First time reading your commentary. Along with Phillips O'Brien, the best stuff I have read and less overtly partisan than O'Brien. It is long term dangerous when neither side has a fairly clear path to victory. Putin really cannot afford to back track. He will be gone, one way or another if he does. He is trapped by his own ideology and incompetence. Crimea will not return to Ukraine. Russia likely to hold on to their annexed territories. So he creates another "buffer zone" against Nato and its eastern front. 2 more years for any kind of settlement. I hope I an wrong. Robert Millman
As I understand it, a key risk to sustained western support is that countries are running low on buffer equipment stock to supply Ukraine. If that's correct, is there any indication they are ramping up production of essential ammo and equipment to sustain Ukraine for a multi year conflict?
3) Clearly Putin and RU claim to be waiting out the west, but their actions and rhetoric suggest an extreme impatience compared to Ukraine who seems confident in lasting support. In my observation from afar, it seems Ukraine is right. The battle is in the backyard of the EU and NATO and they have much to lose by not going all in to aid Ukraine. I also would assert the balance of power economically, politically, and dare I say morally, has shifted east and north in the Europe with a center around Poland, the Baltic states, and Finland and Sweden. Do you see the same thing? How does this play out in the long run?
4) You mention China as a country not enforcing sanctions and able to provide RU with inputs to manufacture additional war materiel. But as I see it, China has no desire to lose markets in the US and EU. It is suffering from its own financial troubles (excess state debt and its own real estate crisis), and the fallout productively and politically if its COVID policies. This makes China at best a weak and distracted “ally” for RU. Do you see the same issues? What am I missing?
5) Does RU have any of the “three options” available to it? I can see no way they can get any one of these. Is their a fast, easy, or cheap option on a stand Ali e basis they can execute upon? I get the sense the answer is no. What are your takes on this?
6) The flip side to the last question: Does Ukraine have any one stand-alone fast, easy, cheap option? Here I see fast and possibly easy, but it is entirely dependent upon increasing western arms and economic support. I do not see a cheap option anywhere. Do you have thoughts on this?
What happens if Russia cannot take all the annexed territory but neither can Ukraine drive them out? Another forever war that goes on and on...worst of all worlds.
Mick, you are an Australian national treasure!! You have an incredible ability to make strategic and tactical discussions accessible to those who are not nearly as familiar. Please never stop what you are doing! You are providing a great service to the entire community of nations supporting Ukraine in explaining the past and outlining possible future trajectories.
This summation is brilliant and I agree with all you have enumerated. However, there are a few other things I think are worth considering and hope you will address them over time.
1) Morale and sense of purpose/mission. A successful military, in order to survive the inevitable setbacks, must have a strong sense of purpose or high morale. Clearly this is not an issue for AFU. But for RU, this is clearly a problem when one simply observes what is posted on RU telegram channels. How does RU even hope to achieve a clear purpose and high morale for its forces doing the hard work of fighting and logistics?
2) Diplomacy in developing countries. Having worked in many southern African nations, SE Asia, and Latin America, I do not see Lavrov having any lasting success. At best, Lavrov may get “neutrality” in that these nations will seek to play off the US and EU against RU to gain more resources and wider access to markets if they do not already. We cannot forget how China was once welcomed in these countries as an alternative to the US, but now is seen to be as much of, or a worse colonialist than the west ever was (especially in Africa). Given RU tactics on the continent, I do not see this going any better.
First time reading your commentary. Along with Phillips O'Brien, the best stuff I have read and less overtly partisan than O'Brien. It is long term dangerous when neither side has a fairly clear path to victory. Putin really cannot afford to back track. He will be gone, one way or another if he does. He is trapped by his own ideology and incompetence. Crimea will not return to Ukraine. Russia likely to hold on to their annexed territories. So he creates another "buffer zone" against Nato and its eastern front. 2 more years for any kind of settlement. I hope I an wrong. Robert Millman
As I understand it, a key risk to sustained western support is that countries are running low on buffer equipment stock to supply Ukraine. If that's correct, is there any indication they are ramping up production of essential ammo and equipment to sustain Ukraine for a multi year conflict?
Lightning*
Mick, continuance from my initial comment:
3) Clearly Putin and RU claim to be waiting out the west, but their actions and rhetoric suggest an extreme impatience compared to Ukraine who seems confident in lasting support. In my observation from afar, it seems Ukraine is right. The battle is in the backyard of the EU and NATO and they have much to lose by not going all in to aid Ukraine. I also would assert the balance of power economically, politically, and dare I say morally, has shifted east and north in the Europe with a center around Poland, the Baltic states, and Finland and Sweden. Do you see the same thing? How does this play out in the long run?
4) You mention China as a country not enforcing sanctions and able to provide RU with inputs to manufacture additional war materiel. But as I see it, China has no desire to lose markets in the US and EU. It is suffering from its own financial troubles (excess state debt and its own real estate crisis), and the fallout productively and politically if its COVID policies. This makes China at best a weak and distracted “ally” for RU. Do you see the same issues? What am I missing?
5) Does RU have any of the “three options” available to it? I can see no way they can get any one of these. Is their a fast, easy, or cheap option on a stand Ali e basis they can execute upon? I get the sense the answer is no. What are your takes on this?
6) The flip side to the last question: Does Ukraine have any one stand-alone fast, easy, cheap option? Here I see fast and possibly easy, but it is entirely dependent upon increasing western arms and economic support. I do not see a cheap option anywhere. Do you have thoughts on this?
What happens if Russia cannot take all the annexed territory but neither can Ukraine drive them out? Another forever war that goes on and on...worst of all worlds.
Mick, you are an Australian national treasure!! You have an incredible ability to make strategic and tactical discussions accessible to those who are not nearly as familiar. Please never stop what you are doing! You are providing a great service to the entire community of nations supporting Ukraine in explaining the past and outlining possible future trajectories.
This summation is brilliant and I agree with all you have enumerated. However, there are a few other things I think are worth considering and hope you will address them over time.
1) Morale and sense of purpose/mission. A successful military, in order to survive the inevitable setbacks, must have a strong sense of purpose or high morale. Clearly this is not an issue for AFU. But for RU, this is clearly a problem when one simply observes what is posted on RU telegram channels. How does RU even hope to achieve a clear purpose and high morale for its forces doing the hard work of fighting and logistics?
2) Diplomacy in developing countries. Having worked in many southern African nations, SE Asia, and Latin America, I do not see Lavrov having any lasting success. At best, Lavrov may get “neutrality” in that these nations will seek to play off the US and EU against RU to gain more resources and wider access to markets if they do not already. We cannot forget how China was once welcomed in these countries as an alternative to the US, but now is seen to be as much of, or a worse colonialist than the west ever was (especially in Africa). Given RU tactics on the continent, I do not see this going any better.
“...it may just be the start of a cascading series of catastrophic events for Putin and Russia.” Fast, Cheap, Easy. Give U everything they need/want.