Interesting read which I enjoy partially just because it confirms my bias. At least I'm honest about this.
As an American living in neutral Austria for 30 years, I'd be very interested to hear Prof. Mearsheimer's opinion on what will happen to NATO after this war ends.
One of the best examples of Blitzkrieg was the Japanese attack on Malaya and the eventual conquest of Singapore. Much of the early success of the Japanese offensive in the first 6 months of the Pacific conflict have been forgotten. It should perhaps be reconsidered.
Naturally, there is a very inconvenient question: why did the west push Ukraine into this? I tend to think that this must have been war gamed. They must have seen the results. They are either (1) amateurs who don’t know what they were doing or (2) lied about it to satisfy their ideological Russophobia to weaken Russia at any cost, regardless of the price (paid by Ukrainians).
I think option 2.
Which is to say that the west has serious blood on its hands with the death of several hundred thousand Ukrainian soldiers.
Indeed, all one has to do is listen to Mitt Romney or Linda Graham saying that “it’s the best money we spent to weaken Russia, and only a small fraction of the defense budget”.
The truth is there. Just have to listen to it.
They should have pushed Ukraine to negotiate.
When this war is over (and I have no doubt that it will Ben on Russia’s terms only) and the dust is settled and information like John’s piece comes to light, nobody will hate Americans and Europeans more than Ukrainians.
Soviet attacks on the Eastern Front featured the use of artillery bombardments that shattered defenders and protected the armoured advance. The Soviets arranged their artillery to shell a long line through the defences on either side of the armoured advance axis. This allowed them to shelter their armoured units, pin down the defences, and penetrate deep into the strategic depths of Nazi defences.
Of course, the answer to thin defences quickly penetrated by armour are deep, echeloned defences with air and artillery cover, and, rapid response armoured counter attacks.
The author has commented in the past re USA leading Ukraine down the primrose path and that this war is a colossal mistake by the west. But perhaps the west planned on provoking Russia into the war and then use Ukrainian lives to bleed Russia and weaken it and keep it occupied. As long as there is no nuclear war perhaps 1.5billion investment to knock Russia out of the ranks of great powers is worth it.
I would say that the case of France suggests that the "fair fight" variant of blitzkrieg is only likely to succeed if surprise is achieved: either operational surprise as in the one historical case, or theoretically, strategic surprise.
"there was an abundance of evidence, which indicated that Russians were becoming better fighters..."
A chief tragedy of this Russo-Ukraine war, for me, is that at this point the Ukrainians are not fighting Putin. They are fighting Russia itself. Russia itself is now mobilized and will not allow itself to be humiliated.
One question would be wrt a frozen conflict scenario. Since Russia clearly has the upper hand, with nothing on the immediate horizon menacing that advantage, why would Moscow accept a frozen conflict? In other words, what could Kiev do to impose such a case?
Interesting that the exhausted and hopeless Ukrainians have broken through the Surovikin line and made solid progress in the last few days.
Why is the ‘realist’ position ONLY ever that the bad guys get to win? Putin is a dictator who wants to recreate the Russian empire. The Russian army is merrily engaging mostly in war crimes against civilians. Why do we have to accept that as ‘realistic?’
John J. Mearsheimer's comprehensive analysis of the Ukraine-Russia conflict offers a remarkably clear and dispassionate view of the ongoing crisis.
With a focus on the strategic dynamics and military realities, Mearsheimer dissects the Ukrainian counteroffensive, shedding light on its abysmal failure and the challenges faced by Ukraine. His objective assessment underscores the grim prospects of a protracted war and the limited potential for a diplomatic solution, given the irreconcilable differences between the parties.
Mearsheimer's analysis is an essential resource for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of the conflict's complexities and its implications for the region.
Prof. Mearsheimer's analysis is spot on, except for his conclusion that "The most likely result is that that the war will go on and eventually end in a frozen conflict with Russia in possession of a significant portion of Ukrainian territory."
I think a much more likely scenario will be for the Russians to go on the offensive, forcing a collapse of the Ukrainian military and the regime in Kiev.
When that collapse becomes inevitable, the US/NATO will be left with two very regrettable options: 1) to surrender and sue for peace on Russian terms; or, 2) to commit US/NATO troops to into direct combat with the Russians.
Americans need to start thinking about whether they are going to support US/NATO "boots on the ground" in Ukraine . . . because that decision-point is coming sooner than most Americans think.
I think this ends more like the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. They roll into a millitraily weaker country thinking this will be easy to take over but the locals hate them and never stop fighting back and eventually the Russians get fed up with being killed and go home. All the stuff about Ukraine being nazi and a security threat are complete bs - Ukraine was a peaceful agricultural country with no intention of attacking a nuclear superpower and if Russia is so worried about having NATO close then how come having them on the border in Estonia and Latvia was never an issue? Most Russians didn't want this - it's only really Putin with delusions of being Vladimir the Great who was into it and he's not going to be around forever.
Interesting read which I enjoy partially just because it confirms my bias. At least I'm honest about this.
As an American living in neutral Austria for 30 years, I'd be very interested to hear Prof. Mearsheimer's opinion on what will happen to NATO after this war ends.
One of the best examples of Blitzkrieg was the Japanese attack on Malaya and the eventual conquest of Singapore. Much of the early success of the Japanese offensive in the first 6 months of the Pacific conflict have been forgotten. It should perhaps be reconsidered.
Well Played.
Excellent read. Thank you.
Naturally, there is a very inconvenient question: why did the west push Ukraine into this? I tend to think that this must have been war gamed. They must have seen the results. They are either (1) amateurs who don’t know what they were doing or (2) lied about it to satisfy their ideological Russophobia to weaken Russia at any cost, regardless of the price (paid by Ukrainians).
I think option 2.
Which is to say that the west has serious blood on its hands with the death of several hundred thousand Ukrainian soldiers.
Indeed, all one has to do is listen to Mitt Romney or Linda Graham saying that “it’s the best money we spent to weaken Russia, and only a small fraction of the defense budget”.
The truth is there. Just have to listen to it.
They should have pushed Ukraine to negotiate.
When this war is over (and I have no doubt that it will Ben on Russia’s terms only) and the dust is settled and information like John’s piece comes to light, nobody will hate Americans and Europeans more than Ukrainians.
Soviet attacks on the Eastern Front featured the use of artillery bombardments that shattered defenders and protected the armoured advance. The Soviets arranged their artillery to shell a long line through the defences on either side of the armoured advance axis. This allowed them to shelter their armoured units, pin down the defences, and penetrate deep into the strategic depths of Nazi defences.
Of course, the answer to thin defences quickly penetrated by armour are deep, echeloned defences with air and artillery cover, and, rapid response armoured counter attacks.
The author has commented in the past re USA leading Ukraine down the primrose path and that this war is a colossal mistake by the west. But perhaps the west planned on provoking Russia into the war and then use Ukrainian lives to bleed Russia and weaken it and keep it occupied. As long as there is no nuclear war perhaps 1.5billion investment to knock Russia out of the ranks of great powers is worth it.
I would say that the case of France suggests that the "fair fight" variant of blitzkrieg is only likely to succeed if surprise is achieved: either operational surprise as in the one historical case, or theoretically, strategic surprise.
"there was an abundance of evidence, which indicated that Russians were becoming better fighters..."
A chief tragedy of this Russo-Ukraine war, for me, is that at this point the Ukrainians are not fighting Putin. They are fighting Russia itself. Russia itself is now mobilized and will not allow itself to be humiliated.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1699508632952475913
So it appears The EU is now rounding up Ukranian immigrants and turning
them over to the Ukraine Government to put on the front
line and ---- in many if not most of the cases certainty of death or
dismemberment.
I predicted that months ago -
what a disgusting shame.
Is it fair to consider the holocaust ? Obviously there are vast differences
but are there similarities of EU participation ( and US payment for )
rounding up and sending Ukrainian immigrants to
( what many have deemed ) a corrupt government
and ultimately sending to the front line and death ?
Magnificent, sir.
One question would be wrt a frozen conflict scenario. Since Russia clearly has the upper hand, with nothing on the immediate horizon menacing that advantage, why would Moscow accept a frozen conflict? In other words, what could Kiev do to impose such a case?
Interesting that the exhausted and hopeless Ukrainians have broken through the Surovikin line and made solid progress in the last few days.
Why is the ‘realist’ position ONLY ever that the bad guys get to win? Putin is a dictator who wants to recreate the Russian empire. The Russian army is merrily engaging mostly in war crimes against civilians. Why do we have to accept that as ‘realistic?’
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/7/6/2179504/-Ukraine-Update-Russia-doesn-t-have-a-backup-plan-when-it-runs-out-of-artillery
John J. Mearsheimer's comprehensive analysis of the Ukraine-Russia conflict offers a remarkably clear and dispassionate view of the ongoing crisis.
With a focus on the strategic dynamics and military realities, Mearsheimer dissects the Ukrainian counteroffensive, shedding light on its abysmal failure and the challenges faced by Ukraine. His objective assessment underscores the grim prospects of a protracted war and the limited potential for a diplomatic solution, given the irreconcilable differences between the parties.
Mearsheimer's analysis is an essential resource for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of the conflict's complexities and its implications for the region.
Prof. Mearsheimer's analysis is spot on, except for his conclusion that "The most likely result is that that the war will go on and eventually end in a frozen conflict with Russia in possession of a significant portion of Ukrainian territory."
I think a much more likely scenario will be for the Russians to go on the offensive, forcing a collapse of the Ukrainian military and the regime in Kiev.
When that collapse becomes inevitable, the US/NATO will be left with two very regrettable options: 1) to surrender and sue for peace on Russian terms; or, 2) to commit US/NATO troops to into direct combat with the Russians.
Americans need to start thinking about whether they are going to support US/NATO "boots on the ground" in Ukraine . . . because that decision-point is coming sooner than most Americans think.
Typo:
“The Ukrainians were not only ?___? involved in a fair fight,”
I think there is a missing “not” where I inserted a blank.
I think this ends more like the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. They roll into a millitraily weaker country thinking this will be easy to take over but the locals hate them and never stop fighting back and eventually the Russians get fed up with being killed and go home. All the stuff about Ukraine being nazi and a security threat are complete bs - Ukraine was a peaceful agricultural country with no intention of attacking a nuclear superpower and if Russia is so worried about having NATO close then how come having them on the border in Estonia and Latvia was never an issue? Most Russians didn't want this - it's only really Putin with delusions of being Vladimir the Great who was into it and he's not going to be around forever.