How Ukraine’s Heroic Stand Against Russia Could Collapse Into Failure

Daniel Davis errs again. He argues that ‘The vast majority of major wars have predictably been won by the side that holds the most fundamentals of combat power on its side. In this case, that means Russia’, but he never proves his case.

Just relying on the last ~50 years, it seems clear that the United States had the fundamentals of combat power in the war in Vietnam and in Afghanistan. Why didn’t the United States win in those cases?

Perhaps more appropriate to consider is why the Soviet Union failed to conquer Afghanistan. Did the Afghanis have more ‘fundamental combat power’? I’ve never seen anyone argue that they have.

Ukraine faces an existential threat. Russia has made it clear that they believe that the existence of Ukraine is a historical tragedy based entirely on a fiction. Their actions up to this point constitute a genocide of the Ukrainian people. SURRENDER will not save lives in the long run. If Ukraine doesn’t win now, decisively, it is possible that Russia will achieve in increments what it failed to achieve at once.

Providing additional support NOW saves Ukrainian lives both NOW and in the LONG TERM.

Daniel Davis previously assessed that Ukraine required THREE MIRACLES to reclaim Kherson. The fact that he now says ‘I assess, with a high degree of confidence, that the chances Ukraine will attain Zelensky’s objectives are so remote as to be unrealistic’ are in the same vein as his prior predictions.

Even if he was fundamentally correct in his assessment – that the side with more tanks and artillery wins – he would be incorrect in ascribing the long-term advantage to Russia. Western manufacturing exceeds Russia’s Defense Industrial Base. Perhaps it was a mistake to accept the ‘peace dividend’ and reduce industrial capacity in this regard, but factories in Europe and the United States are roaring back to life. If one thing has become clear in this conflict it is that the ability to stay in the fight owes a lot to industrial resilience.

The trend is clear – Ukraine is receiving more weapons faster than Russia. Russia is losing more weapons faster than Ukraine. If Ukraine doesn’t already have the advantage (and I have seen well-researched articles indicating that they may over the last three months) at current rates they certainly will, soon.

It doesn’t make sense to demand that ‘both sides agree to negotiate’ when neither side is willing to do so. Russia has not abandoned their maximalist goals; they seek to gain by negotiation what they cannot obtain by armed conflict. Ukraine, on the other hand, is reclaiming territory and making it progressively more difficult for Russia to hold seized territory.

It is very clear by watching a map of occupation by Russian forces that Ukraine has succeeded in reclaiming a significant amount of territory since February 2022. It would have been a bad decision to ‘accept territorial realties’ at that point (which Davis has never acknowledged), and it seems likely to me that it remains a bad decision. Ukraine is STILL reclaiming territory. This conflict may be approaching a stalemate, but that is not certain, and it is certainly not a stalemate at THIS POINT.

Ukraine is willing to continue the fight. The believe they can achieve their objectives. I believe that additional continuing support makes that true. I applaud our leaders who have pledged to stand by Ukraine ‘as long as it takes’. That is the right position from a strategic as well as moral standpoint.

Ukraine has lost by May 2022.
Everything since has just been throwing more bodies on the fire – it is a dreadful war crime by Kiev and Washington (and London).

Why bother pretending then, or now.

Shorter Davis: “One, two, many Buchas!”

Ukrainians will fight Russia with pointy sticks and rocks, if that is what they must, should every Western and democratic nation abandons them, because they know full well what awaits them, and what has already befallen their compatriots who have fallen under Russian occupation.

Russia may have a larger landmass and a larger population, but they continue to squander both, to little effect. Meanwhile, Ukraine is employing its artillery with accuracy, and getting results. Ukraine is not wasting its missiles in attacks on civilian Russian targets, but blowing up Russian ammo dumps, and its drones in blowing up Russian bombers, rather than apartment buildings and grain elevators.

I eagerly await your post, critiquing the Ukrainian victory and driving Russian from all Ukrainian territory, as Ukraine’s deepest and most tragic mistake.

If it was Ukraine fighting by itself, Mr. Davis would be right. But Ukraine is supported by a lot of countries. It is even possible to keep fighting if Trump is elected and cuts off all help for Ukraine. In that case the Europeans will pick up the slack – at least all countries nearby Ukraine and Russia, from Norway to Romania.

There is this myth floating around about Russian military prowess. It is true that they conquered a lot from central asian peoples, but this is mostly due to the fact that they had some modern weaponry and were facing horse archers in the Siberian sultanates.

Facing European or Japanese armies Russia has a long string of defeats in the last 200 years. In WW2 they benefited from massive support. This is now going to Ukraine.

Where next for Gog Magog and chums after Ukraine!? 😀

Look at topographical map of the Robotyne and its associated cul-de-sac, it’s obvious where the Russian lines are; on the heights; Kiev’s forces are in the lowlands, trying to advance.

The British Challenger tank hit has been geo-located at roughly the center of the cul-de-sac.

Russia has substantial surveillance capability all the way to the center of the cul-de-sac… essentially all over the cul-de-sac… picked out a Challenger… oh my!

Kiev’s forces are following a low ‘gully’ like track towards Verebove. Presumably, Verebove is built up with lots of surprises like Robotyne was (tunnel system exposed by incessant bombing).

Robotyne is still being struggled over in a “passing back & forth” style of warfare with each successive wave of attack from each side.

Is there anything beyond the cul-de-sac?

Seems like a dead end.

Davis claims to be monitoring Russian Telegram channels, but he seems to have missed all the Russians, from common soldiers to high-ranking officers such as General Popov, complaining about their poor training, poor equipment, poor supplies, and poor leadership, as well as Russia’s lack of counter battery artillery capability. Ukraine has the edge in artillery range & precision guidance, which gives them the advantage even if Russia may still have more short range artillery with worn out barrels.

Ukraine is being resupplied with modern NATO quality equipment; Russia is taking poorly maintained Soviet era stuff out of storage. Advantage Ukraine.

Jim,

Your comment about Russia playing to neutral, non-aligned nations is a good one. “Multipolarity” is Russia’s preferred rhetorical device. I would simply note that most of these nations are pragmatic and opportunistic enough to abandon the losing side, whichever side that happens to be. By offering them something of value to them today and demanding little of them in return one can keep them neutral or win them over (if that’s worth doing).

I’d say that middle and regional powers can be quite important geopolitically. Wooing them is definitely worthwhile. A diminution in the costs of food, fuel and fertilizer, market access, some investment capital, a valuable favor or two, and bilateral assistance will usually do the trick. The US, Canada, Mexico and the EU could readily supply those needs.

Hopefully we remember that meaningful diplomacy is usually conducted bilaterally by value-maximizing actors who, nonetheless, want to look good in front of others and especially their peers back home and internationally. May we not deceive ourselves with pretty phrases like the “international community” and the “rules-based international order.” As rhetorical devices, they can be useful — like “multipolarity” — but, in the end, it is people who do things and it is people who refuse to do them. Interests and motivations are usually not ethereal but cloathing them in noble dress seems to speak to something within us.

And here is an indisputable fact and result for Ukrainian apologists today:
Allocation by the United States ONLY of about $45 billion for the needs of the counter-offensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, as a result of which, in three months, the Ukrainian army took control of about as many territories in the Zaporozhye region as it lost in the Kharkiv region.
And no one knows what will happen tomorrow … even the great strategists of the Internet.

Things must be worse for Russia than I thought.

Even D.D. seems to admit Russia won’t win and is falling back on “think of the ukrainian lives lost”.

I’ll concede Im unsure if pushing to take back Crimea and Donbass is worth it and somehow peace talks need to happen at some point which Will involve Ukraine to make compromizes

Issue he fails to mention is how to make that peace happen since Ukraine Will need security guarantees involving either NATO-membership or something akin to it (since Russia cant be held to any promise it makes) to it, which probably wont be accepted by Putler.

But thats a difficult question, so its easier to just Dodge it

This author has a great gig. Write the same article every day and get paid as if it’s a new article each day.

One of the more idiotic articles I have ever read.