Oh — I think Ukraine is so bleeding them out to culmination — listen to especially the end of this British interview with Hodges — and I think he is still involved with advising NATO by the way. But listen to the whole thing if you can.
I have read Obrien (below) — the guy is really good and I think you should read his whole thread here. His work — “How the War was Won” — was dynamite to me, found it riveting — this is his take
“The fight over Snake Island reveals something that seems to be a pattern in this war. If the Russians can’t rely on overwhelming artillery firepower, they struggle accomplish anything. In any engagement requiring initiative and adaptability, the Ukrainians seem to prevail.”
You kind of understand just why I think it is important that Russia is likely pounded their guns to shit (I strongly agree with the mos 13b “bang bang” here — HLWhite) — and it is going to get one hell of a lot worse for Russia. Cause our stuff is just coming on line here. It will continue to come on line as Russia bleeds out.
Guess we cannot really know until the end just how many Russian units are breaking — it has got to be a lot. Just anecdotal right now. But like houses with termites look fine until they implode kind of thing. You have read the stories. I think in the end this may look like 1917 on the eastern front for RU. You know — history rhymes.
I guess we had kind of the same take in the end — that battles do not really win wars. Maybe my overall thesis in Western War that capitalism fails in a crisis and you better understand that upfront — we saw some of the same things. He took it a lot further then I did though — but the premise that war is in the end an economic event and that if you don’t see that going in you lose — is pretty closely related (he was looking at WWII I wrote about the American Civil War in the paper I got published). His point of view is more subtle and much better applied I think. At least in the post 19th century.
As an aside — the British General Fulton had a really interesting take on the US in battle — and he wrote it just at the beginning of WWII so you can look back on it with good perspective. I think it was called Decisive Battles of the US. Boy was he dead on the nose. Incredible insight — what he wrote of about the Mexican war is really shocking — the “deal” we made with Santa Anna. There is a lot of stuff in that book like that. Generals in Bronze is a pretty shocking book too for that matter. Hard to look at some civil war generals the same way — actually a pretty controversial book. The point being — Ukraine is using American type tactics.
Back to the point.
I think Hodges is very correct in saying that crap in the press about what weapons we need to send and all that just helps Russia — and they know what they are doing and that this has little place for debate on the internet. Of course he is right — we don’t see anything going on behind the scenes.
If the Atlantic Council’s war game still holds true — Russia gets enveloped around Izium. Looks like they are trying to put some kind of offensive together dead between Izium and Bahkmut. And the longer it plays out there — in that little geography, the more potent the UKR offensives are to the south. Which is indeed the true key geography. You know — where the ports are on the Black Sea. RU needs to be kept busy in the Donbas. Why they are bleeding them there at such great cost I think. They will be stuck there for some time and eventually enveloped. Sooner the better. Does this end in a Cannae moment? The perfect envelopment?
This is sort of interesting too — some of RU’s elite units sure appear to be spent. It is a good thread. His dissertation will sure make interesting reading.
This is a Creative Commons article. The original version of this article appeared here.