Good read. What's the over-under on how long this war lasts? Sometime in 2023?? 2024?? How much more $$ will the US end up dumping into the war? $100B? $200B? $500B? Yes, I know most money dumped into the war recirculates among the insiders in the US. Ultimately, if Russia's war effort continues to drag on, flounder, etc., at what point does Vlad start using some "tactical" nukes? I don't see how this can end in anything but utter destruction of Ukraine. Even if they "win". But, I'm just some guy with an internet connection.
Thanks! Hard to say how long it'll last. What's most striking is how little territory has changed hands. So far in this war the defense has been dominant, but because the theatre has moved east, the topography has turned this into a war of attrition (as opposed to one of manoeuvre), and the only way to win a war of attrition is for the enemy to give up. It requires patience and the ability and willingness to absorb pain. Economic/social resilience will matter, as both countries try to produce more and replace losses in personnel. Attrition isn't just a matter of which side is suffering most, but who can best regenerate their combat capabilities. If one side falters in this effort, they might lose as a result of unrest at home or simply an inability to continue fighting effectively. WWI ended because German forces were weakened thanks to the allied economic blockade as well as constant fighting.
Unless Russia can find a way to undermine Ukraine's external support, I believe Ukraine has the upper hand due to the sheer difference in motivation and morale, and the bottomless war chest of the U.S. and NATO. But part of me also believes the war will never really end, it'll just die down with the occasional flare up, maybe a ceasefire that neither side wishes to adhere to. Wars only end through negotiating agreements and Ukraine has no interest in compromising. Understandably so, since for them this is existential. God only knows how much more it's going to require from us, though. And tactical nukes are definitely possible, but I believe that would mean the U.S. stops fiddling around and enters the fight, and Russia wants anything but that. The U.S. military is built to fight a modern war. It would be over in a few months, max.
I once explained to a first lieutenant entrusted to my care that he had a single question to answer: What, as in what to do. I also had a single question as a warrant officer: how. After that, all of the questions go to the section sergeant.
There are a few aspects of Russian doctrine that come in here. First is the need for overwhelming artillery advantage. As long as they're comfortable they have it, they're not going to do anything crazy. Telling them we're going to negate that advantage will prompt WW3. Second is a need to turn inside the decision cycle of the enemy. If a Russian can complete his decision-making quicker than his opponent, he'll win. Third is a concept called "Network Planning," which looks a lot like a pert chart. It isn't. The critical path is designed to speed the commander's decision-making by off-loading as much as possible onto others.
I had to read the literature in a translation, so I'm sure I missed a lot of nuance.
At the same time I was doing a highly-compressed Masters in Statistics with an emphasis on Eastern European ORSA.
Good read. What's the over-under on how long this war lasts? Sometime in 2023?? 2024?? How much more $$ will the US end up dumping into the war? $100B? $200B? $500B? Yes, I know most money dumped into the war recirculates among the insiders in the US. Ultimately, if Russia's war effort continues to drag on, flounder, etc., at what point does Vlad start using some "tactical" nukes? I don't see how this can end in anything but utter destruction of Ukraine. Even if they "win". But, I'm just some guy with an internet connection.
Thanks! Hard to say how long it'll last. What's most striking is how little territory has changed hands. So far in this war the defense has been dominant, but because the theatre has moved east, the topography has turned this into a war of attrition (as opposed to one of manoeuvre), and the only way to win a war of attrition is for the enemy to give up. It requires patience and the ability and willingness to absorb pain. Economic/social resilience will matter, as both countries try to produce more and replace losses in personnel. Attrition isn't just a matter of which side is suffering most, but who can best regenerate their combat capabilities. If one side falters in this effort, they might lose as a result of unrest at home or simply an inability to continue fighting effectively. WWI ended because German forces were weakened thanks to the allied economic blockade as well as constant fighting.
Unless Russia can find a way to undermine Ukraine's external support, I believe Ukraine has the upper hand due to the sheer difference in motivation and morale, and the bottomless war chest of the U.S. and NATO. But part of me also believes the war will never really end, it'll just die down with the occasional flare up, maybe a ceasefire that neither side wishes to adhere to. Wars only end through negotiating agreements and Ukraine has no interest in compromising. Understandably so, since for them this is existential. God only knows how much more it's going to require from us, though. And tactical nukes are definitely possible, but I believe that would mean the U.S. stops fiddling around and enters the fight, and Russia wants anything but that. The U.S. military is built to fight a modern war. It would be over in a few months, max.
Pretty much. More of the same.
I once explained to a first lieutenant entrusted to my care that he had a single question to answer: What, as in what to do. I also had a single question as a warrant officer: how. After that, all of the questions go to the section sergeant.
There are a few aspects of Russian doctrine that come in here. First is the need for overwhelming artillery advantage. As long as they're comfortable they have it, they're not going to do anything crazy. Telling them we're going to negate that advantage will prompt WW3. Second is a need to turn inside the decision cycle of the enemy. If a Russian can complete his decision-making quicker than his opponent, he'll win. Third is a concept called "Network Planning," which looks a lot like a pert chart. It isn't. The critical path is designed to speed the commander's decision-making by off-loading as much as possible onto others.
I had to read the literature in a translation, so I'm sure I missed a lot of nuance.
At the same time I was doing a highly-compressed Masters in Statistics with an emphasis on Eastern European ORSA.
I agree with you on both counts.