@@bordedup546 The US provoking the conflict with over $50 billion worth of weapons shooting holes in Civilian areas for 8 years is a place to begin. Performing a miniature Operation Barbarossa in Poland and Romania, looked provocative? The 82nd Airborne in Warsaw seemed to be a clue that NATO was threatening. Department of Defense Infrastructure that appears to be directed at Chemical or Bio Warfare, was another thing. The US installing Saakashvili in Odessa seemed to be like moving a Hooker from one Street Corner to another? Victoria Nuland selecting leadership, was sure to create trouble. But the fact that the US declared Economic War on Russia was evident if unwritten....... Is that enough?
This is the second interview I've seen with Dr. Kofman and I appreciate his nuanced take on this war. And I also appreciate Aaron David Miller's restraint in not just blurting out his wish for "peace through capitulation" .
I disagree - I've been in Ukraine since 08 and still around.I had Ukrainian soldier friends and they're mostly all dead. Although they got good training from the US and Nato for 6 years , the Russians have a MIC that has all its arms companies going 24/7 = they have unlimited arms, missiles - cruise and hypersonic, gear and they are fighting in their front yard or NovoRossiya/Tavrida area. They won't lose. Another thing I hear from the Donbas guys is that much of the radio squawk is in Polish and there could be as many as 10,000 poles fighting in UA. They've lost 2000 already. My military credentials - Nam 70 -71.
@Swarmpope Saky. Crimea , but I've been to Nebraska and the people are very friendly, like us Alaskans . Why would someone from Alaska not travel around Russia - like I do? Lower 48ers are afraid to move around the world and see other cultures.
I was nodding away happily until 38:10 "None of our European allies would have been able to tolerate the losses on the battlefield that Ukraine or Russia have suffered" False. Even if we pretend Nato and the EU aren't a thing. If the territorial integrity of the any European nation is not only threatened but compromised, then the tolerance for casualties would be back at WW2 levels. If Estonia is invaded, they'll fight tooth and nail for every inch regardless of cost. If Switzerland is invaded, the acceptance of losses will be frankly horrifying. If France or Germany is invaded - without international support - then people will be queuing at recruitment centres with more losses meaning more queues. The list goes on; UK, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Sweden. The idea that Europeans won't fight for their independence and territorial integrity has always been false. It's just that with Nato and the EU, they don't have to.
I agree with everything that you said, except perhaps for France. Admittedly, I am not a French historian, but don't they have a track record of shying away from battles, surrendering, and being occupied?
@@CollectiveWesterner The French lost around 90,000 military personnel killed in the six weeks from the start of the German assault in 1940 to France's surrender. The French troops protecting the Dunkirk retreat in particular was effectively suicide but they held the line. "Cheese eating surrender monkeys" is a great line from the Simpsons but it's not historical.
@@cliff311976 Obviously, Article 5 requires it. Well, not all Europeans; Switzerland, Serbia, Ireland won't. Well, Ireland might of the EU mutual defence clause is evoked.
@@aap99alalawy You need people experienced in analyzing military matters at a high level, not just someone who simply leverages their former rank into soundbites like Scott Ritter (especially Scott Ritter, as he has drunk the full dose of vatnik kool-aid).
He's a narcissist, like all the others. Always oracular, at the center of the universe, like some third-grader without enough IQ to ever hope to state a valid argument, and therefore just telling classmates what to believe. He NEVER explains a valid question; doesn't have enough IQ to discover one. If he did, he wouldn't be on Ukraine's side.
Disagree - He's not even close to telling the complete facts - especially about Bahkmut , which has killed 8 times more Ukies than Rooskies. It's the killing fields and Me I live a few hundred miles from there.
I'm more pesimist ,Scott Ritter -viеwer myself and strictly speaking -the sheer enthusiasm for both russians and Ukranians to fight as thé piles of corpses topple would only increase in Time ...this will drag on ,until ,one side or thé other makes a Big push and that thing IS "absorbed" and with the counter-offensive all goes to hell .My 5 cents are on the Russians,but more than likely can be the Ukrainians too.Who knows .
Micheal Kofman : "He frequently advises senior military and government officials on issues in Russia and Eurasia." We can blame him for this complete clusterf**k in Ukraine.
Any kind of offense will depend on IFVs: Bradleys, Mardars, Strykers, Spartans, AMX-10s, and artillery to prep the battlefield. Tanks are a big help but a secondary concern.
@@paulzx5034 Russia is getting low on ammo too. Down to only 20K rounds a day now. Russia has to defend everywhere. Ukraine can attack anywhere. So however many guns Russia has, they are stretched out along a 1000 km front line with a high concentration in Bakhmut. The rest of the front is not so well-defended. Right now Ukraine is forming 3 corp-sized armored units for its spring offensive. And Ukraine will no doubt focus western high-precision artillery on local Russian assets before moving. I would also expect partisans and longer-range missiles to strike at Russian transportation and logistics. We won't know exactly where they'll attack until very shorly before it happens. There is no way to predict the result.
With sufficient missiles of sufficient range the Ukraine forces can play havoc with Russian logistics and bases, and 'shape the battlefield' just like they did before re-taking Kherson. Russia is already suffering lack of ammunition and missiles, and maybe even decent tanks, because Ukraine has decimated their tanks, pushing Russia to rely on ex-soviet era tanks and ammunition. Ukraine has a massive advantage on intelligence because it is being fed first class info by the west, and Russia cannot move without Ukraine knowing about it.
@@chrissmith2114 They are also being fed information from the civilians in the occupied territories. Pavel notices a lot of military vehicles coming and going from a particular area. Or maybe parked near a building. He gets on his cell and sends the info to the Ukrainan side. Now the west knows where to have the satellite look.
Seen several interviews with Kofman, could never get over that painting. Is that Patrick Stewart in a 19th century naval (?) uniform? It's very, I don't know, whimsical.
This is an excellent discussion. Thank you for posting. I thought it was Trotsky who said "Quantity has a quality all its own." At least that is what I learned in my Soviet Order of Battle course at Ft. Huachuca a million years ago.
I had seen it attributed to Stalin and then I got to thinking about it and looked at it a little more....Seems that the phrase or some variation of it goes back to Marx and Engels and then others think before that all the way back to Greek philosophers... but no one can find it directly quoted to any Soviet directly but closely enough that it could be lost in translation....and I did find that it had been attributed to Stalin and the like in some papers written by the US to the Naval War College but again not directly....the closest it got was " At sometime, numbers are going to count." in some paper long ago....Good discussions do lead to the quest for more knowledge I think and this little bit did that for me today.
@@Cynical1 I found that the mistrust of US Politicians dates back to the arrival of US Troops in Russia in 1917. The discussions of what to do with the Planet as Stalin and Truman discussed their ability to be honest with each other at Potsdam in 1945, destroyed all faith that Russia had hoped they could expect from the USA. Truman assumed the secret weapon he had up his sleeve, was his secret alone. That lack of honesty seems to have been revealing to Russians, as Stalin already knew about Los Alamos. What would have happened if Truman had revealed his secret weapon? Russia was proposing Disarmament Talks at the time. Now here we are......
Neither one of them said it according to research done on the quote. I have also seen it misattributed to Napoleon. The first actual appearance of this quote appears in 1979, Thomas A. Callaghan Jr. Earliest result found is “Quantity has a Quality All Its Own,” Allied Interdependence Newsletter No. 13, Center for Strategic and International Studies, 21 June 1979 (which Callaghan produced and presumably authored), cited in Naval War College Review. This looks like the origin of the phrase.
@@williammullinax6130 The first reference to the exact words are 1978 so Callaghan may have gotten it from there. Ruth M. Davis, U.S. Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Advanced Technology cited the words in an address at the Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. Where she first heard it is unknown. This fact appeared in a Science magazine opinion article in June of the same year in a paper titled "Quantity a Key to Military Strength", by multiple authors I think. The paper quotes Davis in its content saying that she attributed it to Lenin. Her words were: _Indeed, it is worth remembering that it was Lenin, many years ago, who wrote that “... Quantity has a quality all its own. …”_ according to the paper.
He was wrong before war, advocating against supplies for ukraine and was part of “ukraine will fold in 3 days” camp. After that his analysis was better
I was wondering if anyone knew who the portrait on the wall behind Michael was (over his right shoulder)? A very enjoyable analysis, thank you for the honest appraisal.
At 32.14, a very profound observation is made by Miller: "...the notion that military victory ends conflicts, I think, is something that people need seriously [re-]consider..." WWII is the only exception I can come up with - and then only in the western sectors. Political victory does not necessarily follow a military victory.
Potsdam was supposed to make the Conflict end on a good note. Truman instead did not reveal his dirty secret, that Stalin already was told about. That act seems to have established the level of trust between the two nations to the current administration. Russia proposed disarmament, the US refused..... Now the US has to pay for the high cost of maintaining a large Military that can threaten the Planet. The US May run out of money before they run out of Ammo suppliers who can provide ammo.
I am far more informed at the end of this show than I ever was in getting a wider, deeper understanding of this war, which on the Russian side sounds as mythology driven as ISIS, the Muslim fanatics, are or were. Russia is 20% Muslim in population, I heard. That may or may not have anything to do with other competing mythologies worldwide. Personally, I like the Indian dream of becoming Viswaguru, world's teacher. (I am of the Muslim kind myself.)
The presentation of propaganda always has problems with reality. The US created the conflict to create enough economic issues for Russia to make the BRICS association a failed economic idea. Now the appearance of 20+ Nations asking to join the group appears to show the US has lost the ability to intimidate them? The August Summit of BRICS Nations will show who has power and who is simply another Empire that has expired?
It isn't just the US military, there are other allies involved as well. Look at % of GDP of all countries that have contributed, many have contributed more than the US. Given as much as they can. Please keep things in perspective.
27:00 There is also an argument for distributing the aid to Ukraine across a larger spectrum rather than just prioritising what is most urgently needed. The deeper you go in one category, the deeper you dig into your capacities to supply, support and train that category, and this can quickly get very expensive. This is what most western aid is structured around after all: We can spare 100 IFVs, 50 tanks, and 50 SPAAGs and we have the capacities to train a few hundred Ukrainians on each. Whereas supplying 200 IFVs likely requires new production, taking vehicles from our own active inventories, and the new creation of new supporting and training capacities. So even though introducing a platform like F-16 to Ukraine may be expensive in financial terms, it may still make economic use of capacities that would otherwise be idle for this conflict. It's not like we can use the airforce trainers to teach crews to drive Bradleys instead.
Minute 8: Is there something we are not understand or seeing: YES - the advantage of Bakhmut for Ukraine is 1. the weather is too bad for Ukrainians to assault anyway and 2. western tanks etc have not arrived in full plus 3 the Russians are taking huge losses for very small or no gains in Bakhmut. So Ukrainians defending Bakhmut makes a lot of sense, since there has to be a fight somewhere and why not Bakhmut as opposed to Konstantinovka. So why not defend Bakhmut, yet if the Ukrainians do decide to withdraw 10 km to their next prepared defensive position - no big deal - but let the Russians pay the biggest price possible for nothing. Why do journalists care that its rubble? Its a war - better contain the damage to Bakhmut than see the next city over meet the fate of Bakhmut.
It's a war of attrition. So making the Russians pay for every small gain is the strategy to go with. At least until they can assault with western tanks.
Kofman has a very interesting perspective and I think its always a good idea to have a skeptical view in the spectrum of ideas, for any subject. But, there is one thing that makes me question his analysis a bit. There are a lot of senior ex-military commanders and civilian defense officials from around the world who are monitoring the Ukraine war. Many still possess clearances and have access to both official and unofficial intelligence. The people and the intelligence they use tend to be rather analytical and objective. I have to wonder what advantages an academic like Kofman has over them.
He really seems to know how to analyse military history. I would like to see him expand out from military history, which maybe he does, I don’t know, perhaps into political methods of attempting to make peace, because perhaps he has the perception of how to persuade people of the need for peace
Persuade putin you mean? Putin does not settle on anything, he is kot reasonable, is win or lose for him so not many options there. Hitler did not settle he killed himself, this one has the same mentality.
He's a military analyst, not a political analyst. He often mentions that he wants to avoid commenting on things outside his area of expertise, and I'd guess he'd likely say that the political sphere is outside his expertise.
@@nothrabin he is a analyst for CNA and CNAS. He definitely has a narrative he has to follow. Especially CNAS which is funded by corporations that are making and going to make billions off this war. Not to mention the reconstruction contractors which are already getting in place. Ukraine is forever going to be a client state.
@@nothrabin are you saying he is incapable of studying a new subject? Obviously I know he is a military historian not a political historian, but I presume he is capable of learning something new. And surely we should always learn new things, for there is no point learning the same thing over and over again
Naive to say war is unpredictable... When one side has no respect of diplomacy, but think causing economic damage to enemy will help win wars...in fact the best of any country and its people will be known only in dire situations
Seems very logical, calm, considered assessment. Training Ukrainian pilots of F16's now, and their maintenance crews and commanders would be another good step, as the lead time to deploy them is quite long, and if they are ever going to get F16's in the future, why not start that process now? They might not be ready or delivered this year, but when another offensive is planned in the future, they would be able to take part, and become part of the 'security guarantee' for the future.
better to float GLSDB 6 packs to 80K feet with a chinese balloon and launch to triple range and double speed at impact. F16 is sitting duck until anti air is degraded. giving them a couple of F35's and mandating they stay behind lines and lob stealth missiles would be a game changer.
This is an extremely intelligent and educated guest ( Michael Kofman ) But is his microphone clear and working properly? His voice is hard to understand RS. Canada
He makes great points, such as not assuming all battles on front are the same and that u cannot generalise one battle over entire front. I just cant reconcile his arguments with somelike like MAcgregor, Ritter, Merisheimer etc. I just dont know how same set facts can be looked at so differently. Is it fog of war? He definately leans on side that Ukraine are winning this thing. There was very little.supporting future russian succuss. Its like global warming debate where no 1 addresses arguments of the otherside.
I disagree on loss ratio is better than presented here for Ukraine, still it depletes the Russian military that sets up what I expect to be a decisive offensive by Ukraine. I find Ukraine high command is much to commended... Also, the idea of long war is not about Ukraine regaining their territory it is about defending against ongoing Russian troubling Ukraine and interfering in the rebuilding their economy and country. The battle will shift to hurting Ukraine's reforming coruption. I do agree that Ukraine is hindered by old Soviet trained and thinking with certain levels of command, not high command.
Kyiv has Troops who have seen a few years of NATO training, what the hell are you talking about? A large portion of Kyiv's troops are fresh draftees. The War will end as Avdivka and Bachmut fall and Russia moves into Lyman. Ukraine appears to have lost Air cover, logistics, leadership, and a reason to continue. The war may end sooner, as the West seems to be losing friends? I saw a report this morning that claimed Macron said that the US Blew up Nordstream. The Saudi Cash that was in Credit Suisse, was deposited in a BRICS Bank. That seems to indicate that the US is becoming increasingly isolated. How will inflation be reduced when all the colonial sources that were exploited by the US since 1898, begin to trade with BRICS? Mexico announced this week..... What kind of evidence do you offer to prove your claims?
Regarding the possibility of use of nuclear weapons, how about North Korea being used by Russia and China as the "fall guy"? It could potentially inflict a substantial amount of damage to US mainland, draw the US into a premature conflict in South East Asia and create "plausible deniability" for Russia and China?
I thought two of Kofman's answers were especially useful: 1. The ranking of priorities for equipment in the "Tanks and F16s" segment as opposed to binary decisions. 2. The final question of how to get Russia to stop fighting -- showing them how they can't win and that continuing to fight will impose escalating long-term costs on them.
Russia wants to win. However, if this is not possible at the moment, Russia will not make peace in order to prevent Ukarina from joining NATO. Russia will hold the territory for years and bomb Ukraine.
I see three likely routes for a Ukrainian offensive. One is to punch south to Melitipol. This is the shortest route to isolate the remainder of Kherson and western Zaporizhia provinces. They could surround the nuclear power plant and lay a very gentle seige. If Ukraine can get the GLSDB in time for the assault, it could be used from the new position to destroy the 3 bridges going north from Crimea. The railroad going north through Armyansk can be disabled with repeated himars strikes. If they could manage another attack on Kerch, big, big brownie points. Second choice is to strike east across Svatove to Starobilsk and maybe even Bilovodsk. This severs the north-south supply route tp Lysichansk and Sevierodonetsk and recovers most of Luhansk province. The population density is low, and from what I can see, the density of Russian troops is low, mostly conscript. Russia may be anticipating losing the area because of all the fortifications built along the northern edge of Donetsk. Donets river crossings ought to be easily taken out by HIMARS to minimize reinforcement from the south. A simultaneous jab north to take Troitske would be really useful. Third choice is a strike south to Mariupol or Bedransk. Given the annihilation of Russian armor at Vulhedar it might be easier. This cuts the east-west logistical corridor just like a strike to Melitopol and for a much larger area. It doesn't bring them within GLSDB of Northern Crimea, making taking out Kerch imperative. Retaking Mariupol would be a huge morale and propaganda victory. Taking Berdansk would limit the sea-based resupply of Russians in Zaporizhia. And just maybe the Ukrainian general staff will pull a rabbit out of the hat and competely surprise me. The best attack of all is one that nobody saw coming.
You provide some cool scenarios...... Who is supposed to actually fight in those offensive actions? The Obits indicate that Kyiv is almost out of People to defend their positions, Offense has not been a success since November. Tanks without Fuel are nice Lawn Ornaments. Asking for a friend......
A very interesting talk. Thank you. If Russia has lost or will lose strategically, what does that mean? Is Belarus teed up for a democratic overthrow? Will Finland, Estonia, Moldova, Latvia, Lithuania... be emboldened to take or increase 'spheres of influence' into territories taken from them by the USSR?
@@RegCostello I'm surprised that you can hear my comment. I thought I only wrote it. My point is that the Russian military has been shown to be impotent and now, by this battle, diminished. Belarus has an active insurgency as its close neighbor Ukraine successfully had in 2014. The Russian empire has been contracting since 1989. This current misadventure of Putin's will surely lead to further contraction.
@@ascott6328yeah collapsing so hard the Russians can't even take a salient like bakhmut and have cut off Wagner from being resupplied for publicly asking for more ammo. I'm sure the war will be over in a few weeks just like it will be over in a few weeks back in Feb 2022😂😂😂😂
Its well and good to point out artillery as the top priority equipment aid, but when both US and EU stocks are about as empty as one can be comfortable with(at least for Scandia and Balts and Poles who are on Russias borders) you have to look for something else, and MBTs and IFVs is the most obvious materiel.
The only reason Ukraine really liberated Kherson was Russias poor position. Ukraine could strike narrow supply lines (bridges) and slowly wore them down. They were fighting better forces than Kharkiv but they were weakened by lack of supply. That counter offensive was slow and costly. With Russias mobilization and defensive structures built, the Zapo region will not be a push over. I am not confident of a Ukrainian victory unless they have several surprises.
Ukraine has moved Troops from near the Polish Border to Bachmut, as reinforcements. Does that seem like an Army about to launch an offensive? Bachmut is basically done, Avdivka lost the Rail connection. Both areas are close to capitulating. Do you mean that kind of surprises?
Was nodding the whole way until 24:30 F-16s are not a top tier item?!?!?! Huh? I agree that artillery and IFVs are important for offensive operations. But, additionally air assets are critical for deep ops to suppress anti-air assets and destroy/interdict supply lines to shape and set up offensive operations. Also, Zelenskyy is not so stupid to stage a worldwide soliciting campaign for F-16s if they are a non-consequential asset.
The Su-35 is a much more advanced aircraft than the F-16. The Russians will kill all the falcons, even if they exchange one for one. It is completely incomprehensible how the F-16s will resist the R-37 missile.
Russia was not able to launch a decisive Winter offensive, since the weather did not cooperate . The Russians have not been able to drop the Ukrainian grid after about 4 months. The Ukrainians have probably accepted decisive engagement at Bakhmut and lost a lot of troops, possibly denying them a chance to retake Crimea in the near term. I think some kind of peace brokered by the PRC is likely. The length of the war makes this more, rather than less, likely.
i would like to see zelensky ask Xi to occupy all the nuclear power plants with chinese forces. that would end russia lobbing munitions near the plants.
Both these fellows Aaron Miller and Michael Kofman don't address the horrendous human cost of the war on Ukrainian Slavic population as war dead KIA or WIA or MIA.
If Ukraine can keep Bakhmut then Bakhmut was super critical for the was. On the other hand if they will lose it for the Russians, Bakhmut is not important at all.
... USA/Europe will not lose this war, but they will lose interest ... and the Ukranians will sooner or later understand that they have been taken advantage, but they cannot complain because it was their choice ...
Can someone help me understand how Russia is losing more men than Ukraine when Russia has a large (I’ve seen 10 to 1 in some articles) advantage in artillery and ammunition? Is it a case of poor tactics?
That advantage was the case mid last year. Lately it is nowhere near that. If you want an idea of how their artillery situation I would look at Yevgeny Prigohozins appeal to the Russian mod for more artillery ammo, he was thousands of rounds a day short. Other areas besides his are down as well
It's not clear which side is losing more men. We only know that UA is on 6th mobilization wave and RU did just one, but it's insufficient data by itself
Miller is wrong at minute 38. In fact EVERY independent free European state would accept huge costs and casualties to fight off an aggressor autocracy.
“Great powers [sometimes] lose wars.” He articulated something we have always known but rarely acknowledge. Russia has already lost this war. Unfortunately the death and destruction will continue for a very long time at least until the inevitable Russian military collapse. Then things will really get bad.
The Russians that I have heard from who reported to the offices of Defense, were told the Army was full. Unless a person had prior Combat experience they were sent home. Have you even looked at any of the sites that report about the actual conflict? I am not indicating the Ukraine Government or the Russian Ministry of Defense. Russia appears to be doing alright and their economic security appears in much better shape than the former Colonial Powers? Propaganda that agrees with a Bias is easy to discover. Facts do matter. The US Was desperate economically when they challenged Russia to a pissing match economically. The ones who are losing are the Derivatives guys......
While wars usually boil down to quantity, it did in the Afghanistan, for the Soviets in the US, and it didn’t in Vietnam for the French, US, and China. I could name many others,need I go on?
It's about knowing where a specific enemy unit is and having the ability to kill that unit of people. It's ISR, communications, precision and enough trained personnel and weaponry to kill the unit of people. We see quantity of artillery ammunition expended on open fields to unknown effect. Quantity needs time and it can be denied time. Quantity can be reduced before it gets ISR on the targets it seeks to kill. This has happened in Bakhmut. Ukraine will likely lose if it cannot become superior to Russia at counter battery operations. New F16s are being equipped with a version of F35 radar designed to provide mobile and rapid acquisition of artillery firing positions. Drones can be equipped with similar capability. The counter battery drone and F16 will need to be a part of a package of air assets that can harass the very effective MIG-31 with its very long-range missiles. I like to think the F16 can evade those missiles. Computer mapping of the target area can even calculate likely routes of escape and focus drone radar on those routes to find the relocating convoy. This radar does not need to be the US' latest rabbit in the hat to acquire Russian artillery battery coordinates and convoy movements. Russia may have a manpower advantage, but they may very well lose any vehicle advantage, and then they are back to tractors or horses and hay wagons. The price Russia needs to pay for a cease fire and acquisition of Ukrainian territory is the military presence of the Budapest Memorandum signatories, Britain and the US in the balance of Ukraine. Otherwise it is a long war.
The 'quality' of Ukraine forces applies even more to Russian forces, because the quality of Russian forces has dropped like a stone with their mobiks, who are not only untrained but also unmotivated... MANPADS like Stinger, martlet, Starstreak have made Russian aviation very wary of operating near frontlines, and ATGM like Javelin, NLAW, AT-4 and Stugna-P have decimated Russian armour, as have the 155mm 'mine' shells that can sow mines anywhere Ukraine wants to, Vuhledar is a good example where those mines played a crucial part in destroying large numbers of Russian armour.
Ground conditions has been a huge determined issue. Nobody can effectively operate mobile armor forces off any road in Ukraine without becoming mired stuck in mud everywhere. Once the summer dries up the ground then we will see movement of the military forces both sides. Everyone knows every road is a kill zone for artillery and missiles both sides can survallance every road. Since last fall a mild winter now spring season it's been a static position fight of artillery and missiles of both side a numbers game. Also Russia can sit and allow this war to drag on for years. But our side the US and Nato we are on a time clock for numerous reasons the economic fall out of this war will become crushing to USA and European countries the longer this goes on and Russia knows this. Economic damages to Russia has already been largely been incurred and a end of the war won't undo such damages so a long multi year war in Ukraine is to Russias advantage except such will be a disaster for China. Germany already is wrecked economicly the population there are not very amused dunno if that government will survive in power slot longer. Will Germany get a new government because of this war perhaps will it be a eager USA supporter maybe not. We can't just directly attack Russia in Ukraine as I do believe the DC crowd does want a direct war with Russia but vast majority our population definitely dose not want such at all but we little people know DC crowds do as they want always has.
Russia seems to lack any intelligence or imagination in their approach and based upon their current performance they cannot win. Their strategy and lack of planning and discipline from the beginning has been appalling. But having Putin / Shoigu/ Gerasimov as leaders really helps Ukraine to be as successful as they have been. What Russian would want to fight and die for their incompetent, uninspiring leaders.
If your country was under attack you would accept any losses to win, so your statement that europe would not tolerate it they might complain but would never stop until victory.
Kofman has been right about most things throughout this war and honest about being wrong on occasion. That's all I want from an analyst.
He hasn't been right about shjt lol. Listen to his crap from 5 years ago
@@IDNeon357 he predicted the war, lol. He predicted that nothing will happen in spring 2021
@@IDNeon357 What was he wrong about then?
@@bordedup546 The US provoking the conflict with over $50 billion worth of weapons shooting holes in Civilian areas for 8 years is a place to begin.
Performing a miniature Operation Barbarossa in Poland and Romania, looked provocative?
The 82nd Airborne in Warsaw seemed to be a clue that NATO was threatening.
Department of Defense Infrastructure that appears to be directed at Chemical or Bio Warfare, was another thing.
The US installing Saakashvili in Odessa seemed to be like moving a Hooker from one Street Corner to another?
Victoria Nuland selecting leadership, was sure to create trouble.
But the fact that the US declared Economic War on Russia was evident if unwritten.......
Is that enough?
@@danielhutchinson6604 Literally none of what you said is true
This is the second interview I've seen with Dr. Kofman and I appreciate his nuanced take on this war. And I also appreciate Aaron David Miller's restraint in not just blurting out his wish for "peace through capitulation" .
michael kofman has his own pay to play podcast called "the Russian contingency". He is a frequent guest on the free "War on the Rocks" podcast.
I disagree - I've been in Ukraine since 08 and still around.I had Ukrainian soldier friends and they're mostly all dead. Although they got good training from the US and Nato for 6 years , the Russians have a MIC that has all its arms companies going 24/7 = they have unlimited arms, missiles - cruise and hypersonic, gear and they are fighting in their front yard or NovoRossiya/Tavrida area. They won't lose. Another thing I hear from the Donbas guys is that much of the radio squawk is in Polish and there could be as many as 10,000 poles fighting in UA. They've lost 2000 already. My military credentials - Nam 70 -71.
@@garrycompton7214 Ya, no.
@Swarmpope Saky. Crimea , but I've been to Nebraska and the people are very friendly, like us Alaskans . Why would someone from Alaska not travel around Russia - like I do? Lower 48ers are afraid to move around the world and see other cultures.
excellent commentary on war by Mr Kofman, hope to see more of this man
I was nodding away happily until 38:10 "None of our European allies would have been able to tolerate the losses on the battlefield that Ukraine or Russia have suffered"
False. Even if we pretend Nato and the EU aren't a thing. If the territorial integrity of the any European nation is not only threatened but compromised, then the tolerance for casualties would be back at WW2 levels. If Estonia is invaded, they'll fight tooth and nail for every inch regardless of cost. If Switzerland is invaded, the acceptance of losses will be frankly horrifying. If France or Germany is invaded - without international support - then people will be queuing at recruitment centres with more losses meaning more queues. The list goes on; UK, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Sweden.
The idea that Europeans won't fight for their independence and territorial integrity has always been false. It's just that with Nato and the EU, they don't have to.
I agree with everything that you said, except perhaps for France. Admittedly, I am not a French historian, but don't they have a track record of shying away from battles, surrendering, and being occupied?
@@CollectiveWesterner The French lost around 90,000 military personnel killed in the six weeks from the start of the German assault in 1940 to France's surrender. The French troops protecting the Dunkirk retreat in particular was effectively suicide but they held the line.
"Cheese eating surrender monkeys" is a great line from the Simpsons but it's not historical.
@@CollectiveWesterner On the other hand, I totally agree with your user image.
If Estonia is invaded Europeans will send their armies?
😅
@@cliff311976 Obviously, Article 5 requires it. Well, not all Europeans; Switzerland, Serbia, Ireland won't. Well, Ireland might of the EU mutual defence clause is evoked.
This is an amazingly detailed explanation of the war. Thank you.
Excellent discussion. Thanks for posting it!
Michael Kaufman is the best analyst on the conflict you will find.
Agreed 👍
Wrong. You need experienced military men like Colonel McGregor or Major Scot Ritter not book worms.
@@aap99alalawy You need people experienced in analyzing military matters at a high level, not just someone who simply leverages their former rank into soundbites like Scott Ritter (especially Scott Ritter, as he has drunk the full dose of vatnik kool-aid).
He's a narcissist, like all the others. Always oracular, at the center of the universe, like some third-grader without enough IQ to ever hope to state a valid argument, and therefore just telling classmates what to believe. He NEVER explains a valid question; doesn't have enough IQ to discover one. If he did, he wouldn't be on Ukraine's side.
Disagree - He's not even close to telling the complete facts - especially about Bahkmut , which has killed 8 times more Ukies than Rooskies. It's the killing fields and Me I live a few hundred miles from there.
Kofman fan here. Excellent analysis
I'm more pesimist ,Scott Ritter -viеwer myself and strictly speaking -the sheer enthusiasm for both russians and Ukranians to fight as thé piles of corpses topple would only increase in Time ...this will drag on ,until ,one side or thé other makes a Big push and that thing IS "absorbed" and with the counter-offensive all goes to hell .My 5 cents are on the Russians,but more than likely can be the Ukrainians too.Who knows .
Mr. Kofman is very good speaker.
Is that a painting of Jean Luc Picard behind Koffman?
Micheal Kofman : "He frequently advises senior military and government officials on issues in Russia and Eurasia." We can blame him for this complete clusterf**k in Ukraine.
If you like Kofman here, check out his work at War on the Rocks with Ryan Evans. Good analysis.
Very professional assessment. Thank you.
Kofman is well worth listening to.
Any kind of offense will depend on IFVs: Bradleys, Mardars, Strykers, Spartans, AMX-10s, and artillery to prep the battlefield. Tanks are a big help but a secondary concern.
Hi from Russia. Force concentration necessary for any decisive action. In this war, force concentration invites artillery barrage.
@@paulzx5034 Russia is getting low on ammo too. Down to only 20K rounds a day now.
Russia has to defend everywhere. Ukraine can attack anywhere. So however many guns Russia has, they are stretched out along a 1000 km front line with a high concentration in Bakhmut. The rest of the front is not so well-defended.
Right now Ukraine is forming 3 corp-sized armored units for its spring offensive. And Ukraine will no doubt focus western high-precision artillery on local Russian assets before moving. I would also expect partisans and longer-range missiles to strike at Russian transportation and logistics. We won't know exactly where they'll attack until very shorly before it happens.
There is no way to predict the result.
With sufficient missiles of sufficient range the Ukraine forces can play havoc with Russian logistics and bases, and 'shape the battlefield' just like they did before re-taking Kherson. Russia is already suffering lack of ammunition and missiles, and maybe even decent tanks, because Ukraine has decimated their tanks, pushing Russia to rely on ex-soviet era tanks and ammunition. Ukraine has a massive advantage on intelligence because it is being fed first class info by the west, and Russia cannot move without Ukraine knowing about it.
@@chrissmith2114 They are also being fed information from the civilians in the occupied territories. Pavel notices a lot of military vehicles coming and going from a particular area. Or maybe parked near a building. He gets on his cell and sends the info to the Ukrainan side. Now the west knows where to have the satellite look.
I'd say it's all about troop morale. Can't see Russian troops continuing to have any incentive to fight.
Seen several interviews with Kofman, could never get over that painting. Is that Patrick Stewart in a 19th century naval (?) uniform? It's very, I don't know, whimsical.
It's a classic George Dawe portrait of an 1812 Russian general as photoshopped by a guy who goes by "replaceface". Great bit of kitsch.
I literally went out and bought that portrait after seeing it on one of his vids. it now has pride of place on my living room wall.
Wow very good Interviewer, asking all the right questions that I implicitly have hoped for.
…great summaries, Michael… thank you
This is an excellent discussion. Thank you for posting. I thought it was Trotsky who said "Quantity has a quality all its own." At least that is what I learned in my Soviet Order of Battle course at Ft. Huachuca a million years ago.
really the extent of my soviet studies only went as far as 5 rubles me love you long time baby.
I had seen it attributed to Stalin and then I got to thinking about it and looked at it a little more....Seems that the phrase or some variation of it goes back to Marx and Engels and then others think before that all the way back to Greek philosophers... but no one can find it directly quoted to any Soviet directly but closely enough that it could be lost in translation....and I did find that it had been attributed to Stalin and the like in some papers written by the US to the Naval War College but again not directly....the closest it got was " At sometime, numbers are going to count." in some paper long ago....Good discussions do lead to the quest for more knowledge I think and this little bit did that for me today.
@@Cynical1 I found that the mistrust of US Politicians dates back to the arrival of US Troops in Russia in 1917.
The discussions of what to do with the Planet as Stalin and Truman discussed their ability to be honest with each other at Potsdam in 1945, destroyed all faith that Russia had hoped they could expect from the USA.
Truman assumed the secret weapon he had up his sleeve, was his secret alone.
That lack of honesty seems to have been revealing to Russians, as Stalin already knew about Los Alamos.
What would have happened if Truman had revealed his secret weapon?
Russia was proposing Disarmament Talks at the time.
Now here we are......
Neither one of them said it according to research done on the quote. I have also seen it misattributed to Napoleon.
The first actual appearance of this quote appears in 1979, Thomas A. Callaghan Jr. Earliest result found is “Quantity has a Quality All Its Own,” Allied Interdependence Newsletter No. 13, Center for Strategic and International Studies, 21 June 1979 (which Callaghan produced and presumably authored), cited in Naval War College Review.
This looks like the origin of the phrase.
@@williammullinax6130
The first reference to the exact words are 1978 so Callaghan may have gotten it from there. Ruth M. Davis, U.S. Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Advanced Technology cited the words in an address at the Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. Where she first heard it is unknown.
This fact appeared in a Science magazine opinion article in June of the same year in a paper titled "Quantity a Key to Military Strength", by multiple authors I think. The paper quotes Davis in its content saying that she attributed it to Lenin. Her words were: _Indeed, it is worth remembering that it was Lenin, many years ago, who wrote that “... Quantity has a quality all its own. …”_ according to the paper.
Is that a portrait of Jean Luc Picard?!
Or is it of Patrick Stewart as Gurney Halleck in Dune?
We either accept the risks or say that if you have nukes you can take territory from your neighbors.
You can though. That's the problem. And that's why we have Nato.
You cannot. Because we have Nato.
That is a truly impressive comb-over
I thought Micheal was just another talking head in Feb 22. He is amazing
He was wrong before war, advocating against supplies for ukraine and was part of “ukraine will fold in 3 days” camp. After that his analysis was better
@cud0s He never said Ukraine would fall in three days, just Kyiv iirc.
@@teejin669 lol, that's similar to saying berlin will fall but not germany
@@teejin669 and also he wrote some nonsense about not sending weapons as it will just prolong the conflict
@@cud0s could you link me to where he wrote that I couldn't find it ty ty
Kofman is top shelf
kofman and ben hodges are GOAT when it comes to literally seeing into the future with ukraine
he is just a nato propagandist
@@ascott6328 i love it. putin will hang at the hague
Lol. Ben Hodges couldn't see fly that landed on his nose
Food for thought; well done,
Jean-Luc Picard on the wall? 🖖
Thank you
That is one crazy comb-over. Good interview, though.
I was wondering if anyone knew who the portrait on the wall behind Michael was (over his right shoulder)? A very enjoyable analysis, thank you for the honest appraisal.
It's a picture of Jean Luc Picard dressed in 19th century military uniform.
Preach on Reverend!
This is a very good analysis.
At 32.14, a very profound observation is made by Miller:
"...the notion that military victory ends conflicts, I think, is something that people need seriously [re-]consider..."
WWII is the only exception I can come up with - and then only in the western sectors. Political victory does not necessarily follow a military victory.
Potsdam was supposed to make the Conflict end on a good note.
Truman instead did not reveal his dirty secret, that Stalin already was told about.
That act seems to have established the level of trust between the two nations to the current administration.
Russia proposed disarmament, the US refused.....
Now the US has to pay for the high cost of maintaining a large Military that can threaten the Planet.
The US May run out of money before they run out of Ammo suppliers who can provide ammo.
economic callapse will bring military victory in ukraine. will be russia's last war.
The first exception that comes to mind is the Falklands War. Argentina invaded the Falklands, the British recaptured them, war over.
@@jrd33 Are you friends or does the "Islas Malvinas" issue keep on coming up?
@@RolandStenutz It's still a sore subject in Argentina but there has been peace for 40 years now.
I am far more informed at the end of this show than I ever was in getting a wider, deeper understanding of this war, which on the Russian side sounds as mythology driven as ISIS, the Muslim fanatics, are or were. Russia is 20% Muslim in population, I heard. That may or may not have anything to do with other competing mythologies worldwide. Personally, I like the Indian dream of becoming Viswaguru, world's teacher. (I am of the Muslim kind myself.)
The presentation of propaganda always has problems with reality.
The US created the conflict to create enough economic issues for Russia to make the BRICS association a failed economic idea.
Now the appearance of 20+ Nations asking to join the group appears to show the US has lost the ability to intimidate them?
The August Summit of BRICS Nations will show who has power and who is simply another Empire that has expired?
It isn't just the US military, there are other allies involved as well. Look at % of GDP of all countries that have contributed, many have contributed more than the US. Given as much as they can. Please keep things in perspective.
27:00 There is also an argument for distributing the aid to Ukraine across a larger spectrum rather than just prioritising what is most urgently needed. The deeper you go in one category, the deeper you dig into your capacities to supply, support and train that category, and this can quickly get very expensive.
This is what most western aid is structured around after all: We can spare 100 IFVs, 50 tanks, and 50 SPAAGs and we have the capacities to train a few hundred Ukrainians on each. Whereas supplying 200 IFVs likely requires new production, taking vehicles from our own active inventories, and the new creation of new supporting and training capacities.
So even though introducing a platform like F-16 to Ukraine may be expensive in financial terms, it may still make economic use of capacities that would otherwise be idle for this conflict. It's not like we can use the airforce trainers to teach crews to drive Bradleys instead.
Great answers to terrible long winded questions.
Is that a picture of Jean Luc Picard dressed like a 19th century Napoleonic General?
Wait is that captain Picard pasted onto a 19th century military portrait?
yep
I do believe it is. If it's not, make it so.
Minute 8: Is there something we are not understand or seeing: YES - the advantage of Bakhmut for Ukraine is 1. the weather is too bad for Ukrainians to assault anyway and 2. western tanks etc have not arrived in full plus 3 the Russians are taking huge losses for very small or no gains in Bakhmut. So Ukrainians defending Bakhmut makes a lot of sense, since there has to be a fight somewhere and why not Bakhmut as opposed to Konstantinovka. So why not defend Bakhmut, yet if the Ukrainians do decide to withdraw 10 km to their next prepared defensive position - no big deal - but let the Russians pay the biggest price possible for nothing. Why do journalists care that its rubble? Its a war - better contain the damage to Bakhmut than see the next city over meet the fate of Bakhmut.
It's a war of attrition. So making the Russians pay for every small gain is the strategy to go with. At least until they can assault with western tanks.
Kofman has a very interesting perspective and I think its always a good idea to have a skeptical view in the spectrum of ideas, for any subject. But, there is one thing that makes me question his analysis a bit. There are a lot of senior ex-military commanders and civilian defense officials from around the world who are monitoring the Ukraine war. Many still possess clearances and have access to both official and unofficial intelligence. The people and the intelligence they use tend to be rather analytical and objective. I have to wonder what advantages an academic like Kofman has over them.
Excellent discussion.
Irrelevant but funny - the fellow in the painting is a dead ringer for Captain Picard from Star Trek !
He really seems to know how to analyse military history. I would like to see him expand out from military history, which maybe he does, I don’t know, perhaps into political methods of attempting to make peace, because perhaps he has the perception of how to persuade people of the need for peace
Persuade putin you mean?
Putin does not settle on anything, he is kot reasonable, is win or lose for him so not many options there.
Hitler did not settle he killed himself, this one has the same mentality.
He's a military analyst, not a political analyst. He often mentions that he wants to avoid commenting on things outside his area of expertise, and I'd guess he'd likely say that the political sphere is outside his expertise.
@@nothrabin he is a analyst for CNA and CNAS. He definitely has a narrative he has to follow. Especially CNAS which is funded by corporations that are making and going to make billions off this war. Not to mention the reconstruction contractors which are already getting in place. Ukraine is forever going to be a client state.
@@karkars4722 quickest way to spoil this party you talk about is for Russia to withdraw.
@@nothrabin are you saying he is incapable of studying a new subject? Obviously I know he is a military historian not a political historian, but I presume he is capable of learning something new. And surely we should always learn new things, for there is no point learning the same thing over and over again
The dog that isnt barking is the actual casualty rates on both sides.
amazing. Thanks!
the reproduction of the napoleonic picard portrait from Star Trek Generations is hilarious.
It's amazing, and disheartening, how sociopaths have made such a massively disproportionate influence on human history.
Naive to say war is unpredictable... When one side has no respect of diplomacy, but think causing economic damage to enemy will help win wars...in fact the best of any country and its people will be known only in dire situations
Seems very logical, calm, considered assessment. Training Ukrainian pilots of F16's now, and their maintenance crews and commanders would be another good step, as the lead time to deploy them is quite long, and if they are ever going to get F16's in the future, why not start that process now? They might not be ready or delivered this year, but when another offensive is planned in the future, they would be able to take part, and become part of the 'security guarantee' for the future.
better to float GLSDB 6 packs to 80K feet with a chinese balloon and launch to triple range and double speed at impact. F16 is sitting duck until anti air is degraded. giving them a couple of F35's and mandating they stay behind lines and lob stealth missiles would be a game changer.
This is an extremely intelligent and educated guest ( Michael Kofman )
But is his microphone clear and working properly?
His voice is hard to understand
RS. Canada
He makes great points, such as not assuming all battles on front are the same and that u cannot generalise one battle over entire front. I just cant reconcile his arguments with somelike like MAcgregor, Ritter, Merisheimer etc. I just dont know how same set facts can be looked at so differently. Is it fog of war? He definately leans on side that Ukraine are winning this thing. There was very little.supporting future russian succuss. Its like global warming debate where no 1 addresses arguments of the otherside.
Well, maybe those people you mentioned are talking bullshit? You think Mearsheimer did any field studies, huh?
Other sources are:
1. John Mearsheimer
2. Jeffrey Sachs
3. Colonel Douglass Macgregor
4. Willy OAM RUclips channel
Why does he have a painting of Patrick Steward on the wall?
I disagree on loss ratio is better than presented here for Ukraine, still it depletes the Russian military that sets up what I expect to be a decisive offensive by Ukraine. I find Ukraine high command is much to commended... Also, the idea of long war is not about Ukraine regaining their territory it is about defending against ongoing Russian troubling Ukraine and interfering in the rebuilding their economy and country. The battle will shift to hurting Ukraine's reforming coruption. I do agree that Ukraine is hindered by old Soviet trained and thinking with certain levels of command, not high command.
Kyiv has Troops who have seen a few years of NATO training, what the hell are you talking about?
A large portion of Kyiv's troops are fresh draftees.
The War will end as Avdivka and Bachmut fall and Russia moves into Lyman.
Ukraine appears to have lost Air cover, logistics, leadership, and a reason to continue.
The war may end sooner, as the West seems to be losing friends?
I saw a report this morning that claimed Macron said that the US Blew up Nordstream.
The Saudi Cash that was in Credit Suisse, was deposited in a BRICS Bank. That seems to indicate that the US is becoming increasingly isolated.
How will inflation be reduced when all the colonial sources that were exploited by the US since 1898, begin to trade with BRICS?
Mexico announced this week.....
What kind of evidence do you offer to prove your claims?
Regarding the possibility of use of nuclear weapons, how about North Korea being used by Russia and China as the "fall guy"? It could potentially inflict a substantial amount of damage to US mainland, draw the US into a premature conflict in South East Asia and create "plausible deniability" for Russia and China?
in short there is no unified Russian strategy to deal with the Ukrainains you see different parts of hte front doing their own thing.
I thought two of Kofman's answers were especially useful:
1. The ranking of priorities for equipment in the "Tanks and F16s" segment as opposed to binary decisions.
2. The final question of how to get Russia to stop fighting -- showing them how they can't win and that continuing to fight will impose escalating long-term costs on them.
How is that working out for Russia?
Russia wants to win. However, if this is not possible at the moment, Russia will not make peace in order to prevent Ukarina from joining NATO. Russia will hold the territory for years and bomb Ukraine.
I see three likely routes for a Ukrainian offensive. One is to punch south to Melitipol. This is the shortest route to isolate the remainder of Kherson and western Zaporizhia provinces. They could surround the nuclear power plant and lay a very gentle seige. If Ukraine can get the GLSDB in time for the assault, it could be used from the new position to destroy the 3 bridges going north from Crimea. The railroad going north through Armyansk can be disabled with repeated himars strikes. If they could manage another attack on Kerch, big, big brownie points.
Second choice is to strike east across Svatove to Starobilsk and maybe even Bilovodsk. This severs the north-south supply route tp Lysichansk and Sevierodonetsk and recovers most of Luhansk province. The population density is low, and from what I can see, the density of Russian troops is low, mostly conscript. Russia may be anticipating losing the area because of all the fortifications built along the northern edge of Donetsk. Donets river crossings ought to be easily taken out by HIMARS to minimize reinforcement from the south. A simultaneous jab north to take Troitske would be really useful.
Third choice is a strike south to Mariupol or Bedransk. Given the annihilation of Russian armor at Vulhedar it might be easier. This cuts the east-west logistical corridor just like a strike to Melitopol and for a much larger area. It doesn't bring them within GLSDB of Northern Crimea, making taking out Kerch imperative. Retaking Mariupol would be a huge morale and propaganda victory. Taking Berdansk would limit the sea-based resupply of Russians in Zaporizhia.
And just maybe the Ukrainian general staff will pull a rabbit out of the hat and competely surprise me. The best attack of all is one that nobody saw coming.
You provide some cool scenarios......
Who is supposed to actually fight in those offensive actions?
The Obits indicate that Kyiv is almost out of People to defend their positions, Offense has not been a success since November.
Tanks without Fuel are nice Lawn Ornaments.
Asking for a friend......
Putin's War could end today: Russians pack their kit and go home. Слава Україні! Героям Слава!
Both sides - West and Russia - are sure in victory. Time will show.
A very interesting talk. Thank you. If Russia has lost or will lose strategically, what does that mean? Is Belarus teed up for a democratic overthrow? Will Finland, Estonia, Moldova, Latvia, Lithuania... be emboldened to take or increase 'spheres of influence' into territories taken from them by the USSR?
Sounds like you've been reading Russian propaganda.
@@RegCostello I'm surprised that you can hear my comment. I thought I only wrote it.
My point is that the Russian military has been shown to be impotent and now, by this battle, diminished. Belarus has an active insurgency as its close neighbor Ukraine successfully had in 2014. The Russian empire has been contracting since 1989. This current misadventure of Putin's will surely lead to further contraction.
@@chuckhillier4153 in reality the Ukr forces are collapsing and will be totally defeated in a few months
@@chuckhillier4153
>Belarus has an active insurgency
lolwut?
@@ascott6328yeah collapsing so hard the Russians can't even take a salient like bakhmut and have cut off Wagner from being resupplied for publicly asking for more ammo.
I'm sure the war will be over in a few weeks just like it will be over in a few weeks back in Feb 2022😂😂😂😂
Its well and good to point out artillery as the top priority equipment aid, but when both US and EU stocks are about as empty as one can be comfortable with(at least for Scandia and Balts and Poles who are on Russias borders) you have to look for something else, and MBTs and IFVs is the most obvious materiel.
The only reason Ukraine really liberated Kherson was Russias poor position. Ukraine could strike narrow supply lines (bridges) and slowly wore them down. They were fighting better forces than Kharkiv but they were weakened by lack of supply. That counter offensive was slow and costly. With Russias mobilization and defensive structures built, the Zapo region will not be a push over. I am not confident of a Ukrainian victory unless they have several surprises.
Ukraine has moved Troops from near the Polish Border to Bachmut, as reinforcements. Does that seem like an Army about to launch an offensive?
Bachmut is basically done, Avdivka lost the Rail connection.
Both areas are close to capitulating.
Do you mean that kind of surprises?
Why didn't you ask the hypothetical: can Russia win?
Was nodding the whole way until 24:30
F-16s are not a top tier item?!?!?! Huh? I agree that artillery and IFVs are important for offensive operations. But, additionally air assets are critical for deep ops to suppress anti-air assets and destroy/interdict supply lines to shape and set up offensive operations.
Also, Zelenskyy is not so stupid to stage a worldwide soliciting campaign for F-16s if they are a non-consequential asset.
The Su-35 is a much more advanced aircraft than the F-16. The Russians will kill all the falcons, even if they exchange one for one. It is completely incomprehensible how the F-16s will resist the R-37 missile.
Where is each side's center of gravity?
Is that Picard on the wall behind the guest?
Russia was not able to launch a decisive Winter offensive, since the weather did not cooperate . The Russians have not been able to drop the Ukrainian grid after about 4 months. The Ukrainians have probably accepted decisive engagement at Bakhmut and lost a lot of troops, possibly denying them a chance to retake Crimea in the near term.
I think some kind of peace brokered by the PRC is likely. The length of the war makes this more, rather than less, likely.
i would like to see zelensky ask Xi to occupy all the nuclear power plants with chinese forces. that would end russia lobbing munitions near the plants.
Russia is short of artillery?
Sounds as plausible as the stories we heard 12 months ago about them running out of missiles.
Both these fellows Aaron Miller and Michael Kofman don't address the horrendous human cost of the war on Ukrainian Slavic population as war dead KIA or WIA or MIA.
I don't think anyone has forgotten that many thousands of humans are being killed and wounded. It's unavoidable if Ukraine wants to survive.
If Ukraine can keep Bakhmut then Bakhmut was super critical for the was. On the other hand if they will lose it for the Russians, Bakhmut is not important at all.
... USA/Europe will not lose this war, but they will lose interest ... and the Ukranians will sooner or later understand that they have been taken advantage, but they cannot complain because it was their choice ...
Everyone has choices apart from poor little Russia, the real victim.
Jean luc Picard-Bonaparte. A bold statement for a miltary analyst.
Lots of Cluster Munitions would be quantity and quality to defeat the Mongol Horde.
Is that a Picard portrait??
cant watch a comb-over, its undecisive like war itself
Well this aged well....
Excuse me Aaron?!? Are you aware of the losses suffered by the Western European powers during WW1 or WW2???!
How about A10s?
Far too many man-portable AA units on both sides for close air support like this. It would be fun but I think they wouldn't survive long.
Like Aaron's hat, it looks like hair from a distance.
Slava Ukraina 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦
Сало уронили
It's called warfare by reduction
Can someone help me understand how Russia is losing more men than Ukraine when Russia has a large (I’ve seen 10 to 1 in some articles) advantage in artillery and ammunition? Is it a case of poor tactics?
That advantage was the case mid last year. Lately it is nowhere near that.
If you want an idea of how their artillery situation I would look at Yevgeny Prigohozins appeal to the Russian mod for more artillery ammo, he was thousands of rounds a day short. Other areas besides his are down as well
@@rednovember2205 Ukraine has recently admitted they're still out shelled 2 to 1 by Russia.
the only relevant information is that Ukraine is losing the ability to recruit and train from inside Ukraine
Tactics? You say tactics? 90+% of casualities on both sides are from artillery fire. So real reason of "high Russian losses" is Western propaganda
It's not clear which side is losing more men. We only know that UA is on 6th mobilization wave and RU did just one, but it's insufficient data by itself
Miller is wrong at minute 38. In fact EVERY independent free European state would accept huge costs and casualties to fight off an aggressor autocracy.
"Human wave attacks.."
Stopped watching there.
“Great powers [sometimes] lose wars.” He articulated something we have always known but rarely acknowledge. Russia has already lost this war. Unfortunately the death and destruction will continue for a very long time at least until the inevitable Russian military collapse. Then things will really get bad.
The Russians that I have heard from who reported to the offices of Defense, were told the Army was full.
Unless a person had prior Combat experience they were sent home.
Have you even looked at any of the sites that report about the actual conflict?
I am not indicating the Ukraine Government or the Russian Ministry of Defense.
Russia appears to be doing alright and their economic security appears in much better shape than the former Colonial Powers?
Propaganda that agrees with a Bias is easy to discover.
Facts do matter.
The US Was desperate economically when they challenged Russia to a pissing match economically.
The ones who are losing are the Derivatives guys......
While wars usually boil down to quantity, it did in the Afghanistan, for the Soviets in the US, and it didn’t in Vietnam for the French, US, and China. I could name many others,need I go on?
Tanks are what cost Hitler the war in Russia.
Da Bears
It's about knowing where a specific enemy unit is and having the ability to kill that unit of people. It's ISR, communications, precision and enough trained personnel and weaponry to kill the unit of people. We see quantity of artillery ammunition expended on open fields to unknown effect. Quantity needs time and it can be denied time. Quantity can be reduced before it gets ISR on the targets it seeks to kill. This has happened in Bakhmut. Ukraine will likely lose if it cannot become superior to Russia at counter battery operations. New F16s are being equipped with a version of F35 radar designed to provide mobile and rapid acquisition of artillery firing positions. Drones can be equipped with similar capability. The counter battery drone and F16 will need to be a part of a package of air assets that can harass the very effective MIG-31 with its very long-range missiles. I like to think the F16 can evade those missiles. Computer mapping of the target area can even calculate likely routes of escape and focus drone radar on those routes to find the relocating convoy. This radar does not need to be the US' latest rabbit in the hat to acquire Russian artillery battery coordinates and convoy movements. Russia may have a manpower advantage, but they may very well lose any vehicle advantage, and then they are back to tractors or horses and hay wagons.
The price Russia needs to pay for a cease fire and acquisition of Ukrainian territory is the military presence of the Budapest Memorandum signatories, Britain and the US in the balance of Ukraine. Otherwise it is a long war.
The 'quality' of Ukraine forces applies even more to Russian forces, because the quality of Russian forces has dropped like a stone with their mobiks, who are not only untrained but also unmotivated... MANPADS like Stinger, martlet, Starstreak have made Russian aviation very wary of operating near frontlines, and ATGM like Javelin, NLAW, AT-4 and Stugna-P have decimated Russian armour, as have the 155mm 'mine' shells that can sow mines anywhere Ukraine wants to, Vuhledar is a good example where those mines played a crucial part in destroying large numbers of Russian armour.
are you talking that Ukraine retook Kreminna, right? Right?
How does Kofman know about Ukr losses? 'cos Ukr told him? pls spare me!
Ground conditions has been a huge determined issue. Nobody can effectively operate mobile armor forces off any road in Ukraine without becoming mired stuck in mud everywhere. Once the summer dries up the ground then we will see movement of the military forces both sides. Everyone knows every road is a kill zone for artillery and missiles both sides can survallance every road. Since last fall a mild winter now spring season it's been a static position fight of artillery and missiles of both side a numbers game. Also Russia can sit and allow this war to drag on for years. But our side the US and Nato we are on a time clock for numerous reasons the economic fall out of this war will become crushing to USA and European countries the longer this goes on and Russia knows this. Economic damages to Russia has already been largely been incurred and a end of the war won't undo such damages so a long multi year war in Ukraine is to Russias advantage except such will be a disaster for China. Germany already is wrecked economicly the population there are not very amused dunno if that government will survive in power slot longer. Will Germany get a new government because of this war perhaps will it be a eager USA supporter maybe not. We can't just directly attack Russia in Ukraine as I do believe the DC crowd does want a direct war with Russia but vast majority our population definitely dose not want such at all but we little people know DC crowds do as they want always has.
Russia's nukes are so old they probably would work due to low maintanance, even the us had some problems with costs with their nukes.
Russia seems to lack any intelligence or imagination in their approach and based upon their current performance they cannot win. Their strategy and lack of planning and discipline from the beginning has been appalling. But having Putin / Shoigu/ Gerasimov as leaders really helps Ukraine to be as successful as they have been. What Russian would want to fight and die for their incompetent, uninspiring leaders.
Have you given a thought about US election next year, a Republican win may end war by simply stopping help to Ukraine
It's not the second year, the invasion began in 2014,
That's when the US orchestrated coup d'etat happened, Russia didn't invade until Feb 2022.
Victory vs Defeat? Can Putin or his fellow leaders lose and hold a grip on the Federation?
If your country was under attack you would accept any losses to win, so your statement that europe would not tolerate it they might complain but would never stop until victory.
The civilians that are still there are mainly waiting to join Russia.