The news has been full of the results of the interplay between Russia and Europe over retaliatory sanctions having to do with the Russo/Ukraine war. These have demonstrated the symbiotic relationship both the EU/UK and Russia depended on for economic and social stability. It shows both the fragility of the Russian military logistical infrastructure as well as the dependence of Europe on Russian natural resources. People who advise here how the European population will be willing to undergo all levels of pain based on the loss of electric power would likely see things differently if the same were true in the US (as our left and right wings are just as polarized as theirs).
So, how’s the offensive going? Well, not much news other than about the nuclear plant at Zaporizhzia and recent shelling by Ukraine of Nova Kakovka by Ukraine. Both are on the eastern (Russian) side of the Dnipro River, a major barrier to either Russia moving further into Ukraine or of Ukraine taking back land from Russia.
Ukraine has been busy bombing bridges to prevent Russia from spreading westward across the Dnipro. The river narrows at Zaporizhzia and narrows to the north.
The river again narrows moving south from Nova Kakovka. This city is vital to both sides in the conflict. Ukraine has destroyed the bridge at the city to prevent Russian troops from encircling Odessa by using the Moldova border as a boundary. On the other hand, Russia’s occupation prevents Ukraine from moving to take back Crimea.
Ukraine’s strategy seems to be to cut off resupply of Russian troops on the west side of the Dnipro River by destroying the river’s bridges and then try to push them back eastwards (or encircle/capture them). The advantage that Russia has is that, while the offense can choose the time and place of the battle, the defense has the opportunity to have prepared defensible positions. Russia also has the advantage of being able to fire on Ukraine’s cities from Russia “proper”, but Ukraine can only retaliate as far as Crimea (and even then the reciprocal attacks by Russia can be punishing).
So far, the war has been primarily taking place in Ukraine. Both sides are, no doubt, lying about casualties, but while both sides have lost a significant number of military personnel, Russia has “deeper pockets” to dig into. The US and others in the west have been pouring huge levels of arms into Ukraine. Since there is not a high probability of the Ukrainian military retaking the ground that Russia now occupies (that would require a diplomatic agreement), I’m guessing our strategy is to maintain the status quo while having the conflict drains Russia’s offensive capability militarily.
So, either there is a news blackout on information from the front or not much is going on. Reports from both sides should be viewed cynically.
So, either there is a news blackout on information from the front or not much is going on.
I’ve been following this young lady’s blog for a while now… OpSec considerations obviously, but pretty honest about what’s happening. https://keptmathilda.tumblr.com/
Ukraine’s strategy seems to be to cut off resupply of Russian troops on the west side of the Dnipro River by destroying the river’s bridges and then try to push them back eastwards (or encircle/capture them).
Ukraine advertised that it was going to retake Kherson. Russia sent reinforcement. Ukraine shelled the Russian HQs, ammo dumps, the bridges over the Dnieper, and effectively cut off some 25,000 Russian soldiers from their supply and retreat lines. Right now about the only way for Russia to supply these soldiers is via helicopters. Mission Hazardous!
Taking well defended cities is hard. It seems that Ukraine is taking its time to do so. Revenge for Mariupol?
The biggest danger I see is the West abandoning Ukraine. Negotiating with Russia is a fools errand. If it hadn’t been for Zelenskyy’s firm stand Ukraine would already have been lost. “I Don’t Need A Ride, I Need More Ammunition”
Zelenskyy said Ukraine’s economy had been damaged by what he said was a false perception that Ukraine is on the brink of war, calling decisions by the U.S. and the U.K. to withdraw families of embassy staff a “mistake.”
“They’re saying tomorrow is the war. This means panic in the market, panic in the financial sector,” he said. “How much does it cost our country?”
Russia invaded less than a month later.
Hawkwin
Who grants that Mr. Z might have been saying one thing in public and another thing privately, but he clearly declined our military assistance until his citizens started to die.
The biggest danger I see is the West abandoning Ukraine. Negotiating with Russia is a fools errand. If it hadn’t been for Zelenskyy’s firm stand Ukraine would already have been lost. “I Don’t Need A Ride, I Need More Ammunition”
Captain, I hope more and more people understand this point!
Putin is counting on the West’s lack of willpower to stay the course; not just money for arms, but the pain caused by his energy blackmail moves for Europe. If the West can stomach the pain, Russia doesn’t have the longer-term economic staying power…even with Chinese support, because I doubt China will risk its hard-won economic gains if it sees Russia continue to flail about.
Analogy: Japan’s strategy in WWII: strike fast and cause enough pain to get the US to the negotiating table, thus gaining valuable territory and resources.
We did not fold that time, and the West should not fold this time; otherwise we will be in for more of the same from Russia, and an emboldened China…which is much more dangerous in the longer term.
There are always people walking around seeking peace as if their heads will explode otherwise. There wont be peace, but if there was peace their heads would still explode or whatever it is their heads do.
Everyone has conflict. Seeking the peaceful way out is not necessarily the peaceful way out.
The most painful for the public is not being delivered yet, and that is that even though the war and the casualties are almost all Russians and Ukrainians in Ukraine, the actual conflict is worldwide and includes loss of sources of energy, a new front for warfare. Loss of energy needs to be understood as being like loss of food was in ages passed. The West needs to understand that it is in this war, and our role in the war is to continue material support for Ukraine while also radically rationing energy and using it with far greater intelligence than we are currently.
Painful inconvenience and even injury and suffering are coming. They are a NORMAL part of war, and we need to understand that we are at war or we will lose big time.
Which politico has the guts to deliver the real news first? To plan for possibly major shifts in life as poorer people are moved out of energy inefficient housing into temporary but more energy efficient quarters, and on and on… Germany not lowering its autobahn speed limits I think was a mistake, as the rich and priviledged need to do some suffering too.
As FB says, we are at war - Europe more than the US, but the US is clearly in as well. There is some sort of unwritten agreement that Russia will not fire on countries outside of Ukraine as long as their armed forces do not directly engage Russian troops within Ukraine. Both sides have apparently agreed not to attack each other’s infrastructure with cyberwarfare weapons.
It has somehow been deemed acceptable for Russia to retaliate against economic sanctions by cutting off energy supplies to the West.
Both sides are aware that they have the potential for mutual destruction and are playing a not-so-subtle game of chicken as Russia tries to bring the Europeans to their knees by starving them for fuel. At what point does the risk of escalating the war beyond the borders of Ukraine no longer counterbalance NATO taking direct action against Russia?
Good question; and I could find no evidence that he refused assistance. In fact, it looks like we sent aid in January so I will amend my criticism to blame him for not publicly taking this more seriously. His actions prior to the war likely lead to more of his citizens dying because they failed to evacuate when they could.
This conflict has been going on for eight years now.
I think the Russians invaded as if it was business as usual, lets get this over with.
Putin is surprised this entire thing is a mistake. He can not afford to win it. The money is not there. He can not tax, print or trade enough to make a better go of it.
The measures taken during the pandemic have reduced a lot the popularity of many European governments.
Blaming Putin in 2022 for the inflation and the economic crisis that have existed since (at least) 2021 was not a very bright idea. On the contrary!
In many European countries the population is not satisfied with the government: among others in Germany (where the Green politics have destroyed the industry and the standard of living), Italy, France, Holland, etc.
With tens of millions of people at risk because of the energy crisis, solidarity with Ukraine imposed by governments is starting to falter. And if this energy crisis gets even worse, mass protests will probably take place all over Europe. And this is a worrying prospect.
Solidarity has limits and Ukraine is just another country to many people.
And putting an entire continent (and not only!) at risk, to save a country that before the outbreak of the war only interested the USA, does not seem to be an idea that many Europeans are happy about.
The problem is that despite the huge aid sent by the Europeans and the USA, the Ukrainians feel the disaster the most. Innocent people have lost their lives and many others have lost their life savings over night. The future is bleak for those who remained in the country as well as for those who have taken refuge across the borders.
Putin thought it would be a short war and I believe that he will never accept defeat.
And this might have serious consequences for the whole planet (no matter how safe you think you are in the US).
Solidarity and sacrifice are nice words, but the question is ARE YOU READY FOR THIS?
Solidarity has limits and Ukraine is just another country to many people. And putting an entire continent (and not only!) at risk, to save a country that before the outbreak of the war only interested the USA, does not seem to be an idea that many Europeans are happy about…
Yep! Ukraine is “just another country” to some folks…just like Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland were back in the 1930’s.
My how history rhymes! Both Hitler’s and Putin’s playbook banks on that precise attitude…and that’s where longer-term thinking leadership becomes SO important in avoiding world-wide disaster.
“In many European countries the population is not satisfied with the government”
We saw a precursor of this with the “Yellow Vest” protest. There is increased income inequality in Europe. Although it is less than the USA. That inequality has its roots in the globalization of the world economy. China benefited by many of its citizenry being propelled into the middle class. However in the developed world quite a few working class folks with middle class incomes lost their good paying jobs via off-shoring of manufacturing factories to China. And they never recovered/transition to similar pay occupations. They felt abandoned by their government.
So far, the war has been primarily taking place in Ukraine. Both sides are, no doubt, lying about casualties, but while both sides have lost a significant number of military personnel, Russia has “deeper pockets” to dig into.
Agreed. The Ukraine has been fighting defensive war though and likely benefited from that fact with reduced casualties.
However they now are on the offensive which will result in a much higher casualty level & armor destruction. It appears the Ukraine is having some success in their offensive. The danger is if there are too many Ukrainian casualties & armor lost for that territorial gain. If so, then a counter offensive by the Russians could result in even more land gained by the Russians. As you say the Russians have “deeper pockets”.
The Kherson campaign seen in more detail shows the great care Ukraine is using to minimize its losses while maximizing its capture and/or destruction of Russian troops and equipment.
I watch a commentator named Denys Davydov. He usually has excellent sources and insight, albeit from a strongly pro-Ukrainian perspective. He has been showing the success Ukraine had in July blabbing about a Kherson offensive, attracting more Russian troops to a vulnerable position on the north of the Dneiper River to the east of Kherson. Then the Dneiper bridges and pontoon crossings were destroyed, making evacuation back to the main Russian forces along the coast very difficult as Ukraine finally began a real and quite different counterattack.
The Ukrainians are taking significant strategic risks with some success, and their intent is clearly to use their new much longer range, more accurate and powerful artillery and missiles to shockingly increase their tactical flexibility, counter-battering Russian artillery and erasing Russian logistics and routes of escape with minimum casualties on the Ukrainian side.
With the Kherson campaign Ukraine looks to be aiming to isolate, demoralize, contain and possibly capture a very large number of Russian soldiers, all with much less risk to their own troops. The next days will begin to tell a lot about the bigger picture.