガン
1日前
ジム・ボチョに返信
えー、失礼ですが、ロシアは今まさにウクライナを破壊しているところではないでしょうか?;-)
6
返事
ブリン 0
ブリン 0
1日前
ジム・ボチョに返信
リビア、シリア、イラク、アフガニスタンと同じように破壊されました。ベトナムは65年ぶりにどういうわけか再び資金を調達した。米国指導者のネオコンと現代の植民地主義を祝福します。政治家だけでなく、MEGAの金融や企業のCEOも含まれます。
0
返事
ブレット・ラーソン
ブレット・ラーソン
1日前
チャールズ・スタンホープへの返信
時には古いやり方が最良の方法であることもあります。私の子供が数年間前線で戦っていたら、それが優先されるでしょう。
1
返事
マイケル・コールマン
マイケル・コールマン
1日前
マーティン・ローガンに返信
トランプ氏が有罪判決を「可能性が高い」のは、陪審員のほぼ全員が民主党員である場合に限られるが、ワシントンDCのような少数の地元住民であればその可能性はあるが、その可能性は低い。このような偏った陪審は、有効な有罪判決の上訴の多くの考えられる根拠の一つとなるだろうが、トランプ氏が11月24日までに刑務所に収監されることを期待しないでください。その上、私たち非トランプ保守派の多くががっかりしたのは、それぞれが「政府を欺く陰謀」(明らかにトランプ大統領は故意に違法に学生ローンの1兆ドルを帳消しにした)などのばかばかしい容疑を重ねたことで、トランプ大統領をさらに強くしたのだ。
一度出ればバイデンは簡単に勝つというあなたのコメントはまさに逆向きです。トランプ以外のRはバイデンに勝つ可能性が高いため、最善の選択肢であるデサンティスに対するばかばかしいMSMとD攻撃が行われます。
9
返事
マーティン・ローガン
マーティン・ローガン
1 day ago
Reply to Michael Coleman
Guess you missed his phone call to Raffensperger askign him to give him 11,000 votes.
That will send him to prison.
0
Reply
イアン・ジョンストン
Ian Johnston
1 day ago
Reply to Matt Hindman
Spot on.
Quantity has a quality all of its own.
And Ukraine/NATO doesn’t have it – for the reasons you outline above.
6
Reply
スティーブ・ファレル
Steve Farrell
1 day ago
Reply to Matt Hindman
Russian population is 150 million. It’s large, but it’s not massive.
2
Reply
トム・J
tom j
1 day ago
Reply to Matt Hindman
I thought the conclusion totally out of synch with the rest of the article. Perhaps he decided he need to finish with some optimism.
23
Reply
ブリン 0
Bryn 0
1 day ago
Reply to Matt Hindman
Defenitely so.
How crazy of NATOs Stoltenberg to imagine Ukraine will win against Russia. And then also at the same time, insist that the reason for NATO to support is the threat Russia represents to NATO. A real oxymoron.
0
Reply
ピーター・ハードキャッスル
Peter Hardcastle
20 hours ago
Reply to Matt Hindman
Do any of you rely think the EU wants Putin on its door step, the answerer is no, so most of the comments I read are inaccurate as they fail to understand that. The same goes for uncle Sam the Americans do not want Putin in their back yard similar to ww2
.I could also say we find ourselves in this situation because NATO failed to understand what Putin’s aim was when he invaded Crimea, Had NATO allowed Ukraine to join the “club” in 2015 we would not be in this situation we find ourselves now, I sometimes think Trump was correct when he said the “club” was passed it’s sell by date or at least those running the thing are.
4
Reply
アンドリュー・フィッシャー
Andrew Fisher
18 hours ago
Reply to Matt Hindman
The West’s industrial base (which fod goodness sake includes the United States) is vastly more productive than Russia’s. Whether we wish to up the ante on supporting Ukraine is another matter.
And there is the small matter that the Russian population really do not want their kids to be ill treated and equipped conscript cannon fodder in this war. There are more if them, but they are vastly less motivated than the Ukrainians.
They might even think perhaps ‘isn’t Russia big enough’?
Last edited 18 hours ago by Andrew Fisher
2
Reply
アレックス・カーネギー
Alex Carnegie
1 day ago
I agreed right up to the last paragraph. Historically the advantage has swung between defence (e.g, WW1) and offence (e.g.WW2). For the reasons explained by Luttwak, it has now swung back in favour of the defensive. The Ukrainian War is now a stalemate (unless one or other of the combatants implodes for reasons of morale or politics).
Cold War rules apply. Proxy wars between nuclear powers require pragmatism. The best parallel is with the Korean War. A ceasefire or peace – not mass mobilisation as recommended in the last paragraph – is the sensible if disagreeable way forward. The West has demonstrated resolve and discouraged further aggression. Winding down the fighting would reduce pointless slaughter, allow America to focus on China, permit munition stocks to be rebuilt and reduce the risk of escalation. A longer war risks eroding western support. It would have been great if the southern offensive had worked but now it is time to accept current reality and draw the logical conclusions.
The US military appear to have done so some time ago. Behind the public bellicosity, I suspect that Kiev has also worked it out but needs an escalation in the short term in order to create a crisis that means they can claim – to their more extreme supporters in West Ukraine – that they are being forced to make peace. Putin may fear the internal stresses created by continued fighting and be content with his limited gains. I hope the War will end within months.
Last edited 1 day ago by Alex Carnegie
47
Reply
マーティン・ローガン
martin logan
1 day ago
Reply to Alex Carnegie
Sorry, you misunderstand Putin–and this war. Right now he’s pressing both the gas and the brakes at the same time.
He is preparing for a long war. HIs “gains” are laughable, and he would fall from power if the border were drawn where the front is now.
Putin only stays in power due to the “vision” that most of Urkaine will fall under Russian control. But in order to do that, he would need to fully mobilize, and expand the army many times.
But he cannot do that, if he wants to stay in power.
So he will continue to muddle through.
He certainly won’t make peace.
-5
Reply
アレックス・カーネギー
Alex Carnegie
1 day ago
Reply to martin logan
I accept that Putin’s reaction is the hardest part of the situation to assess. He has repeatedly wrong footed supposedly knowledgeable observers. Maybe it will be like the Korean War when the West came to accept partition as the pragmatic solution after a year’s fighting but it took another two years of military stalemate (and the threat of nuclear weapons by Eisenhower) before there was a deal. Objectively, however, Putin must be tempted to bank his gains and declare victory. His prestige – and therefore security – would be boosted since he would have taken on America and not only survived but gained territory.
23
Reply
ピーター・ブラナガン
Peter Branagan
1 day ago
Reply to martin logan
Poor ol’ Logan – he believes in his own propaganda and on the righteousness of the Western cause – ‘FREEDOM’ and ‘DEMOCRACY’.
However, the West is not a grouping of democracies – it is a grouping of hypocracies, whose members are now in a moral sewer of their own making, and slowly drowning in their own moral effluent.
P. C. Roberts puts it rather well:
“How much evidence is required before it is clear that Western Civilization is empty of integrity, judgment, reason, morality, empathy, compassion, self-awareness, truth, empty of everything that Western Civilization once respected?
All that is left of the West is insouciance and unrestrained evil.”
~Dr Paul Craig Roberts, former Undersecretary Of Treasury, Reagan Administration
And Oh, by the way, the West hasn’t the industrial capacity to win a war against either Russia or China – never mind the two of them together.
It’s time the West accepts that it’s days as hegemon are well and truly over. It’s time the West cleaned out it’s own augean stables and stopped fomenting hatred and bloodshed across the globe. It’s time the West accepted it’s position as just one pole of power in a multipolar world and ‘live and let live’.
26
Reply
フランク・マッカスカー
Frank McCusker
1 day ago
Reply to Peter Branagan
Your poor naive sod
-12
Reply
マーティン・ローガン
martin logan
1 day ago
Reply to Peter Branagan
Since a good part of the Russian army has been inadvertently obliterated by poor old Biden, Russia isn’t going to start another war for at least a decade.
Dreams of World Empire (!!) are simply the delusions of Putin and the bottom half of Russian society.
Russian greatness sailed away in 1991. This war has sealed the deal on that.
-1
Reply
アンドリュー・フィッシャー
Andrew Fisher
18 hours ago
Reply to Peter Branagan
“Unrestrained evil”.What a load of extremist ranting nonsense. The West has many faults, but it didn’t start the war. Russia did. Nor do the Americans want it, despite a load of lazy evidence free opinion mongering by Far Right musers.
In any case, Russia hasn’t invaded ‘the decadent West’ but a neighbouring Slavic country which it thought it would crush in short order.
Last edited 18 hours ago by Andrew Fisher
3
Reply
アンドリュー・フィッシャー
Andrew Fisher
18 hours ago
Reply to martin logan
Then he declares victory. He has all the media at his disposal to broadcast this message and I’m not sure there will be too many dissenters, not least because only a small proportion of either the ruling oligarchy or even more so the people actually want to be in this war.
Apart from anything else it’s a long term route to becoming little more than a Chinese puppet state.
1
Reply
アンドリュー・フィッシャー
Andrew Fisher
18 hours ago
Reply to Alex Carnegie
Excellent measured comments – thanks!
1
Reply
ウォルター・ランツ
Walter Lantz
1 day ago
Nice to see some pragmatic comments on this war for a change. The West – especially the media – has been mired in outrage inflation as if moral superiority would carry the day but that seems to be the way the West sees everything these days.
Pointing out the reality that Ukraine only has the weapons that we give them while Russia makes their own (or sources their own friends) or the obvious evidence that Russia’s economy has not been decimated will often as not solicit accusations of “defeatist” or “Putin apologist!”.
As the article states, the Western economies have probably suffered more than Russia. Russia now has closer ties to China (the acknowledged bigger threat) which goes against decades-old doctrine. In my view the most sensible appraisal of this conflict has been presented repeatedly by John Mearsheimer. Opinions he offered years ago seem to have been uncannily accurate. He now predicts a drawn-out conflict that will likely end in an uneasy “cold peace” where Russia occupies the Russian portion of Ukraine – almost half – and the other portion will be a dysfunctional failed state of competing factions. Likely a never-ending cycle of negotiated truces and cease-fire violations. Of course his gloomy outlook may be wrong but given the circumstances it makes as much sense as anything because the US can’t be the lead supporter of this war forever and be adequately prepared to deal with a Chinese conflict. Even the US doesn’t have those kind of resources.
Meanwhile the West is now outraged that the Russians have apparently been able to scoop Niger (and it’s uranium resources) away from France although the dust hasn’t settled on that yet.
The West is also outraged that the Taliban are busy doing what the Taliban do in Afghanistan. While we denounce their treatment of women China is working out mining deals to extract resources such as lithium and copper which are critical to the West’s government-imposed EV revolution.
The World Bank has officially announced that Uganda’s anti-Alphabet laws do not align with their values. Meanwhile Uganda is signing trade deals with China.
OK. We get it. You’re outraged. Got anything else?
44
Reply
サミール・イケル
Samir Iker
1 day ago
The fact that the whole article, or most western “news” fails to even touch upon the key cornerstone of Russia’s military strategy in this war, and has been since WW2 – points out how non serious and complacent the West has become. Or how oblivious to the fact that leaving aside the US block members, the rest of the world is fed up of their bullying, aggression and hypocrisy.
The flippant way in which they talk about using up Ukraine’s population or “gruelling, attritional warfare” is chilling.
43
Reply
マーティン・ローガン
martin logan
1 day ago
Reply to Samir Iker
No alternative when the Russians are homicidal ethnic cleansers.
-1
Reply
スティーブ・ホワイト
Steve White
1 day ago
So, the conclusion of this essay is that someone needs to send Zelenskyy the message that they need to finally get earnest about all of this, ramp up the press-gangs to round up and send millions of remaining Ukrainian bodies like lemmings onward to victory or death to the East.
This is what happens with too much screen time. Real human lives become abstract concepts to armchair generals.
Last edited 1 day ago by Steve White
32
Reply
ユルグ・ガスマン
Jürg Gassmann
1 day ago
I’m not quite sure where Mr. Luttwak pins the reason why Ukraine’s offensive has stalled – is it the transparency of the battlefield? If so, not only does that cut both ways, but intelligence is, I gather, the one area where Ukraine and NATO have an advantage over Russia.
According to doctrine, static defences such as the Russians have installed are vulnerable precisely because they are static, and so easily targeted.
Ukraine’s unmitigated disasters in their attacks over the last two months have little to do with the transparency of the battlefield. It is more that they are an inexperienced, cobbled-together force lacking crucial elements necessary for modern combined-arms operations (battlefield air defence, close air support, operative air support, sufficient counterbattery). Mr. Luttwak’s levée en masse cannot overcome those deficiencies. Nor can NATO send more stuff – NATO’s cupboards are bare, and even if they send a few more Wunderwaffen, they do not add up to an integrated whole.
At some point, a war is lost. Sending troops to die when there is no longer any military rationale is not acceptable under the laws of war. It is a war crime.
32
Reply
Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
1 day ago
Reply to Jürg Gassmann
What happened to their armaments industry? Up to 2014 i5 was the fourth largest in the workd. Not bad for a country with no developed industrial economy, as somebody claims.
-1
Reply
Jürg Gassmann
Jürg Gassmann
1 day ago
Reply to Anna Bramwell
True, but Ukraine’s industry was closely tied into Russia’s industry. After the 2014 coup, Ukraine signed the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, which obliged Ukraine to decouple its trade from Russia. The consequence was a collapse of Ukrainian industry (which was to a very large extent based in Eastern Ukraine).
17
Reply
martin logan
martin logan
1 day ago
Reply to Jürg Gassmann
“Coup”
The dead giveaway…
3
Reply
Mark epperson
Mark epperson
1 day ago
Excellent article until the end. Why would Ukraine want to sacrifice 3 million to the meat grinder when it has a very limited chance of success? We have devolved to trench warfare with the possibility of a tactical nuclear option. Great. The Media has so much blood on their heads for the rah rah reporting and a lot of Ukrainian and Russian wives, children, and mothers are paying the price. This “war’ has been a goat rope from the start and the ONLY ones benefitting are the weapon manufacturers. You can never underestimate the Russian folk’s capacity for taking one for their country. This is indicative of the totally inept Western political leadership that has been bought by the mega-money boys and girls. It is not going to end well.
18
Reply
Chuck Burns
Chuck Burns
1 day ago
The Ukraine war is an atrocity perpetrated by the USA NeoCons. The war in Ukraine has divided the world and shown the West, led by US NeoCons, to be the liars and trouble makers. I am a retired American serviceman with 22 years military service, plus four years as a contractor in Iraq, and Afghanistan. The USA needs a regime change.
14
Reply
Dumetrius
Dumetrius
1 day ago
Mr Luttwak was last saying that the two sides wanted to talk,listing a couple of indicators of attempts to reach out – on both sides. What happened there?
13
Reply
martin logan
martin logan
1 day ago
Reply to Dumetrius
He now understands Putin.
-8
Reply
Dumetrius
Dumetrius
1 day ago
Reply to martin logan
I think he understood him better than a lot of people anyway.
-1
Reply
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 day ago
Reply to Dumetrius
‘He’ makes it up as he goes along.
Normal journalistic procedure, one might say.
11
Reply
Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 day ago
Reply to Dumetrius
Do you know anything about Russians? You do not deal with Russians, unless you’re very simple-minded. There are only 2 ways to deal with Russians: (i) ignore them; (ii) crush them. Anything else is a liberal delusion
-14
Reply
Anna Bramwell
Anna Bramwell
1 day ago
Reply to Frank McCusker
Gosh, just what people said about Germany during the war. Dont forget to refe4 to Putin’s syphilis, and maybe the funny shaped heads Russian had, a la C Day-Lewis, referring to Prussians.. Let me think. What did AJP Taylor say about international agreements in diplomacy, referring to Russia and Turkey post the Crimean War
7
Reply
martin logan
martin logan
1 day ago
Reply to Anna Bramwell
Er, we DID crush Germany during the war.
Worked like a treat…
-5
Reply
Rob C
Rob C
2 days ago
If the U.S. goes ahead with reparations for African-Americans, even a modest $10,000/yr. is $400 billion/yr. On top of $100 billion/yr. for Ukraine, you are talking a figure on the order of the defense budget. The ONLY way to “pay” for this is through inflation. People will start to grumble (but may not do anything about it).
11
Reply
Jim McDonnell
Jim McDonnell
1 day ago
Also worth mentioning, we’ve been expecting the Ukrainians to achieve a breakthrough we wouldn’t dare try without a massive aerial bombardment as a preliminary step. The Ukrainians, tragically, lack the means to conduct such an operation.
10
Reply
Bruce V
Bruce V
9 minutes ago
Reply to Jim McDonnell
Bingo. I’ve been wondering (in my admitted ignorance) if that might make the cluster munitions, as a poor man’s alternative to aerial bombardment, the key element going forward.
Last edited 9 minutes ago by Bruce V
0
Reply
Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
1 day ago
Winning a long-term ground war is a function of only a few variables: population, industrial production, and weapon casualty rates.
The first favors Russia enormously. Their population may be aging but is vastly larger than Ukraine.
The second favors Russia. They are capable of producing their own armaments. Ukraine is 100% dependent on Western arms which it can’t even pay for.
The third is generally even. As this article says, the Ukrainians have better weapons, but aren’t particularly skilled at using them and being on the offense, are likely experiencing higher casualty rates despite their technological edge.
Once Ukraine exhausts it’s modern weaponry on moving the front a mile or two eastward and regaining a few flattened villages… Russia will launch its own offensive. Ukraine and NATO need to find a way to make peace and give Putin an offramp (which he clearly wants) before that happens.
To illustrate how little this conflict has changed in the last year, this is a great interactive map: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/36a7f6a6f5a9448496de641cf64bd375
Bottom line: Ukraine can not win short of direct NATO involvement (disastrous and existential for Russia) or a Russian coup (equally disastrous — imagine Russia run by the likes of Prigozhin). Make peace. Find a way. Now.
7
Reply
Ian Johnston
Ian Johnston
1 day ago
Cope and delusion from start to finish.
You sound like Times Radio.
6
Reply
Ira Perman
Ira Perman
1 day ago
As this war goes, so go Joe Biden’s prospects for a second term. Second only perhaps to Putin, Biden is responsible for the way this war is playing out.
5
Reply
Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 day ago
The history of war has ever swung between ‘offensive’ and ‘defensive’ conflicts. WWI was, as the author points out, the last war where defense was paramount, and attrition the only method of breaking the stalemate. From WWII up through Iraq and Afghanistan, blitz assaults that gobble up territory at the speed of mechanized infantry have been the rule. Now it has swung again the defensive, because as the author mentions, the preponderance of satellite surveillance leaves the element of surprise nigh impossible to achieve. This is the first conflict in which both sides have access to satellite intelligence, Russia its own and Ukraine through its NATO backers. This does not bode well for any proposed invasion of Taiwan by China, as the buildup of ships and troops necessary for such an operation would be apparent not just to military intelligence, but to anyone with an internet connection through Google Earth. There is no conceivable scenario where China faces anything but a dug-in Taiwan with weeks if not months of preparation time and a global diplomatic backlash that would precede the actual act.
4
Reply
Jake Dee
Jake Dee
1 day ago
Reply to Steve Jolly
I have plenty of highly plausible scenarios for a Taiwan conflict that don’t look anything like that. The only scenario that the western media is willing to contemplate is one that looks like D-Day Mk2, with Blue R.O. China playing the role of Northern France and Red P.R China playing the role of Eastern England.
With the same ethnicity, language and a shared culture going back millennia, hundreds of thousands of people born on one side of the straits living and working on the other side and with hundreds of billions invested in each other’s businesses, isn’t a more likely scenario for a Taipei Beijing conflict something more like Maidan 2014 rather than Normandy 1944?
What reason is there to suggest that the Taiwanese born Chinese, who are already treated very well on the mainland won’t also be treated very well after a reunification? The tens of thousands of students from Blue China currently studying in Red Chinese universities and the tens of thousands of businessmen in a similar position are already well placed for top jobs on the mainland. What can America and the West realistically offer that can top that ? We both know in which direction the western arrow is pointing in. There are many who wish an American vs China war but the Chinese are smart people, they won’t blow up Taipei for the sake of Washington.
0
Reply
Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
3 hours ago
Reply to Jake Dee
The Ukrainians threw out the Russian puppet in 2014, not the other way round. Obviously, if the Taiwanese themselves vote to reunite with China, nobody is going to stop them, but popular election results and public opinion trends have been moving in exactly the opposite direction for several years now. I assume then you mean some kind of covert coups with Chinese sympathizers infiltrating the Taiwanese government or manipulating an election, like the Russians did with Yanukovych in 2014, but again, he got ousted pretty quickly. Operations like that are difficult to pull off and if one side can organize a coups, why couldn’t the Americans or others organize another, which is what Putin thinks happened in Maidan, he stole the election and the west stole it back. Unless you’re saying the current Taiwanese president is a western puppet who the Taiwanese will rise up and overthrow, which I suppose is possible, but again seems to disregard pretty much every bit of evidence we have that the Taiwanese people by and large do NOT want reunification, at least not right now.
0
Reply
Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
1 day ago
What happens if Euro collapses with regard to support for Ukraine? What happens if China makes move towards Taiwan ?
3
Reply
Tom Lewis
Tom Lewis
1 day ago
Ukraine appears to be stuck in the 1916 – 17 era of warfare, with no easy answers, for either side. The problem, as I see it, is that most of the ‘developments’ that allowed for he dynamism of 1918 have, one by one, been neutered by the commodification of ‘cheap’ throw away man portable (infantry) weapons. Lest some ‘new’ technology, or repurposing of old appears, the chances of a breakout seem slim indeed.(personally my bet, tech wise, is on hovercraft) Ultimately though the British campaign of late 1918 might be instructive (The last 100 days) m good planning and staff work, an army getting to grips with it’s profession, and ‘bite and hold’ tactics, constantly changing focus as the enemy reacts and stiffens in one place, only to find that the assault is now elsewhere. Still costly in lives, certainly. Given their success in WW2, it seems as if ‘maybe’ the wrong lessons have been learn’t, with too much emphasis on the initial success of the German Operation Michael blitzkrieg tactics in the spring of 1918.
2
Reply
Fran Martinez
Fran Martinez
1 day ago
When was not stalled?
2
Reply
Bret Larson
Bret Larson
1 day ago
Attrition goes both ways. The Ukraine mistake is to go on the offensive at all.
They could have achieved their grand surprise by setting up for an offensive and never doing it.
What a missed opportunity.
2
Reply
j watson
j watson
1 day ago
Does seem chances of a messy 38th parallel equivalent have recently increased. Neither China/N Korea or the US/UN could claim to have won that conflict 70 yrs ago although both sides developed narratives to suggest otherwise. So history may yet repeat itself. A ceasefire in Ukraine may also still require NATO guarantees and one would be surprised if somewhere discretely and deniably such a settlement isn’t being tested. Both sides will need an off-ramp.
Ukraine hasn’t blasted through the lines of developed defences in large part because they don’t have the means to do this with airpower to carpet bomb Russian trenches to smithereens followed behind by the sort of demolition support vehicles US Tank brigades have ready for just such scenario. It may already be too late to provide this support.
The chance of a moral collapse in Russian forces still exists but not sufficiently triggered yet.
1
Reply
martin logan
martin logan
1 day ago
Sorry.
Delusional.
No Ukrainian will now ever voluntarily submit to Moscow. Any more than they would let in a homicidal maniac to their home, however cold and starving they were.
Russia might get a ceasefire in 2024 or 2025.
But that’s the most Ukraine will ever accept.
Anything else is suicide–both for the nation and for every individual.
1
Reply
Arthur G
Arthur G
2 days ago
Ukraine can’t break through because NATO has slow walked aid. If they had 200 F-16s the Russian attack helos couldn’t operate. If they had 500 Abrams and Leopard-2s they could take the losses to breach the line. The West has given Ukraine enough support not to lose, but not enough to win. I’m not sure if that is intentional, or a product of incompetence.
0
Reply
J Bryant
J Bryant
2 days ago
Reply to Arthur G
I’m guessing it’s intentional. I think Mr. Lutwak’s main point in the current article is Ukraine is now a war of attrition–likely a stalemate–unless the West sends massive supplies of the most advanced equipment, and even then a Ukrainian victory would involve heavy losses.
My guess is the US wants to tie Russia up in Ukraine. A stalemate suits the US fine while it turns its attention to China.
13
Reply
D Walsh
D Walsh
2 days ago
Reply to Arthur G
The Russians will have no problem shooting down F16s, and if the US give 500 Abrams, they will end up destroyed just like the Leopards and Bradleys
18
Reply
Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
1 day ago
Reply to D Walsh
Probably. The big problem I see is even though the F16 is a great fighter and the Abrams is an excellent tank (if also a massive gas guzzler) is that you need highly trained pilots and crews to get the most out of them as well as established doctrine in employing them. Fancy next gen anything is still useless without someone who knows how to use it effectively.
14
Reply
D Walsh
D Walsh
1 day ago
Reply to Matt Hindman
The F-16 is a 50 year old Aircraft, its not fancy or next gen, added to that, unlike the Soviet era Jets the Ukraine started the war with, the F-16 needs well maintained runways, Migs of the same vintage can take off and land on improvised runways
12
Reply
Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
1 day ago
Reply to D Walsh
You misunderstand. I was not claiming the F16 or the Abrams were next gen. I was merely throwing cold water on this idea going around that all we have to do is give the Ukrainian military hardware the US and UK take for granted and things will all the sudden turn around. Usually, the more high tech something is, the more training is required to use it effectively.
11
Reply
jane baker
jane baker
1 day ago
Reply to Matt Hindman
And ideological motivation.
0
Reply
jane baker
jane baker
1 day ago
Reply to Matt Hindman
Not a bunch of turnip heads.
0
Reply
Lexus Hampton
Lexus Hampton
1 day ago
Reply to D Walsh
you read false information, read the truth, because kremlin propaganda is already in your brains,Slava Ukraini, you will see moskow in fire)
-16
Reply
Matthew Powell
Matthew Powell
2 days ago
Reply to Arthur G
You’d never get the training, logistics and infrastructure in place in time to get anywhere near those numbers. Even just making a start, you’d throw away millions away on something you’d never be able to bring to fruition.
Yes there maybe an element of intentionally holding back a certain amount of equipment. NATO doesn’t want to reveal the performance of more cutting edge weapons systems due to a potential future conflict with China but also the West needs to take into account that inventories might be needed elsewhere at a future date.
Ukraine might be the current hot spot but sadly in an increasingly destabilised world it may not be the last. It would be unwise to devote too many resources to a single conflict.
9
Reply
Sean McGabriel
Sean McGabriel
1 day ago
Reply to Arthur G
Reality check : The USA and the West are not “slow – walking” anything. The hollowed out industrial infrastructure of the USA and the West makes the increasing of military materiel supplies extremely difficult. Russia has retained a large industrial infrastructure. Much popular commentary on this war is distorted by a serious underestimation of Russian capability fuelled by the near deranged, and ubiquitous Russophobic, pro-Ukraine fanboy brigade found on the parallel universe of your chosen section of the interweb.
25
Reply
Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 day ago
Reply to Sean McGabriel
Of course I’m Russophobic – they’re a bunch of cnuts. Have you ever dealt with Russians in business? Worst shower of sour-faced, deceitful gangsters on the planet
-14
Reply
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
1 day ago
Reply to Frank McCusker
Steady on Frank, you’re giving Ulster a bad name!
2
Reply
Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 day ago
Reply to Arthur G
Hard to figure out why you’ve been down-voted, given how measured and accurate your comment is. Oh wait …
-8
Reply
David Fülöp
David Fülöp
1 day ago
Reply to Arthur G
NATO does not really have that many jets or tanks to give away and even if they did training and logistics would be an enormous challenge.
The biggest issue is that NATO countries simply do not have the manufacturing capabilities to supply those numbers on a short notice. There are no production lines to ramp up. The UK, for example does not have the capability to produce tanks, armoured vehicles or even small arms on a large scale by itself.
6
Reply
jane baker
jane baker
1 day ago
Reply to Arthur G
It’s intentional. I don’t understand it but it’s a profitable situation all round and it’s not golden goose killing time yet. And by the way,we (Europeans) are all buying Russian oil,that’s why the lights are still on. There are people who know how to do these things
0
Reply
Peter Mott
Peter Mott
16 hours ago
At the end of WW1 the British Army was 3.8 million strong from a population of around 47 million which fits Luttwak’s figures
0
Reply
martin logan
martin logan
1 day ago
Looks like another one of Moscow’s fabled “steamroller offensives.”
Didn’t work in Kyiv or Khrakiv at the beginning.
Didn’t work in Lysychansk (Kramatorks still Urkainain)
Didn’t work over teh winter–just wasted troops.
Now an offensive on…Kupyansk (?) is supposed to gain Russian victory??
Russians may swallow that.
But nobody else.
-1
Reply
martin logan
martin logan
1 day ago
A fair assessment of the current situation. This forgets however, Ukraine’s main advantage: Putin.
To win, Russia would have needed to fully mobilize both its economy and its army over a year ago. Instead, most of his regular army units have been decimated, and–even more than the Ukrainian army–the new formations are underequipped and lacking in both training and morale.
More importantly, Putin has failed to create a sense of national purpose WRT the war. This isn’t about defending Russia itself. Indeed, he cannot afford to give any coherent vision of victory–because if he did, Russia might well fall short. It would then threaten his regime.
So he will continue to believe that Russia’s victory is “just around the corner.”
And not one of his advisers dare tell him any different.
-9
Reply
D Walsh
D Walsh
1 day ago
Reply to martin logan
Delusional
The Russians are winning
10
Reply
Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 day ago
Reply to D Walsh
No – neither side is winning. The Russians are hiding behind minefields, unable to move. How you view that as “winning” is comical-Ali territory
0
Reply
D Walsh
D Walsh
1 day ago
Reply to Frank McCusker
Goal no 1 for the Russians is to destroy the Ukrainian army, and they are. Over the last 2 months the Ukrainians suffered over 40K KIA and lost a large number of tanks and Bradley’s ect
Once the Ukrainian army is broken the Russians will take what they want
The Russians are winning
6
Reply
martin logan
martin logan
1 day ago
Reply to D Walsh
Should have said “40 million.”
Fact is, Russia has had at least 50,000 KIAs, and most came from their foolish offensives in Kyiv, Kharkiv and during the winter.
And now they are attacking Kupyansk, using the same failed tactics…
-1
Reply
D Walsh
D Walsh
1 day ago
Reply to martin logan
But in the last 2 months the Ukraine has lost over 40K, they may have lost the same in Bakhmut, so that a minimum of 80K dead, there are now up to 50K Ukrainians who have lost one or more limbs to artillery, its a total disaster for the Ukraine, the sooner its end the better. if this was a boxing match the referee would have stopped it by now
-1
Reply
Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
14 hours ago
Reply to D Walsh
At Kursk, the USSR suffered more losses than Germany but they advanced and the latter retreated. So we may have the situation as to which side can endure greater losses. If we look at European wars, Pre 20 th century, The Napoleonic lasted twenty two years the Thirty Years, thirty years. Could we be for some something similar ?
0
Reply
Johann Strauss
Johann Strauss
1 day ago
Reply to martin logan
I think you’re living in cloud-cuckoo land. Maybe listen a bit to Col. MacGregor on the subject. Right now the Ukrainians are certainly not winning and they are losing big in their so-called counter-offensive with many many casualties. This war is a war of the US’ making that could have been entirely avoided had the US kept out of Ukraine’s business (e.g. by instigating the 2014 coup). Plus, Logan, there is absolutely no evidence that Russia wants to invade any other European countries. And as for Ukraine, it was historically part of Imperial Russia for a very very long time, never mind the birthplace of Russian culture and civilization. It is time to stop looking at Russia through the lens of the Soviet Union and Communism. That’s long dead. Russia is just another strong European power and culturally is clearly part of the West (e.g. music, ballet, literature, science, etc. etc.)
10
Reply
Rob C
Rob C
1 day ago
Reply to Johann Strauss
Col. MacGregor has been wrong about everything since the beginning.
1
Reply
Ian Johnston
Ian Johnston
1 day ago
Reply to Rob C
Cope.
0
Reply
マーティン・ローガン
martin logan
1 day ago
Reply to Johann Strauss
The “2014 coup” is the tipoff.
Fact is, Yanukovich fled Kyiv after he killed 100+ Ukrainains.
The Rada then installed a successor.
-3
Reply
マーティン・ローガン
martin logan
1 day ago
Reply to Johann Strauss
Let me see…
MacGregor has predicted Ukraine’s “downfall in three weeks” since the beginning of the war.
So he’s been hilariously wrong…
TWENTY-SIX TIMES!!
Not a good track record, don’t you think? 😉
2
Reply
ジェイク・ディー
Jake Dee
1 day ago
Reply to martin logan
As the Chinese say Even a starving Camel is still bigger than a Horse.
Even with the most favorable estimates Moscow still has a 5 to 1 population advantage over Kyiv. Ukraine is facing an existential threat from Russia, but if Russia believes it’s not actually fighting Ukraine and Kyiv but is rather fighting against an existential threat from Washington and The West, and I think they do, then they have every reason to go “All In”.
Russia also has an industrial base that runs all the way from boots and bullets through to satellites and spaceships. How much is the entire West really willing to throw down on the table?
Here’s just one example, although accurate numbers are very hard to come by, statistics suggest that Russia has mobilized somewhere in the region of 5~10% of its convict population into PMCs such as Wagner. If the USA could take that step it would have about 60-120,000 convict troopers for the battlefield. In what alternative reality could you imagine that happening in?
The West either cannot or will not do what is needed to win this war.
7
Reply
マーティン・ローガン
martin logan
1 day ago
Reply to Jake Dee
So why hasn’t Putin gone “all in?”
Because he’s afraid to mobilize teh midle class.
As long as he fails to mobilzie, he can’t win.
0
Reply
ジェイク・ディー
Jake Dee
1 day ago
Reply to martin logan
Russia is mobilizing and it’s both broad and deep. This isn’t 19th century Napoleonic warfare just trying to stuff men into a uniform with a musket, it’s happening across all sectors of society. New defense factories are being built and old ones are putting on second and third shifts and they’re not just refurbishing old Soviet stuff either, just look at all the weapons Russia has been using in Ukraine for the first time. Moscow is gearing up for a marathon not a sprint and it’s not just going on in Ukraine.
1
Reply
マーティン・ローガン
martin logan
1 day ago
This will be a long war. Luttwak now gets that. And his solution is really the only way forward.
Putin is isolated and delusional, thinking that somehow, some way, Russia “always” wins in the end. (It doesn’t. It’s lost more than half of its wars in the last few centuries). So details like adequate equpt, food and leadership are beside the point. Gerasimov’s “strategy” is just to keep attacking
Meanwhile, Ukraine cannot afford to lose. Even if it lost western support, it won’t quit, since every Ukrainian knows that Russians will see them as “traitors,” liable to be tortured or killed, as they were for ten years after WW2.
To paraphrase a commander in another grueling war: “it will take a long time to kill Ukrainians, and they won’t run away.”
-14
Reply
アンナ・ブラムウェル
Anna Bramwell
1 day ago
Reply to martin logan
It was the Ukrainians doing the torturing and killing after WW2, committing terrible atrocities against forcibly incorporated Poland till 1949. Do read Jan Gross’book Revolution from Abroad, 1989, if you can find it.
11
Reply
チャールズ・スタンホープ
Charles Stanhope
1 day ago
Reply to Anna Bramwell
I seem to recall photos of Ukrainian children stoning half naked, middle aged Jewish women as they chased them through the streets of Lvov in 1941-2.
Was that just propaganda?
5
Reply
マーティン・ローガン
martin logan
1 day ago
Reply to Charles Stanhope
I seem to recall Russians starving some 4 million Ukrainians before that.
Read “The Blood Lands.”
Russian policy caused almost all of that.
2
Reply
マーティン・ローガン
martin logan
1 day ago
Reply to Anna Bramwell
Er, almost everyone from WW” is dead.
You are aware of that, aren’t you?
1
Reply
Explore
Groupthink
Capitalism
Flyover country
Faith & Meaning
Confessions Podcast
Quick Links
About UnHerd
Contact Us
Columnists & Writers
Old Queen Street Cafe
Terms & Conditions
Privacy Policy
Community Guidelines
Vacancies
Contribute to UnHerd
UnHerd に貢献する申し込みを歓迎します。以前に公開した作品の例を含め、以下のフォームに記入してください。ここをクリックしてピッチを送信して
ください。
広告掲載のご案内
UnHerd との広告およびパートナーシップの機会の詳細については、ここをクリックしてメディア パックをご覧ください。』