For a number of reasons, Spain is not a good analogy. Republican Spain had deeply split commands and ideological interference, began the war with an almost complete lack of heavy weapons and trained commanders, was denied weaponry by democracies which did not want to get involved.
Regarding the invasion, I'm beginning to wonder if Rus…
For a number of reasons, Spain is not a good analogy. Republican Spain had deeply split commands and ideological interference, began the war with an almost complete lack of heavy weapons and trained commanders, was denied weaponry by democracies which did not want to get involved.
Regarding the invasion, I'm beginning to wonder if Russia has been fooled by its own propaganda into thinking that they would be welcomed by Ukrainians. Russia's invasion force is much too small (an assaulting commander usually wants at least a 3:1 advantage in numbers), and probably a third of Russia's forces are not combat soldiers proper, but second-line and support troops, necessary to modern warfare. Also, Ukraine is a big place, where even 200,000 troops will be hard-pressed to maintain contact and cohesion.
Finally, what made the Red Army fearsome in WWII is missing here. Intense propaganda portraying Germans as inhuman beasts, soldiers who had all lost family and friends to German atrocities, and a Communist ethic hammered into those soldiers since birth, all made the Red Army a force with which to be reckoned. Now, Russian soldiers are being sent to attack a culture seen as similar and friendly by Russians, and they have no personal or ideological motive to fight.
As shown by the Snake Island incident, the Ukrainians are the ones here who have high morale and motivation, a willingness to fight and die for their own nation and freedom. Don't underestimate that.
Not to beat a dead horse-- or thread-- but the Russians now have a problem. You might want to read up on the narrow Allied thrust to Arnhem in WWII, which many call "A Bridge Too Far". There, the Allies dropped concentrations of airborne troops on important transportation centers and tried to link up with them along a single highway surrounded by impassable terrain. It didn't work.
It seems to me the Russians have now made the same mistake. They look like they have tried to seize narrow corridors oriented along highways, following airborne attacks on airports and strategic intersections. In Russian military doctrine, soldiers on the offensive carry little food or fuel, expecting constant resupply from a secured rear. But in Ukraine, they did not protect their flanks or attempt to subdue surrounding terrain; they have no secure rear area. They lost the special forces which seized transportation hubs. And now they are losing supply convoys because they did not protect their flanks. Lost convoys mean lost trucks; supply vehicles are the single most important weapon system in Eastern Europe. Their armored spearheads are now almost stationary, suffering from lack of food and fuel.
In America half of the population believes that bamboo ballots stole an election, that Donald Trump is a successful businessman, and that Hillary Clinton wears masks made from the skin of children tortured to death in non-existent basements of Pizza Parlors. People will believe any fool thing if you prevaricate, frighten, and confuse them enough.
Sanctions are important and necessary but realistically Ukraine is lost. If anyone is serious we need to be preparing for the next battle. We need tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of American troops on the borders of Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania. We need to have the answer in place to Stalin's question, how many divisions does the Pope have? And we need this until Putin dies, or Trump is reelected and pulls us out of NATO, or hell freezes over. Or until MAGAmerica completes its emotional journey to becoming an obedient ally of the revenant Russian Empire. Which is where most of it already is.
Don't confuse naivete with morale. I'm not going to fall into the mistake of defending the French WW I concept of "cran", that "guts" can defeat artillery shells, instead of merely being splattered by them. But greater numbers-- and greater weapons-- do not a victor make. Beginning with Marathon and Salamis, military history is littered with despots who made the mistake of thinking that numbers and weapons are all that matters.
At the beginning of WWII, France's army was much larger and better equipped than Germany's. At the beginning of operation Barbarossa, Germany's invasion of Russia, Russia had the world's largest army and air force. But France's and Russia's armies were riddled with low morale, and their defeat was just as much a psychological victory as a physical one.
I was trying to recall the term, thanks, "Cran" -- what folly. The "triumph" of optimism over sanity.
Truly greater numbers and resources do not a victor make -- except in the hands of generals who know how to use them.
Lee outfoxed all the Union commanders in the Eastern theater... until the Union found a commander who understood how to take advantage of his resource superiority. After that it was simply a matter of how long before the inevitable happened.
And without in any way minimizing the incredible tenacity and bravery of the Red Army and the Russian people-- once it recovered from the self-inflicted near-suicide of leadership before Barbarossa, it too finished the war not so much with cunning as with overwhelming force and manpower.
Superior force and resources, even if wielded by mediocrity -- always prevails-- if it is applied as long as it takes.
America lost in Vietnam because it wasn't willing to stay as long as it took. For good reasons. Any prospect of military success for Ukraine lies in the hope that the Russian empire's force will not be applied as long as it takes.
It could take a long time, even if successful. Any such a victory necessarily comes at an unimaginable cost in suffering and degradation. Over 3.1 million Vietnamese lost their lives -- no one knows for sure -- and it went on for a quarter of a century. And that only begins to scratch the surface of the cost in human misery -- for, ultimately, what? The best excuse for our perpetuating that suffering is we (possibly) just didn't know any better and were in the grip of a delusion.
I'm not saying the Ukranians should not fight, nor that the West should not arm and support them... I'm just sick at heart.
For a number of reasons, Spain is not a good analogy. Republican Spain had deeply split commands and ideological interference, began the war with an almost complete lack of heavy weapons and trained commanders, was denied weaponry by democracies which did not want to get involved.
Regarding the invasion, I'm beginning to wonder if Russia has been fooled by its own propaganda into thinking that they would be welcomed by Ukrainians. Russia's invasion force is much too small (an assaulting commander usually wants at least a 3:1 advantage in numbers), and probably a third of Russia's forces are not combat soldiers proper, but second-line and support troops, necessary to modern warfare. Also, Ukraine is a big place, where even 200,000 troops will be hard-pressed to maintain contact and cohesion.
Finally, what made the Red Army fearsome in WWII is missing here. Intense propaganda portraying Germans as inhuman beasts, soldiers who had all lost family and friends to German atrocities, and a Communist ethic hammered into those soldiers since birth, all made the Red Army a force with which to be reckoned. Now, Russian soldiers are being sent to attack a culture seen as similar and friendly by Russians, and they have no personal or ideological motive to fight.
As shown by the Snake Island incident, the Ukrainians are the ones here who have high morale and motivation, a willingness to fight and die for their own nation and freedom. Don't underestimate that.
Not to beat a dead horse-- or thread-- but the Russians now have a problem. You might want to read up on the narrow Allied thrust to Arnhem in WWII, which many call "A Bridge Too Far". There, the Allies dropped concentrations of airborne troops on important transportation centers and tried to link up with them along a single highway surrounded by impassable terrain. It didn't work.
It seems to me the Russians have now made the same mistake. They look like they have tried to seize narrow corridors oriented along highways, following airborne attacks on airports and strategic intersections. In Russian military doctrine, soldiers on the offensive carry little food or fuel, expecting constant resupply from a secured rear. But in Ukraine, they did not protect their flanks or attempt to subdue surrounding terrain; they have no secure rear area. They lost the special forces which seized transportation hubs. And now they are losing supply convoys because they did not protect their flanks. Lost convoys mean lost trucks; supply vehicles are the single most important weapon system in Eastern Europe. Their armored spearheads are now almost stationary, suffering from lack of food and fuel.
Morale is good, but morale vs machine guns = Somme
Also don't be so certain the Russian troops have no personal or ideological motive to fight. Why should they disbelieve the lies they've been told?
If you have the stomach for it...
https://twitter.com/HADIANews/status/1497197980847382572
In America half of the population believes that bamboo ballots stole an election, that Donald Trump is a successful businessman, and that Hillary Clinton wears masks made from the skin of children tortured to death in non-existent basements of Pizza Parlors. People will believe any fool thing if you prevaricate, frighten, and confuse them enough.
Sanctions are important and necessary but realistically Ukraine is lost. If anyone is serious we need to be preparing for the next battle. We need tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands of American troops on the borders of Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania. We need to have the answer in place to Stalin's question, how many divisions does the Pope have? And we need this until Putin dies, or Trump is reelected and pulls us out of NATO, or hell freezes over. Or until MAGAmerica completes its emotional journey to becoming an obedient ally of the revenant Russian Empire. Which is where most of it already is.
Don't confuse naivete with morale. I'm not going to fall into the mistake of defending the French WW I concept of "cran", that "guts" can defeat artillery shells, instead of merely being splattered by them. But greater numbers-- and greater weapons-- do not a victor make. Beginning with Marathon and Salamis, military history is littered with despots who made the mistake of thinking that numbers and weapons are all that matters.
At the beginning of WWII, France's army was much larger and better equipped than Germany's. At the beginning of operation Barbarossa, Germany's invasion of Russia, Russia had the world's largest army and air force. But France's and Russia's armies were riddled with low morale, and their defeat was just as much a psychological victory as a physical one.
I was trying to recall the term, thanks, "Cran" -- what folly. The "triumph" of optimism over sanity.
Truly greater numbers and resources do not a victor make -- except in the hands of generals who know how to use them.
Lee outfoxed all the Union commanders in the Eastern theater... until the Union found a commander who understood how to take advantage of his resource superiority. After that it was simply a matter of how long before the inevitable happened.
And without in any way minimizing the incredible tenacity and bravery of the Red Army and the Russian people-- once it recovered from the self-inflicted near-suicide of leadership before Barbarossa, it too finished the war not so much with cunning as with overwhelming force and manpower.
Superior force and resources, even if wielded by mediocrity -- always prevails-- if it is applied as long as it takes.
America lost in Vietnam because it wasn't willing to stay as long as it took. For good reasons. Any prospect of military success for Ukraine lies in the hope that the Russian empire's force will not be applied as long as it takes.
It could take a long time, even if successful. Any such a victory necessarily comes at an unimaginable cost in suffering and degradation. Over 3.1 million Vietnamese lost their lives -- no one knows for sure -- and it went on for a quarter of a century. And that only begins to scratch the surface of the cost in human misery -- for, ultimately, what? The best excuse for our perpetuating that suffering is we (possibly) just didn't know any better and were in the grip of a delusion.
I'm not saying the Ukranians should not fight, nor that the West should not arm and support them... I'm just sick at heart.