4 ms·

It was a tense week, but Russia has lost the war. They can drag it out, but ultimately victory will go to Ukraine. The reasons for this are subtle but obvious.

It was a tense week, but Russia has lost the war. They can drag it out, but ultimately victory will go to Ukraine. The reasons for this are subtle but obvious. The Russian military machine can't operate outside of Russia. They have no way of transporting fuel, ammunition, food, and other supplies to the front lies. This means that their effective operational capabilities are limited to five days. It's been a hobby of mine to analyze decisive battles from history -- or rather to parrot 100 Decisive Battles https://www.amazon.com/100-Decisive-Battles-Ancient-Present/dp/0195143663 https://www.amazon.com/100-Decisive-Battles-Ancient-Present/... But after analyzing 100 of something (or in my case probably closer to 23), you start to notice some patterns. The reason Midway was the end of the war for Japan was that it eliminated their ability to carry supplies and troops beyond their borders. At the time, aircraft carriers were the only way to do this. No aircraft carriers meant no protection from aircraft, which meant no way to move troops on boats. At the heart of it, Japan losing WW2 was as simple as that. Russia is in an equivalent situation. There's no way for them to carry fuel beyond their borders. Ukraine exploited this weakness brilliantly. Any time Russia tried to send fuel, kaboom. Russia losing this war is as simple as that. They lost the war the day they lost the airport. No airport means no way to transport large quantities of fuel without relying on trucks. And Russia doesn't have a lot of trucks -- not on the scale of a 150,000 troop invasion. The question is, what now? All eyes are on Putin, of course. But his goal was to topple Ukraine's government. And governments can't topple unless you invade them. No amount of shelling from afar -- indeed, even a nuke, though there is a limit -- will topple Ukraine. That means Putin's options are extremely limited. It either makes him more dangerous or less dangerous, depending on how you look at it. Everyone now knows (including Putin) that he can't project power beyond his borders. The only hope that Russia has of winning this war is to stop, retrain, and focus on logistics from the ground up. That would require purging every general who thought it was a good idea to move troops in with no supply line. Russia historically has been a fan of purges, so this isn't impossible. But it will take time. Time is not on Putin's side.

golergka 5y ago
> That would require purging every general who thought it was a good idea to move troops in with no supply line. Russia had already purged generals in 00s — there's been a LOT of weird "accidents" happening to experienced and charismatic generals after the second Chechen war. That's one of the reasons behind what's happening now.
kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago
What I don't understand, though: surely they can not be so incompetent as to having forgotten that they need fuel? If all success hinged on the airport, then there should have been some plan B in case of losing the airport?
- csomar 5y ago
  They thought they'd get Kiev in 3 days or less. Apparently, they don't have a plan B. They are still trying to get Kiev: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#/media/File:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukrai... I only have experience through EU4, and Civilization; so take this with lots of salt. But look at the map: Putin is avoiding some cities (Sumy, Okhtyrka, Chernihiv from the East) to get to Ukraine. He is not taking cities and moving forward, he's avoiding them to get to Kiev quickly. This is suicide. If his Kiev plan fails, a major part of his army will be trapped with bad logistics. Putin is desperate. A quite perilous situation for a man with lots of nuclear nukes.
  - KaiserPro 5y ago
    Cities are really hard to capture and hold, with a defender advantage of 1:5(or up to 1:10 of defenders to aggressors. depending on who you believe) napkin maths suggests that a quick city siege is 4 months. So that blows your time budget out of the water. Kiev is reasonably close to resupply (assuming the logistics is managed properly.....) Its far wiser to avoid the cities with a bargepole.
- giantrobot 5y ago
  It's not necessarily anyone forgot they need fuel. It's more likely every readiness report filed in the past several years has said "everything is awesome". The reality being that nothing is awesome and actual readiness is a small fraction of what the paperwork says. So the general staff assume everything is awesome and they've got plenty of supplies and logistical ability. Now the disparity between the state of their forces on paper and reality become known. Even if the military planners assumed reported status was exaggerated by some amount, the reality is likely worse than that assumption. Keep in mind the Russians have been building their forces up on Ukraine's borders for months now, in winter. Even if everything was great that's a lot of food and fuel needed just for soldiers to sit around and more to actually conduct exercises. Then after months of burning through stocks of food and fuel they go on the offensive which takes even more food and fuel.
KaiserPro 5y ago
It depends what you define as win. Its true that russia will find it _very_ difficult to sustain this level of effort for any level of time. Its logistic capacity has been pushed way beyond efficiency. but with that in mind, whos going to push putin out of ukraine? yes the people can pick off soldiers for the next few years, but thats not peace. It is currently within Putin's grasp to freeze the conflict as it is now, with eastern ukraine in his possession. I suspect his options are: 1) stage a dirty bomb, blame it on ukraine, order a general mobilisation. 2) freeze the conflict now, hold on to the "gains" 3) Assainate Zelenskyy 4) Stage some other stupid humanitarian horror(bombing of russian hospital/orphanage/school) general mobilisation 5) carry on, regardless.
- thematrixturtle 5y ago
  As the article says, assassinating Zelenskyy would make things worse, because Russia will no longer have anybody with similar authority to negotiate on Ukraine's behalf.
  - KaiserPro 5y ago
    yup, but that doesn't mean Putin wont. "Congratulations I have de-nazified your country. Please welcome your new Prefect. No, no, don't shoot him"
- sillysaurusx 5y ago
  Analysis! Fun. Let's analyze 'em: > 1) stage a dirty bomb, blame it on ukraine, order a general mobilisation. Equivalent to #5. > 2) freeze the conflict now, hold on to the "gains" This would be the smartest move. But it would also signal that Russia admits defeat, which may work against Putin. After all, his goal is to hold on to power. > 3) Assainate Zelenskyy Putin is certainly trying. It may be media exaggeration, but supposedly he's survived three attempts. If it happens, though, I don't think it will tip the scale -- Ukraine won because there are competent people in charge, and because Zelenskyy didn't flee. Zelenskyy dying would still leave competent people in charge. > 4) Stage some other stupid humanitarian horror(bombing of russian hospital/orphanage/school) general mobilisation Equivalent to #5. > 5) carry on, regardless. It's impossible for Russia to make progress, because they have no way of carrying fuel, ammunition, food, and other supplies to the front lines. Any time they try to extend their lines into Ukraine, they're cut short, because five days later the front line runs out of fuel. And they can't guard their supply lines because they never achieved air superiority. Putin's options are extremely limited.
MrMan 5y ago
victory is impossible for Ukraine, which will probably lose a lot of territory, lives, infrastructure, economic development, out-migration. but Russia cant win either
- petre 5y ago
  This conflict has the potential to further weaken Russia and trigger breakaway separatist republics, at least in the North Caucaz while also transforming it into a Chinese satellite like Mongolia, Kazahstan and Kyrgyzstan. It was a really stupid move on Putin's part.

golergka 5y ago

> That would require purging every general who thought it was a good idea to move troops in with no supply line. Russia had already purged generals in 00s — there's been a LOT of weird "accidents" happening to experienced and charismatic generals after the second Chechen war. That's one of the reasons behind what's happening now.

kkjjkgjjgg 5y ago

What I don't understand, though: surely they can not be so incompetent as to having forgotten that they need fuel? If all success hinged on the airport, then there should have been some plan B in case of losing the airport?

csomar 5y ago
They thought they'd get Kiev in 3 days or less. Apparently, they don't have a plan B. They are still trying to get Kiev: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#/media/File:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukrai... I only have experience through EU4, and Civilization; so take this with lots of salt. But look at the map: Putin is avoiding some cities (Sumy, Okhtyrka, Chernihiv from the East) to get to Ukraine. He is not taking cities and moving forward, he's avoiding them to get to Kiev quickly. This is suicide. If his Kiev plan fails, a major part of his army will be trapped with bad logistics. Putin is desperate. A quite perilous situation for a man with lots of nuclear nukes.
- KaiserPro 5y ago
  Cities are really hard to capture and hold, with a defender advantage of 1:5(or up to 1:10 of defenders to aggressors. depending on who you believe) napkin maths suggests that a quick city siege is 4 months. So that blows your time budget out of the water. Kiev is reasonably close to resupply (assuming the logistics is managed properly.....) Its far wiser to avoid the cities with a bargepole.
giantrobot 5y ago
It's not necessarily anyone forgot they need fuel. It's more likely every readiness report filed in the past several years has said "everything is awesome". The reality being that nothing is awesome and actual readiness is a small fraction of what the paperwork says. So the general staff assume everything is awesome and they've got plenty of supplies and logistical ability. Now the disparity between the state of their forces on paper and reality become known. Even if the military planners assumed reported status was exaggerated by some amount, the reality is likely worse than that assumption. Keep in mind the Russians have been building their forces up on Ukraine's borders for months now, in winter. Even if everything was great that's a lot of food and fuel needed just for soldiers to sit around and more to actually conduct exercises. Then after months of burning through stocks of food and fuel they go on the offensive which takes even more food and fuel.

KaiserPro 5y ago

It depends what you define as win. Its true that russia will find it _very_ difficult to sustain this level of effort for any level of time. Its logistic capacity has been pushed way beyond efficiency. but with that in mind, whos going to push putin out of ukraine? yes the people can pick off soldiers for the next few years, but thats not peace. It is currently within Putin's grasp to freeze the conflict as it is now, with eastern ukraine in his possession. I suspect his options are: 1) stage a dirty bomb, blame it on ukraine, order a general mobilisation. 2) freeze the conflict now, hold on to the "gains" 3) Assainate Zelenskyy 4) Stage some other stupid humanitarian horror(bombing of russian hospital/orphanage/school) general mobilisation 5) carry on, regardless.

thematrixturtle 5y ago
As the article says, assassinating Zelenskyy would make things worse, because Russia will no longer have anybody with similar authority to negotiate on Ukraine's behalf.
- KaiserPro 5y ago
  yup, but that doesn't mean Putin wont. "Congratulations I have de-nazified your country. Please welcome your new Prefect. No, no, don't shoot him"
sillysaurusx 5y ago
Analysis! Fun. Let's analyze 'em: > 1) stage a dirty bomb, blame it on ukraine, order a general mobilisation. Equivalent to #5. > 2) freeze the conflict now, hold on to the "gains" This would be the smartest move. But it would also signal that Russia admits defeat, which may work against Putin. After all, his goal is to hold on to power. > 3) Assainate Zelenskyy Putin is certainly trying. It may be media exaggeration, but supposedly he's survived three attempts. If it happens, though, I don't think it will tip the scale -- Ukraine won because there are competent people in charge, and because Zelenskyy didn't flee. Zelenskyy dying would still leave competent people in charge. > 4) Stage some other stupid humanitarian horror(bombing of russian hospital/orphanage/school) general mobilisation Equivalent to #5. > 5) carry on, regardless. It's impossible for Russia to make progress, because they have no way of carrying fuel, ammunition, food, and other supplies to the front lines. Any time they try to extend their lines into Ukraine, they're cut short, because five days later the front line runs out of fuel. And they can't guard their supply lines because they never achieved air superiority. Putin's options are extremely limited.

MrMan 5y ago

victory is impossible for Ukraine, which will probably lose a lot of territory, lives, infrastructure, economic development, out-migration. but Russia cant win either

petre 5y ago
This conflict has the potential to further weaken Russia and trigger breakaway separatist republics, at least in the North Caucaz while also transforming it into a Chinese satellite like Mongolia, Kazahstan and Kyrgyzstan. It was a really stupid move on Putin's part.