I think there is something very interesting happening.
There seem to be quite a lot of reports that Russia is not getting as far ahead as it would have hoped in its invasion.
If you look at the soviet deep strike doctrine, this this attack appears to be based on, it is about fast moving columns advancing on different axes in order to QUICKLY encircle enemy forces. It’s about deep fires, and about having multiple echelons of troops
… so that successive waves can move forward and exploit any axes of advance that look promising.
The key to this is moving fast. And keeping your logistics protected - your armour is going to be out on a limb.
But it seems that the Russians are a bit surprised that the Ukrainians have fought back. And fought back well.
The Russians are taking casualties, which it seems they weren’t expecting.
The Russian ministry of health had just effectively mobilised civilian doctors in Russia. One assumes to deal with the level of casualties being sustained.
This makes sense in the following way.
Putin basically assumed that the Ukrainians would collapse so all they would have to do is a thunder run to Kyiv. Don’t worry about the logistics - we’ll sort that out once we’ve toppled their government.
But if you’re the Ukrainians and you know that the Russians are gonna use some variant of deep strike doctrine what do you do?
You let the armoured columns pass and then destroy the log tail using stay behind parties armed with anti tank weapons, or using helicopters, whilst keeping them out of the cities
(Incredibly stupid by the way that the Russians didn’t wipe out the Ukrainian Air Force before they started - a real sign of their hubris)
So I would guess that a lot of the Russian casualties are the logistic elements that are following up.
So far the Russians seem to have committed about 50k forces or a third of what they have. So maybe there are more echelons coming, and maybe the Russians will still overwhelm Kyiv. Or maybe they won’t. It seems in the balance.
And the longer the Ukrainians can hold on, the less the Russians will be able to continue.
Amateurs talk tactics and professionals talk logistics.
It’s also really unclear what putin’s political objectives are for this war. And as the west learnt over the last two decades, deploying military force without clearly understanding the political aims is stupid and leads to failure.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The new US administration is a revolutionary administration. It seeks to upend the current world order and usher in governments around Europe that are closer to its worldview.
PM Starmer has announced that he would consider sending UK troops to Ukraine as part of the Ukraine peace deal.
I realise that he did this in order to try and galvanise other European countries into action, as well as to try and hold onto whatever ability the UK has to bridge between the US and Europe.
Reflections on Day 1 of the Munich Security Conference
A 🧵
We went into the MSC in the context of the comments this week from the US Secretary of Defence announcing that:
- The US would talk with Russia about ending Ukraine War, without Ukraine
- Ukraine would not end up in NATO
- European troops would have to guarantee the detail without US support.
And most importantly, Pete Hesgeth announced that the US was no longer the primary security guarantor of European security because they were too busy elsewhere (i.e. China).