Comments by "MarcosElMalo2" (@MarcosElMalo2) on "Russian Forces Withdraw from Kherson" video.

@Robert-uo6qi They have shipping capacity in the Sea of Azov. The Kerch Bridge wasn’t destroyed, only damaged. The constrained supply situation has certainly helped with the siege of Kherson, but the siege of Crimea is going to be different. Forget for a moment about logistics. The Crimean Peninsula is going to be a very tough nut to crack. I think it will be the last of the Ukrainian territories the Russians will be forced to leave. It is much more defensible than Kherson, and there are a lot more ways to resupply it. Which brings us back to the logistics. You might have noticed that Kherson has not been completely cut off. However, the supply lines have been CONSTRAINED to a sufficient degree that the Russian units have been slowly starved of supplies. This is what made their position untenable. Crimea is not only more defensible geographically, it is also more easily suppliable. The supply lines are more difficult to choke. In a nutshell, the Russians can hold out in Crimea for a lot longer than many people seem to think. The final assault is going to cost a lot of Ukrainian lives. It should be up to the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian government if they want to spend those lives and extend the war another year or two or more to retake Crimea. It might offend our sense of justice if the Ukrainians decide to trade Ukraine for peace, but ultimately it’s their call, not ours. On the other hand, if they decide to go for it, we should continue to offer our support.
9
@Bigcrusha16 This will be much more like a Kherson Rout than a Kharkiv Rout. Just look at a map and you’ll see what I mean. 😊
6
The Russian air force follows Pete around, trying to interfere with the audio quality of his videos.
3
One lane is open. The train wreckage was removed, but I’ve seen no evidence of the rail lines in use. A replacement span has been built in Krasnodar and is making its way to the bridge.
3
If Crimea is under siege, it makes the Russian colonization of it economically untenable. Heck, it was most likely a drain on the Russian economy before February 24th. None of Russia’s aggression makes sense from a rational standpoint, however. They have to have Crimea because they feel emasculated without it? Because they want it, and they get whatever they want? Because they need a warm water port? (They have other warm water ports in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov.) But back to the water. A shortage of water increases the defensive burden of keeping Crimea. It doesn’t mean Russia will be forced to leave, it means they have to truck drinking water in.
2
Pete isn’t my go-to guy for military analysis. He might have a better conceptual grasp of logistics and how it’s done, but he shouldn’t pretend to understand strategy with the confidence he exhibits. Crimea is the most defensible and will be the most difficult nut to crack.
2
The supply lines into Kherson were constrained but not cut. Supplies were still being moved in, but at a reduced rate. Additionally, supply depots on the left bank and on Crimea were destroyed. So of course reducing supply into Crimea had an effect.
2
@bh-zj4yt I agree with you, too. At this point, it’s hard to imagine the Ukrainian people caving into this. We wish this conflict can be over quickly, but the truth is that, 8 months in, it’s probably early days. We in the West that support and assist Ukraine must recognize that the war could go on for more than a year or two, and strengthen our commitment to help.
2
Weeks ago, but it does seem like months. I agree, it’s not clear if this is a viable workaround for heavy equipment. It might be, it might not. Russia also has a fleet of barges to ferry vehicles and troops across the river in either direction. Yes, they are vulnerable, but that doesn’t mean they’re not useful.
1
Are you thinking it should be retreat and mobilize? Or perhaps “don’t attack, don’t mobilize” would have been the best overall strategy for Russia? 😅 I bet we can agree on that.
1
That last paragraph is an interesting idea, but does the local population have the wherewithal? The Russians have no scruples when it comes to genocide.
1
The key agent in all this loss of life is Russia. The loss of life will end when Russia decides it has had enough or is defeated It’s not Peter’s fault. Nothing wrong with feeling satisfaction that we are closer to a Russian defeat, because that will mean less loss of life in the long run.
1
@LRRPFco52 Boots on the ground. Those weapons help support an assault, but they don’t constitute the type of force needed to expel the Russians from Crimea.
1
@LRRPFco52 Understood. But it is an island with defensible “sea lanes” across the Sea of Azov. And sieges can go on for years.
1
@LRRPFco52 OK, your points are worth consideration. I feel that at this point I’ll be arguing for the sake of argument. By the way, are you really a LURP and if so, where and when? If you don’t mind my asking.
1
@LRRPFco52 ttfys and all that jazz. 😁 I’m glad I pulled back and didn’t go full bore asshat.
1
@frankstonrat I actually agree, but I still think that Crimea will be the most difficult piece of territory to liberate. It would be a great thing if I am wrong. With regard to the will of the Ukrainians, I merely want to give them an out if they do choose to trade land for peace. I do understand the negative ramifications for trading land for peace that go far beyond this war between Ukraine and Russia. And that’s how I understand the U.S. telling Ukraine that they can open a diplomatic dialogue with Russia with a view to negotiations. Furthermore that we will continue to support them, even if it’s in NATO’s strategic interest that the Ukraine slowly grind down the Russian military machine. I don’t think the U.S. is pressuring Ukraine to negotiate, I think they are reassuring Ukraine that eventual negotiations are OK. But clearly, the time is not ripe for negotiations, because Ukraine winning and Russia won’t (yet) accept defeat. Even if/when Ukraine completely expels Russia, Russia might not accept defeat. There is nothing wrong with tying reparations and war crimes to Russia leaving Ukraine’s sovereign territory. However, it is unclear how Ukraine can force those terms on Russia by itself. Wouldn’t it need to successfully invade Russia and threaten Moscow to force Russia to comply with those two items? It’s possible that the sanctions might help in negotiating reparations and war crimes.
1
@frankstonrat yes. (to both your comments, but especially with regard to war crimes and reparations), The Western Democracies have the main leverage because of sanctions. While we remain united, this leverage is strong. To the degree that the west is disunited, that leverage is weaker. This is why we have seen pro-Russians in general and Russian propagandists employing active measures to hype up European, UK, and American economic difficulties. They believe they can generate protests that will pressure governments to cut military aid to Ukraine and lift sanctions. I hope they are wrong. I’m pretty sure they are wrong. You’ve probably seen the arguments: the winter cold will cause an uprising in Europe, etc.
1
@frankstonrat You said it better than I could. I think the GOP politicians will moan and groan about the Democrats overspending, but in the end they’ll pony up. They might even pressure Biden into giving more—the longer range missiles, tanks, more SPGs. In fact, if they control the House of Representatives, they might feel more on the spot about being tough. After all the help Putin has given NATO to pull it together, wouldn’t it be a trip if he also brought the U.S. left and right closer together? 🤪 That said, the Kremlin trolls are up to their eyeballs in QAnon. I don’t know what is coming from that quarter, but I suspect we will hear or see something bad happening.
1
@frankstonrat I really hope your assessment is correct! The midterm flop does give GOP politicians the opportunity to grow a spine. I note that there were successful congressional candidates that did not campaign on the “stolen election” even though they initially went on record with supporting Trump’s claims. I don’t want to read too much into this, though. I think we have a ray of hope. (I’m an old school Conservative, by the way. I’m fiscally conservative, socially liberal, strong on defense. I’m not against compromising with the liberal democrats over social spending because that’s how one advances conservative policies. I have a metric butt load of opinions about how the alt-left took over the GOP and all that, but I won’t bore you with them.) This conflict with the Russians has highlighted the conflict with the Chinese. It’s made the threat more real for more Americans. This could be the opportunity for the GOP to lead and bring together both the liberals and conservatives as Americans, starting with foreign policy and supporting the military, but also including recovering our manufacturing base.
1
It’s been a net positive for all three countries, and we are now in better strategic shape for a global contraction.
1
Using all that manufacturing capacity that fell apart when Russia shifted to being primarily an oil export economy? Building those new designs with components that they can no longer buy due to sanctions? With machine tools they can no longer acquire? Maybe the Russians can build these new weapons systems directly out of petroleum. Imagine petroleum based silicon or petroleum based steel. It’s going to be great! History isn’t guiding you. You’re thinking of one specific instance, and you seem to be forgetting that the Soviet Union was being supplied by lend lease with not just tanks and planes, but machine tools, ball bearings, transportation, etc. to keep the Soviet war industries running behind the Urals. Russia has Iran and North Korea for its lend lease partners. If I might be so bold as to offer you advice, don’t let history be your guide when you don’t really know the history.
1
@knightsnight5929 GULAG gradually ended and was officially terminated in 1961 (iirc). Russia still has prison labor, but nowhere as extensive as GULAG. I’ve read my Solzhenitsyn, so I know the claim that Russia’s economy was built on the backs of political prisoners’ slave labor, but I’ve read others that claim the efficiency was so low that this has been overestimated. And I’ve read a bit of Hannah Arendt, who says that the real point of GULAG was Stalin’s power of life or death over the populace. It was an extension of the Great Terror.
1
@JinKee Well, OK, if you have some expertise with carbon fiber materials, polymers, reinforced ceramics and whatnot, maybe you have an idea of whether Russia already has manufacturing capacity and whether it can scale up and maintain this capacity rapidly with the tools it has. For example, does Russia already possess the capability to spin the fiber? For example, carbon fiber ceramics need precision machining with tooling that wears out rather quickly. Russia has been cut off from these machine tools. For example, does Russia have the tools to make the molds used to form carbon fiber reinforced polymer parts? Do you see what I mean? It comes back to whether investments were made in manufacturing, and investments were not made in manufacturing because more money could be made investing in the energy sector. Domestic manufacturing would be undercut by cheaper imports of carbon fiber materials. I realize I could be way off, but I have great doubts that Russia can reconstitute its Soviet era manufacturing capacity any time soon. Another question, more for the finance-econ people, is: will Russia see direct foreign investment after this conflict is over? I have great doubts about that, too. There’s an idiomatic phrase in English that describes Russia’s current situation, “Trapped between a rock and a hard place”.
1
Some of us are hoping for something like the Battle of Teutoburg Forest, with Russians pinned up against the river.
1
That was 3-4 days ago. Obviously, Ukraine must be careful. But they’ve already begun attacking. More news will trickle out over the next few days that will tell us if the attack is successful, but so far signs are 👍.
1
Your delusional version of history is based on fiction and propaganda.
1