Comments by "Harry Mills" (@harrymills2770) on "The New Atlas"
channel.
-
106
-
44
-
23
-
21
-
The only thing the Duran's gotten wrong was when Alexander dismissed the notion of a Russian invasion of Ukraine in January and early February, before the February invasion of Ukraine by Russia. There was good reason to be dismissive, because Russia initiated hostilities with far too few troops and far too little equipment in position to conquer Ukraine.
And once it started, everyone looked at it like we currently look at the Kursk invasion: Just not enough behind it to defeat Russia. The "stupidity" of the SMO was the opinion of most, but as history unfolds, it appears that Russia's been 2 or 3 moves ahead with the overall strategy from the very beginning.
They lost some of their best men in the opener, in the feint at Kiev, but everywhere else, they made enough progress to keep ALL the fighting on Ukrainian territory, and the way Russia has fought has been very sparing of its troops and unstinting in its expenditure of ammo and equipment, where it has enjoyed a lead on the combined West's stockpiles and expenditure of ammo, armor and artillery since before hostilities commenced.
You see how it had to have been all mapped out by Putin's team from the very beginning. The "lightning" in this war is the pace at which the Russians can fortify a territory, with their heavy equipment in the thick Ukrainian soil.
Obligatory Alesia reference: In 6 weeks, Julius Caesar, with 25,000 legionnaires, but a 9-mile wall around Alesia and a 13-mile wall around THAT, in 6 weeks. It was a tremendous engineering feat.
The way Russia fortified behind those early gains in February-March, 2022, is a similar feat in the modern era. When those fortifications were built and it became clear how hard it was to reach them, let alone breach them, in the summer of 2023, that the basic math of the situation was playing out on the battlefield, and Ukraine's situation was hopeless.
13
-
13
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
Meanwhile, Russia is producing 125 tanks per month!
NATO/USA has made the same mistake about tanks that Nazi Germany made. Yes, they had tremendous firepower and super-thick front armor. But when it's 5 super-fantastic tanks versus 100 cheap tanks, the enemy can surround and fire at your super-tank from all angles.
Tanks are for infantry support against small arms. The enemy will always be able to build munitions that can pierce any kind of armor, so it's a futile endeavor.
If you have a sound combined-arms strategy, and prepare the ground ahead of time, tanks have a role to play, but it's not this glorious charge of 100s of tanks, without both infantry or air support.
Napoleon was criticized for his rejection of rifled firearms. The British could reach out from 300 yard away and target officers and artillery crews. The French would drive the rifles off with artillery and the threat of cavalry overrunning the infantry.
Advantage France, because they could train up musket infantry quickly. And even though their skirmishers only had muskets, their tactics were impeccable, and they had skirmishers galore. The advantage of the rifle's range was match for well-trained skirmishers (Voltigeurs). Napoleon could draft people off the street and make them effective fighters in mass formations.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
I think the amount of air cover provided by Ukraine side is even less than you allow. The Russians aren't flying air cover for their assaults to any great degree, unless they're confident they have suppressed anti-air. Both sides are standing off and firing missiles from long range. Even that is fraught with some danger for both sides.
If Ukraine can keep the battle down to the level of its western supply, they are probably enjoying a tactical advantage, in terms of precision guidance. This low-level, tit-for-tat fighting is testing NATO's re-supply capacity, but as long as Russia allows this level of fighting, there's plenty of hopium for Ukraine.
The strategic reality remains unchanged, except for continuing mobilization and steady build-up by Russia that far exceeds NATO's, let alone Ukraine's. Eventually, I expect a full offensive. I think it's pretty clear the rate at which NATO can re-supply Ukraine. I think Russia grows weary of fighting on Ukraine's level. I'm not sure why they're waiting. It may just be a matter of waiting until they're as trained-up and built-up as needed to carry out an all-out offensive, which I don't think we've seen, yet.
Maybe they're trying to smoke out the last family of "advanced weapons," to develop counters preparatory to the assault. But I think we're already beyond the point where there is enough in the way of munitions to knock out a significant percentage of Russian forces in an all-out attack, even with perfect accuracy, even assuming the Russians won't immediately destroy the launchers, artillery, and aircraft.
I have no idea what the Russian thinking is. No. I have LOTS of ideas. But it's all speculation.
It depends on his global assessment of western capabilities and western will. This entire war might just be Putin's way of adding stressors to an already brittle West, both economically and politically. Western people are on their last nerve with the far-left domestic policy and Uni-Party foreign and security policy. Basically, the political leadership of EU and USA are writing checks their a$$es can't cash, and as Japan, China, and other nations around the world sell off their U.S. debt and the price of U.S. treasury notes (bonds) craters, its (and I suspect many others') ability to finance their chronic debt shrinks.
It's already making life more and more difficult for the common people. We're tired of making sacrifices for our leaders' self-created "emergencies." We see political families reaping millions from oligarchs around the world, while our economies implode. This is a very dangerous time. Will their failures bring about their collapse or will it usher in full-on police state? After RussiaGate and the COVID tyranny, I'm just not sure that liberty will prevail.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jay90374 We'll have to say. On the surface, they actually cut a lot of personnel. Almost all of USAID. But maybe they think they can exercise soft power a lot cheaper, and they're probably right. Look at how Soros leverages his billions by spending paltry millions in key areas (media, activist groups, NGOs, ...) For a couple million, he can have the biggest single voice in a multitude of places that can leverage opinions of a few and manipulate public policy.
If little Soros can do the harm he's done to the USA, imagine what USAID can do in a small country with a few or 10s of millions. They've 100s of millions to throw around. Billions all told. USAID was bigger than the CIA and State Department, combined.
Anyway, scaling it back and making it more efficient isn't a philosophical shift of any sort. Same with Israel Project. But it wouldn't take a philosophical shift to make fundamental change for the better in Palestine. We could continue our support of Israel and still push it very hard to end apartheid. If they want to just be left alone, they better figure out how to do democracy or the hypocrisy will choke them. I don't think the American people are going to tolerate foreign aid to Israel for much longer.
If people want to donate to another country, that's their right. But it's not our federal government's place to send money, government-to-government. In the long run, it's always overtaken by corruption, and the end-justifies-the-means crowd have their comeuppance with the people who are sick of the means they employ for their lofty ends.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Oh, it doesn't exactly help Russia to have the West throwing $$$, weapons, and equipment at Ukraine. No directly. It raises the cost of the SMO. Not in the short term. It's what's kept the Ukrainians going, and gave Russia more with which to contend than if it were just a conflict with Ukraine, alone.
But you are correct in saying that it's hurting the collective West a lot more than it's hurting Russia. It's very clear that Russia made the correct calculation of the combined West's capabilities, and prepared for exactly this eventuality. And why wouldn't they? The massive army Ukraine was building and crowing about in 2010s was almost entirely U.S. funded.
Not only is the West far behind Russia in stockpiles and production of pretty much everything, they are also in debt to their eyeballs, and their unceasing attempts to topple governments, abroad, are going to topple western governments! They can't gear up to match Russia without spending WAY more than they're already spending, and they just... don't... have... the money.
The aforementioned Ukraine army is now on its last legs, I think. The West could strip itself bare and keep things going for another year, but it would cause so much economic and political upheavals to even try to replace everything, that governments would fall.
1