Good article, but concedes (without admitting it) that Ukraine has lost:
1. 'In the second case, the Russians do not need to fully defeat Ukraine’s army. They must only make marginal gains and then establish deterrence'. The Russian army built a barrier the Ukrainian offensive failed to break. The 4 oblasts Putin claimed are all but taken. He can declare peace soon.
2. 'A purely defensive strategy risks feeding the narrative of stalemate and “forever war”'. Ukraine wants its territory back, and a 'strategy of defense and regeneration' will manifestly fail to deliver that. Furthermore, the West is already tiring of this war: the USA has only just approved funds for Ukraine, much of which are not to be shared until the next Presidency! Almost all of the EU's latest funds are for civil and not military purposes. Ukraine has become a failed state: who's going to rebuild it?
Two more considerations weigh heavily:
3. The West is not making let alone supplying enough arms in any form, most acutely artillery shells, for Ukraine to carry on for much longer.
4. Because of this, there is a greater chance now that Putin will threaten to launch a war against NATO to yet further reduce supplies to Ukraine. Article V has never looked more like a piece of paper.
Agree with much of your assessment, except the viability of NATO-style combined arms warfare. Most NATO doctrine will prove about as effective on the battlefield as Moscow's when put to the test. Both NATO and Moscow are too obsessed with the European experience of WW2, officers all determined to be the next Patton.
The failure to breach Moscow's defenses on the Azov front has sent way too many people trained in the NATO paradigm of war down a spiral of trying to figure out how to send divisions and corps into Donbas. Absolutely, let Moscow impale itself on fortifications across the east for the next six months.
But Ukraine has to punch back, and it's the Krynky bridgehead and others like it that offer the best chance for success once Ukraine has Patriot systems, F-16s, and sufficient stocks of long-range weapons. Geography matters. And as any reader of Clausewitz ought to recall, war is politics. Ukraine's strategic task is to inflict unambiguous defeats where it hurts Putin the most - and that means an offensive focus on Crimea throughout 2024. If Ukraine can secure even a beachhead, all of a sudden Putin's power is proven as thin as it truly is.
Why do you think the orcs fear the Krynky bridgehead so much?
Good article, but concedes (without admitting it) that Ukraine has lost:
1. 'In the second case, the Russians do not need to fully defeat Ukraine’s army. They must only make marginal gains and then establish deterrence'. The Russian army built a barrier the Ukrainian offensive failed to break. The 4 oblasts Putin claimed are all but taken. He can declare peace soon.
2. 'A purely defensive strategy risks feeding the narrative of stalemate and “forever war”'. Ukraine wants its territory back, and a 'strategy of defense and regeneration' will manifestly fail to deliver that. Furthermore, the West is already tiring of this war: the USA has only just approved funds for Ukraine, much of which are not to be shared until the next Presidency! Almost all of the EU's latest funds are for civil and not military purposes. Ukraine has become a failed state: who's going to rebuild it?
Two more considerations weigh heavily:
3. The West is not making let alone supplying enough arms in any form, most acutely artillery shells, for Ukraine to carry on for much longer.
4. Because of this, there is a greater chance now that Putin will threaten to launch a war against NATO to yet further reduce supplies to Ukraine. Article V has never looked more like a piece of paper.
Agree with much of your assessment, except the viability of NATO-style combined arms warfare. Most NATO doctrine will prove about as effective on the battlefield as Moscow's when put to the test. Both NATO and Moscow are too obsessed with the European experience of WW2, officers all determined to be the next Patton.
The failure to breach Moscow's defenses on the Azov front has sent way too many people trained in the NATO paradigm of war down a spiral of trying to figure out how to send divisions and corps into Donbas. Absolutely, let Moscow impale itself on fortifications across the east for the next six months.
But Ukraine has to punch back, and it's the Krynky bridgehead and others like it that offer the best chance for success once Ukraine has Patriot systems, F-16s, and sufficient stocks of long-range weapons. Geography matters. And as any reader of Clausewitz ought to recall, war is politics. Ukraine's strategic task is to inflict unambiguous defeats where it hurts Putin the most - and that means an offensive focus on Crimea throughout 2024. If Ukraine can secure even a beachhead, all of a sudden Putin's power is proven as thin as it truly is.
Why do you think the orcs fear the Krynky bridgehead so much?