From everything I read, the Russians didn't expect a quick victory. They knew there was a massive well prepared force in the Don Donbass region. The initial maneuvers were not done force superiority.
The goal was to isolate the large Ukrainian force in the Donbass and prevent reinforcement of said troops. Moving on Kiev, with rather limited troops, was merely to freeze Ukraine in place. Russia withdrew once Mariupol and Kherson were taken, so as to start encircling the large Ukrainian force.
Kharkov is a different beast. I suspect Russia overestimated the willingness of the Kharkov oblast to join up with Russia. Russia has tried to minimize civilian deaths, so didn't try to take the city with force.
The only quibble I'd make is that although no doubt Russia hoped it could overthrow the corrupt Ukrainian regime quickly, it was prepared to do so slowly. It did not send its best troops. It did not send overwhelming numbers of troops. It did not engage its top of the line military hardware. It's strategy has, at every point, been one of trying to maintain infrastructure as much as possible and only engage with the military, not civilians, as much as possible, even at cost to them in time and men. It's strategy has always been described by Russian observers as a "cauldron" which implies the slow boil expectation.
Super series. I was in a lengthy discussion (trending toward debate) with my Dad on the Russia-UKR conflict. He asked me for where I get my info from, I said "a range of places I've come to trust, you have to look for it actively". This series has pulled together so many threads, I will be sharing it with my old man. Hopefully it'll be an olive branch for my trite "well I sure don't get my info from the MSM!" comment. Thanks a lot for this. You've gained a committed reader (Vox Day got me here).
By far the best article I've read on this situation. It's quite staggering to think how stupid our so-called "elites" can be when they are blinded by their own ideology and propaganda. We are now in "sharpen the guillotines" territory. My only quibble is that I'm not convinced the Russians got it wrong in Ukraine. They knew full well that U would be a tough nut to crack because the West had been training and supplying its army for at least 8 years. Also, the Russians only employed a small proportion of their own army. Instead, I think they saw how the US "Shock and Awe" approach failed and went for a slow, grinding attrition strategy to carry out their main aim of degrading Ukraine's military power. Ironically, we are now in the situation where the longer Putin takes to finish the job, the stronger his position is. The EU economies are drawing ever closer to ruin and a situation where politicians will be nervously feeling their necks. That's a minor quibble, however - this article is excellent.
I did read an article by Charles Hugh Smith that offers a glimmer of hope for the U.S. dollar, i.e., there are already so many U.S. dollars outstanding that they cannot fail. I know this sounds like a wish but as an American I seek a decent future for my children.
Later this week, a U.S. government commission will host an event titled “DECOLONIZING RUSSIA: A Moral and Strategic Imperative.” The stated premise is that Russia’s “decolonization” is needed “for it to become a viable stakeholder in European security and stability.”
The description also calls out the “barbaric war on Ukraine” (not to be confused with civilized wars) & endorses “a long-overdue conversation about Russia’s interior empire.” The suggestion, by a USG Commission, seems to be that Russia’s partition should maybe be a policy aim.
==
While not confirmation of my assessment of US policy re: Russia, it's certainly evidence of it.
Excellent assessment and it explains a lot why the American neocons cared so much about Iraq. One thing missing from the analysis is why are Western globalists in love with Green energy? The West is losing the hegemony of the American dollar and simultaneously weakening its economic prospects by amplifying energy dependence. Why?
It seems their are three worldviews. The neocon view epitomized by Bush(s) & Cheney, the American first view popularized by Trump and a third view of America / Europe diminishment, promoted by Leftists. What do Leftists expect to get in return for debasing their nations?
This four-part series on the petrodollar system is excellent: very well-argued, written in a language and style that is easily understandable and concise. Thank you for writing and posting them.
This spells an opportunity to make some common cause with the sane remnant of the Left. Raise worker pay by enforcing a national picket line, and stop looting the third world via the petrodollar.
--
There is a downside, alas. If we stop defending Saudi Arabia, someone else will. Someone else will get to use Saudi Arabia's vast buried treasure to to finance their defense industry. I fear the only way out is to make that treasure less valuable. While we can become self-sufficient by tapping into our dirty energy, what about the rest of the world?
Developing truly useful solar power systems is a national defense issue. Most of the unstable regions of the world are sunny. Solar + batteries don't need power lines, and those don't need strong central government. When things are tribal and/or feudal, small is beautiful. (Europe continued to develop small scale tech after Rome fell. Public works stayed below Roman levels until the 1800s.)
Others commenting below have already pointed out certain tidbits which might be a bit off (i.e. especially with regards to Russia's overall competence, which I too think is being underestimated). Overall though, "the forest" in your article is correct, in spite of key "trees" being off.
Recommended Reading: The esteemed Andrei Martyanov and his various works; especially "The Real Revolution in Military Affairs" where he painstakingly goes over why at the Higher-Order decision making level (i.e. Strategic and whatnot) Russia has already surpassed the Muricans.
Military porn a la "Look at my cool toys, gadgets and sexy explosions" are not relevant because wars are ultimately won at upper levels of decision making and not at tactical level a la skirmishes.
Anyhow, as for the Petrodollar system: Really what it comes down to is how "strong" the Dollar Milkshake ends up being. In particular, due to high inflation (a la supply crunches on oil, gas, food, etc) the preliminary trend is a flight towards dollars. And so the DXY is still hovering at 104-105.
The Dollar Milkshake theory is simply the observation that Central Banks in many nations issue and hold debt in USDs, ergo a net of dependencies naturally forms whereby The Muricans will never *truly* run out of dollars since the circulation will persist due to Globalization.
Dollar milkshakers (i.e. The "true believers") have always claimed that this net of dependencies is essentially bulletproof because "The world is fully interconnected for the first time in human history". As such, "the milkshake" will be held up by global 'animal spirits'.
The problem of course (and President Putin hinted at this in the lates 90s) is that food, oil, gas, etc *MUST be bought* (they are "essentials") and so even if you have a giant flight into dollars, those dollars are only good so long as they buy said essentials at or above certain volumes.
Add on to that the fact that the nominal Murican consumer (relative to most other citizens in other parts of the world) is highly fragile and more prone to viewing certain lifestyle changes (which would be considered minor) with greater angst and overall fear.
Napoleon one said (paraphrased): "Every society is merely 3 meals away from revolution".
For the nominal Murican who is highly obedient and more prone to angst and fear; it will be more a case of vandalism, lynchings, anarchy, etc rather than anything "structured" once Hyperinflation breaks his nation once and for all. "If it Dies... It Dies" to quote Drago.
And so Civil War v2.0 approaches, as well as the Arctic Invasion of some 10+ million Eurasians. At that point, I see no reason why having an "Unbeatable Milkshake a la a Basket of Currencies" is relevant any longer. It becomes nothing more than "Finance Porn" at that point.
Good series.
From everything I read, the Russians didn't expect a quick victory. They knew there was a massive well prepared force in the Don Donbass region. The initial maneuvers were not done force superiority.
The goal was to isolate the large Ukrainian force in the Donbass and prevent reinforcement of said troops. Moving on Kiev, with rather limited troops, was merely to freeze Ukraine in place. Russia withdrew once Mariupol and Kherson were taken, so as to start encircling the large Ukrainian force.
Kharkov is a different beast. I suspect Russia overestimated the willingness of the Kharkov oblast to join up with Russia. Russia has tried to minimize civilian deaths, so didn't try to take the city with force.
The only quibble I'd make is that although no doubt Russia hoped it could overthrow the corrupt Ukrainian regime quickly, it was prepared to do so slowly. It did not send its best troops. It did not send overwhelming numbers of troops. It did not engage its top of the line military hardware. It's strategy has, at every point, been one of trying to maintain infrastructure as much as possible and only engage with the military, not civilians, as much as possible, even at cost to them in time and men. It's strategy has always been described by Russian observers as a "cauldron" which implies the slow boil expectation.
Magnificent. Thank you, ToW. Sharing this.
Super series. I was in a lengthy discussion (trending toward debate) with my Dad on the Russia-UKR conflict. He asked me for where I get my info from, I said "a range of places I've come to trust, you have to look for it actively". This series has pulled together so many threads, I will be sharing it with my old man. Hopefully it'll be an olive branch for my trite "well I sure don't get my info from the MSM!" comment. Thanks a lot for this. You've gained a committed reader (Vox Day got me here).
By far the best article I've read on this situation. It's quite staggering to think how stupid our so-called "elites" can be when they are blinded by their own ideology and propaganda. We are now in "sharpen the guillotines" territory. My only quibble is that I'm not convinced the Russians got it wrong in Ukraine. They knew full well that U would be a tough nut to crack because the West had been training and supplying its army for at least 8 years. Also, the Russians only employed a small proportion of their own army. Instead, I think they saw how the US "Shock and Awe" approach failed and went for a slow, grinding attrition strategy to carry out their main aim of degrading Ukraine's military power. Ironically, we are now in the situation where the longer Putin takes to finish the job, the stronger his position is. The EU economies are drawing ever closer to ruin and a situation where politicians will be nervously feeling their necks. That's a minor quibble, however - this article is excellent.
I did read an article by Charles Hugh Smith that offers a glimmer of hope for the U.S. dollar, i.e., there are already so many U.S. dollars outstanding that they cannot fail. I know this sounds like a wish but as an American I seek a decent future for my children.
Today I saw this on my Twitter feed: https://twitter.com/KevinRothrock/status/1539316262890786816
==
Later this week, a U.S. government commission will host an event titled “DECOLONIZING RUSSIA: A Moral and Strategic Imperative.” The stated premise is that Russia’s “decolonization” is needed “for it to become a viable stakeholder in European security and stability.”
The description also calls out the “barbaric war on Ukraine” (not to be confused with civilized wars) & endorses “a long-overdue conversation about Russia’s interior empire.” The suggestion, by a USG Commission, seems to be that Russia’s partition should maybe be a policy aim.
==
While not confirmation of my assessment of US policy re: Russia, it's certainly evidence of it.
Excellent assessment and it explains a lot why the American neocons cared so much about Iraq. One thing missing from the analysis is why are Western globalists in love with Green energy? The West is losing the hegemony of the American dollar and simultaneously weakening its economic prospects by amplifying energy dependence. Why?
It seems their are three worldviews. The neocon view epitomized by Bush(s) & Cheney, the American first view popularized by Trump and a third view of America / Europe diminishment, promoted by Leftists. What do Leftists expect to get in return for debasing their nations?
This four-part series on the petrodollar system is excellent: very well-argued, written in a language and style that is easily understandable and concise. Thank you for writing and posting them.
This spells an opportunity to make some common cause with the sane remnant of the Left. Raise worker pay by enforcing a national picket line, and stop looting the third world via the petrodollar.
--
There is a downside, alas. If we stop defending Saudi Arabia, someone else will. Someone else will get to use Saudi Arabia's vast buried treasure to to finance their defense industry. I fear the only way out is to make that treasure less valuable. While we can become self-sufficient by tapping into our dirty energy, what about the rest of the world?
Developing truly useful solar power systems is a national defense issue. Most of the unstable regions of the world are sunny. Solar + batteries don't need power lines, and those don't need strong central government. When things are tribal and/or feudal, small is beautiful. (Europe continued to develop small scale tech after Rome fell. Public works stayed below Roman levels until the 1800s.)
Great Analysis!
Others commenting below have already pointed out certain tidbits which might be a bit off (i.e. especially with regards to Russia's overall competence, which I too think is being underestimated). Overall though, "the forest" in your article is correct, in spite of key "trees" being off.
Recommended Reading: The esteemed Andrei Martyanov and his various works; especially "The Real Revolution in Military Affairs" where he painstakingly goes over why at the Higher-Order decision making level (i.e. Strategic and whatnot) Russia has already surpassed the Muricans.
Military porn a la "Look at my cool toys, gadgets and sexy explosions" are not relevant because wars are ultimately won at upper levels of decision making and not at tactical level a la skirmishes.
Anyhow, as for the Petrodollar system: Really what it comes down to is how "strong" the Dollar Milkshake ends up being. In particular, due to high inflation (a la supply crunches on oil, gas, food, etc) the preliminary trend is a flight towards dollars. And so the DXY is still hovering at 104-105.
The Dollar Milkshake theory is simply the observation that Central Banks in many nations issue and hold debt in USDs, ergo a net of dependencies naturally forms whereby The Muricans will never *truly* run out of dollars since the circulation will persist due to Globalization.
Dollar milkshakers (i.e. The "true believers") have always claimed that this net of dependencies is essentially bulletproof because "The world is fully interconnected for the first time in human history". As such, "the milkshake" will be held up by global 'animal spirits'.
The problem of course (and President Putin hinted at this in the lates 90s) is that food, oil, gas, etc *MUST be bought* (they are "essentials") and so even if you have a giant flight into dollars, those dollars are only good so long as they buy said essentials at or above certain volumes.
Add on to that the fact that the nominal Murican consumer (relative to most other citizens in other parts of the world) is highly fragile and more prone to viewing certain lifestyle changes (which would be considered minor) with greater angst and overall fear.
Napoleon one said (paraphrased): "Every society is merely 3 meals away from revolution".
For the nominal Murican who is highly obedient and more prone to angst and fear; it will be more a case of vandalism, lynchings, anarchy, etc rather than anything "structured" once Hyperinflation breaks his nation once and for all. "If it Dies... It Dies" to quote Drago.
And so Civil War v2.0 approaches, as well as the Arctic Invasion of some 10+ million Eurasians. At that point, I see no reason why having an "Unbeatable Milkshake a la a Basket of Currencies" is relevant any longer. It becomes nothing more than "Finance Porn" at that point.
Brilliant! And really shitty. :(