Very interesting post. It certainly fits with every evaluation I've read about strategic bombing. It does seem something of a mystery why they haven't targeted the bridges yet. Could the current targeting of the electrical system be another vain attempt to try and force negotiations?
Do not fully agree. A significant amount of money for the war is coming from the Ukr military budget, which is also based on the Ukr economy. Weakening the economy decreases the amount for the military, unless the West steps up. But that in turn means increasing the costs for the West.
Of course it also forces more people to move out of Ukraine, which further weakens the country.
Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam were not cases of rapid depopulation, unlike Ukraine.
It also increases the Western costs of paying salaries as the Ukr economy tanks further so the west needs to step up further. So the air campaign is certainly necessary (for Russia).
So i would say the idea of creating a black hole Ukraine sucking up resources is not bad.
Very good post - but one which is only applicable to the Ukraine war, if the intention of Putin & Co. is to win the war, in any sense of the word.
I believe, however, that Putin invaded Ukraine because the Ukraine war provided the absolutely essential pretext for the globalist cabal to drive energy prices in (particularly) Europe through the roof in order to sabotage European and Western economies and industries, and to make the cabal's BS 'green' alternatives look cost-competitive,
If I am right, then everything that Putin has done in Ukraine - an invasion with a totally inadequate military force, followed by endless messing around, and providing Ukraine with some 'victories' that can be trumpeted by Western media to try to maintain the willingness of (particularly) European populations to sabotage their own living standards for the bankrupt, massively corrupt failed State of Ukraine - then if that is the purpose of the Ukraine invasion, then everything that Putin & Co. have done in Ukraine makes perfect sense.
If I am wrong, and Putin & Co. actually do want to 'win' the Ukraine war, then precision missiles would be far better used against political objectives - e.g., to kill as many of the Kiev leadership clique as possible, along with NATO command and control centres and non-Ukrainian troops within Ukraine are based.
Since a large part of the properly trained Ukrainian army are now dead or wounded, and the effective military forces fighting Russia in Ukraine are in substantial part non-Ukrainian (i.e., NATO), they are the ones who Russia should be hammering, to make their casualties so heavy that their enthusiasm for fighting within Ukraine will be badly damaged.
This is a great treatise about the home front and the status of production lines when economies are not yet fully mobilised.
It would be interesting to know more about these slow expansions of production lines in NATO countries bankrolling the Ukrainian effort.
There has been a great talk about why the Russians don't want to damage the bridges on the Dnepr. My thoughts:
1) the river is dammed from Belarus down to Kakhovka, so it is a series of large basins. Principal bridges are probably the roof of the dams themselves. Hard to demolish, and generating catastrophic flooding if actually demolished. More advantageous to allocate strikes on the afu itself, tactically, than bomb the dams strategically.
2) In case these bridges are not the rims of dams, they cross this giant river and must be huge structures. Destroying one of them would mean the reconstruction would take months, or years even, and this during peace time. In order for the Russians to be dastardly enough to do so, there should be a climate of total war, while as of right now this war has proceeded at a very leisurely pace.
3) Boats can cross and land anywhere and the river is very long and placid, being dammed all the way. Transport may become more granular and delocalised all over the length of the river, and that's an advantage.
Very interesting post. It certainly fits with every evaluation I've read about strategic bombing. It does seem something of a mystery why they haven't targeted the bridges yet. Could the current targeting of the electrical system be another vain attempt to try and force negotiations?
Good observations & post
Do not fully agree. A significant amount of money for the war is coming from the Ukr military budget, which is also based on the Ukr economy. Weakening the economy decreases the amount for the military, unless the West steps up. But that in turn means increasing the costs for the West.
Of course it also forces more people to move out of Ukraine, which further weakens the country.
Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam were not cases of rapid depopulation, unlike Ukraine.
It also increases the Western costs of paying salaries as the Ukr economy tanks further so the west needs to step up further. So the air campaign is certainly necessary (for Russia).
So i would say the idea of creating a black hole Ukraine sucking up resources is not bad.
Very good post - but one which is only applicable to the Ukraine war, if the intention of Putin & Co. is to win the war, in any sense of the word.
I believe, however, that Putin invaded Ukraine because the Ukraine war provided the absolutely essential pretext for the globalist cabal to drive energy prices in (particularly) Europe through the roof in order to sabotage European and Western economies and industries, and to make the cabal's BS 'green' alternatives look cost-competitive,
If I am right, then everything that Putin has done in Ukraine - an invasion with a totally inadequate military force, followed by endless messing around, and providing Ukraine with some 'victories' that can be trumpeted by Western media to try to maintain the willingness of (particularly) European populations to sabotage their own living standards for the bankrupt, massively corrupt failed State of Ukraine - then if that is the purpose of the Ukraine invasion, then everything that Putin & Co. have done in Ukraine makes perfect sense.
If I am wrong, and Putin & Co. actually do want to 'win' the Ukraine war, then precision missiles would be far better used against political objectives - e.g., to kill as many of the Kiev leadership clique as possible, along with NATO command and control centres and non-Ukrainian troops within Ukraine are based.
Since a large part of the properly trained Ukrainian army are now dead or wounded, and the effective military forces fighting Russia in Ukraine are in substantial part non-Ukrainian (i.e., NATO), they are the ones who Russia should be hammering, to make their casualties so heavy that their enthusiasm for fighting within Ukraine will be badly damaged.
This is a great treatise about the home front and the status of production lines when economies are not yet fully mobilised.
It would be interesting to know more about these slow expansions of production lines in NATO countries bankrolling the Ukrainian effort.
There has been a great talk about why the Russians don't want to damage the bridges on the Dnepr. My thoughts:
1) the river is dammed from Belarus down to Kakhovka, so it is a series of large basins. Principal bridges are probably the roof of the dams themselves. Hard to demolish, and generating catastrophic flooding if actually demolished. More advantageous to allocate strikes on the afu itself, tactically, than bomb the dams strategically.
2) In case these bridges are not the rims of dams, they cross this giant river and must be huge structures. Destroying one of them would mean the reconstruction would take months, or years even, and this during peace time. In order for the Russians to be dastardly enough to do so, there should be a climate of total war, while as of right now this war has proceeded at a very leisurely pace.
3) Boats can cross and land anywhere and the river is very long and placid, being dammed all the way. Transport may become more granular and delocalised all over the length of the river, and that's an advantage.