Maybe, maybe not. This thread has had a lot of readers over the past few months, most just don't post much I think.
The truth (well, many truths about the battlefield/people/leadership involved) is going to continue to trickle out to more and more. Myself, I will continue to just ignore
certain things/statements.
From simplicius' mailbag this am:
Quote:
Quote:
Do you think that if Ukraine had used it's Western supplied aid to defend the current line rather than launch an offensive they could have kept the situation in some form of stalemate for a fairly long time?
As to the second one, they definitely could have prolonged things as you describe. Just from the standpoint of losses, it would have led to far fewer losses in manpower and materiel. In my last report I had discussed the vast amount of armor losses they're experiencing in the offensive due to having to come 'out into the open' and basically creating a turkey shoot for Russia.
But, you must remember that time is very critical for them and they are running out of support. All the signals are indicating that if Ukraine can't make a big triumphant 'showing' for their masters, then the plug will be pulled and they will be forced to either sign a ceasefire or surrender. This relates to the first question about conditions based on Ukraine's performance.
So that means that it doesn't really matter whether they defended the line or not, the situation gets critical for them either way. In short, they're between a rock and a hard place, a sort of zugzwang or lose-lose situation for themthey could have just turtled up and saved themselves the mass slaughter to an extent, but they they would have lost their support and likely been forced to surrender anyway.
Let's say they just defended the line until late this year, not allowing Russia to advance much but likewise not advancing at all for themselves. They would pretty much look hopeless and no Western official or military leader would remain optimistic about their chances. Ukraine has only survived previously on a very carefully choreographed series of periodic 'triumphs' time-released to the public to keep mainstream headlines 'overlapping' with positive spin. These must be strung together to keep Western hopes from flagging, as well as morale of Ukraine's own troops up. Should the interval of these periodic releases be broken, it can be catastrophic for Kiev's campaign to maintain the West's financial support.
Remember, Western leaders have to sell their support of Kiev to their own publics. These aren't just blank checks being written endlessly no matter what happens in the field. There is some accountability that Western leaders fear and are constantly being questioned about in their own mainstream press and their own public. It's a constant challenge for them to justify sending their citizen's hard-earned money away to some foreign war that has nothing to do with them. That means these Western leaders need a consistent parade of perceived victories to show their constituents to say "see, your money is being well spent! It's creating major battlefield victories for the poor Ukrainians, who are getting closer and closer to democracy and freedom each day because of your support!"
That is my answer to the first question regarding the conditional provisions. Most people forget about how this relationship works between public and official because the officials who consign their public's money to Ukraine put on a very practiced and rehearsed 'show' of false optimism to feign success when in reality, behind the scenes they're terrified of every aspect of the war: from how poorly the AFU are doing and how detrimentally that will reflect on the politician, to how constrained the time-tables are in terms of public the weariness of public support as contrasted with the politician's promises of victory, etc.
This bit is an interesting speculation as well:
Quote:
Quote:
Where will Russia stop? The Dnieper? The Dnieper plus Odessa? Poland?
Of course none of us can know for certain, but I believe it to be the Dnieper plus Odessa, more or less. Something like this is possible:
That seems plausible.
