I don't get the Russian strategy (or lack thereof).

[WarGamer]

Background.

For people who study these things, it's common to look at all sides of conflict. For example, how does Rommel win at El Alamein? How does Germany win at Stalingrad? How do you beat Napoleon at Austerlitz?

These events are looked at with the eyes of an analyst, not a partisan or an interested party.





So... Ukraine.

I think we can all see the initial phase of the war. Putin and the Armed Forces thought the Ukrainians would fold quickly and they'd be able to install a new Leader ASAP.

Russia flailed about for months but without a clear strategy. They never sought to achieve air superiority but continued to feed helicopter and ground attack craft to the MANPADS.

They never concentrated their forces. They never made a concerted drive on Kyiv.

Blunder after blunder.

But at SOME POINT.

At some point, SOME Russian leader had to observe the situation and put together some kind of strategy.

I don't think it can all be blamed on "they suck".

There are things they COULD do but have NOT. And I've been racking my brain trying to figure it out.

WHY haven't the Russians

1) Turned the lights off in Kyiv and every major city East of Lviv? Easy to do. Can be accomplished with cruise missiles or other standoff weapons.

2) Turned off the heat?

3) Destroyed ALL rail and highway infrastructure?

4) Hit command and control targets in Kyiv? Daily.

5) Starve Ukraine by cutting off supply routes from the Western border


These are ALL asymmetrical tactical options. That means 1000 Russians can affect 100,000 Ukrainians.

I've been studying war since I was maybe 8-9 years old when my mother would take me to the Library and I'd leave with a foot tall stack of war books.

And I've NEVER seen a more lopsided affair.

It's NOT just the "Orcs suck and UKR troops are Godz" stuff... there's more to it.

The decision making has been beyond terrible. It's been unbelievable.

[Happy Hoosier]

1. We've disagreed a bit in this... let me ask you this?

Why do you believe they are genuinely capable of doing those things? I’m not necessarily saying they are not, but one thing is clear to me… the Russian forces are not nearly as capable as many of us in the West believed them to be. It’s clear, for example, that their tactical intelligence capabilities are poor… they are consistently taken by surprise, even at the top level of command. My hypothesis is that their precision strike capability is really far more limited. I think Putin and his oligarchs have looted the RU military to a hollow shell.

[WarGamer]

3. Here's an example.

The Dnipro River runs from Belarus north of Kyiv all the way down to Dnipro in the South.

Do you know how many rail bridge or vehicle bridges crossing the Dnipro over 300 miles?

9.

9 crossings.

You don't believe that the Russians can blow up bridges over the Dnipro River?

[Happy Hoosier]

14. They've attempted to destroy a number of them...

And the accuracy of their fire has been terrible. I saw a video just the other day of a missile strike on a broken dge landing in the water and there was no follow up strike.

So yeah… I have my doubts they are capable of effectively executing those missions. Their intel is bad. Their equipment is marginal. Their training is awful. More than one report suggests that units are not coordinating with each other.

I think you answered your own question. It doesn’t make much sense to not make use of that capability at least tactically. But they aren’t. I think that suggests they don’t have that capability

[WarGamer]

16. Part of me thinks there is some political reason...

Maybe a deal with China where China and India push for a negotiated end to the war next year??

[MarineCombatEngineer]

29. A very large part of why they're so inept,

is that they have a very centralized Command and Control structure, when the battle plans are sent down to the commanding officers and NCO's, this is little to no wiggle room for adaptation to changing situations on the battlefield, whereas, Western militaries give great latitude to commanding officers and NCO's to adapt to changes on the battlefield without having to get permission from the top brass.

[BlueIdaho]

54. Rampant alcoholism and poverty

In the ranks doesn’t help either. I believe Russia is the third rate power living on the myths from its past.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

55. That too.

My personal experience working with Russians during the 90's is that you are 100% correct.

[Happy Hoosier]

38. To the point that...

They are shipping off old men and boys with almost no gear and less training.

Given your studies, is that a strategic choice anyone would make? They can’t win with such a force. I know it, you know it, and I expect they know it. They are hoping the resolve of the West breaks before their inevitable defeat, I think.


Don’t get me wrong, I’m shocked. Although I have long believed we overestimated Russia, I am stunned by their underperformance. I thought they’d roll over Ukraine in a month. Nope!

[WarGamer]

40. Oh yes 100%

They're going to put a lot of troops on the battlefield to hold down the Ukrainians.

Seriously... Put 30,000 troops North of Kiev in Belarus and 30k troops inside Russia near Kharkiv and you force the Ukrainians to keep forces nearby.

Thy won't attack unless there is clearly some huge opportunity.

Right now, Russia is in a bind and they need to stop the Ukrainian counter offensive. They can't stop it in combat so they need to do other things.

[qazplm135]

20. I mean

it's certainly something to consider, that they simply cannot.

[True Dough]

5. Agreed.

In addition, I think many Russian soldiers entered the war half-hearted. They didn't believe in the cause. As their progress began to stall and they were being pushed back in counter-attacks, surely morale suffered exponentially. The Russian troops don't want to fight, they don't want to be there.

[elleng]

8. Yes,

Russian forces are not nearly as capable as many of thought them to be.

Retired General Wesley Clark says it's time to exploit weakness in Russian forces.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017770331

[OnDoutside]

57. Definitely, but to a point where they don't completely lose the plot

and do something stupid like nuclear.

This has been a godsend for the US and NATO , to have the extremely capable Ukrainians taking the fight to Russia without putting NATO boots on the ground. They need to keep giving them the tools they need to give Russia such a beating that it will halt Russian imperialism for decades to come.

[CanonRay]

53. I'm not at all convinced that the Russians can do these things.

They are very short of accurate smart weapons. If they start throwing "dumb" missles and bombs at the Polish border, it would be too easy to miss. Their whole theory of warfare is to throw men and armor and overwhelm their adversary....but they are already down to 50 year old tanks and AK-47s.

[stevil]

2. Not an expert

The initial goal stated by the Russians was power transfer. They would want infrastructure to survive. They only wanted to replace governing officials, not much else. There's been too much loss on the Russian side to declare any kind of victory.

[WarGamer]

4. true... but they're stuck now.

[stevil]

28. Yup.

The Russians continue to surprise me with their strategies.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

36. IKR?

I'm awestruck by their war fighting capabilities.
Just in case this is needed.

[brush]

6. Putin didn't want a full-scale war, just a "special military operation"...

that could be kept relatively quiet from the Russian public and avoid their daily lives being involved, and thus generating no wide-spread protest movements.

Of course that bs didn't work. And his army was ill-equiped and poorly supplied. Morale was low, training was poor, and then there is the whole structure of the Russian army with one-year conscripts, no real NCO corp to keep discipline in the ranks, and the tradition of out-going conscripts hazing the incoming ones brutally on the way out.

That was never going to work.

[WarGamer]

9. But now he's stuck.

Any tactician at this point can tell you that the Russians need to fight asymmetrically at this point because they're outmanned and outgunned by UKR.

[brush]

13. Yes. They're losing, and now with Putin's micro-managing...

from afar...he's doing a Hitler 2.0 in thinking he knows better than his generals. It won't work. Winter is coming. There will be loses, the muddy season and stasis until spring...then we'll the climax and resolution of the war.

I don't think even Putin is crazy enough to use nukes. If he does, the world changes.

[RockRaven]

7. I think their stockpiles of missiles etc are thinner than expected/believed.

I've seen reports of them using surface to air missiles as surface to surface missiles. Seems like a bad idea to do so if you had other options. I've also seen reports that up to 40% of their artillery shells are duds, and that they have tried to buy artillery shells from North Korea. That all points to bad stockpiles.

What they can do, at great human cost, is outlast Ukraine in a war of attrition. Especially with Black Sea exports almost entirely kaput. Ukraine's economy is in the shitter to an unbelievable degree. Putin is betting that the West, and the rest of the world, will tire of aiding Ukraine before Russia tires of occupying Ukraine.

[WarGamer]

10. That'd be incredible.

I mean, if the Russians are truly out of vehicles and munitions at this point...

It's the greatest paper tiger in history.

[mitch96]

17. this Military Economist from Australia explains a lot.. Good stuff...but long

It's basically a power point presentation..
m

[WarGamer]

18. i'll watch i ttonight... thanks!!

[qazplm135]

22. someone did a deep dive including buying satellite imagery

and their estimation is that Russia is already through half their total tanks, and they will be out of tanks completely in 18 months.

That includes everything they can drag out of mothballs, repair, and what little they can manufacture.

They are likely almost out of smart munitions.

Their air force CLEARLY is a paper tiger.

Sometimes things are as simple as they are?

[WarGamer]

23. Occam's Razor I guess...

[Happy Hoosier]

39. Indeed.

And I wonder how taken in our intelligence community was. I know the operational forces have been aware of the readiness issues of Russian air power for some time (as we’ve discussed previously), but this is on another level.

[uponit7771]

58. +1,

[EX500rider]

66. Unfortunately they have a large stockpile of S300 SAM missile, like 7,000

October 2, 2022: A survey of Russian anti-aircraft batteries, using commercial satellite photos, has shown that Russia has been shutting down S300 (surface to air missiles) batteries around Russian cities and moving the missiles and launchers to the Ukrainian border, where the missiles are used to attack surface targets. The new S400 SAM began replacing S300s about fifteen years ago, but progress has been slow because of economic sanctions imposed in 2014 and 2022, The military budget has declined and the S300 missiles, radars and launchers are not getting any upgrades because the S400 is much more effective (with twice the range of the S300) and one S400 battery can do the work of two or more S300 batteries. Mainly this is about the sanctions making it impossible for Russia to manufacture new guided missiles to use against Ukraine. This is why there have been fewer guided missiles used against Ukrainian targets in the last month but a lot more less accurate unguided missiles and S300 SAMs. At least 500 S300 missiles have been used so far against surface targets in Ukraine and there are still 7,000 S300 missiles available for hitting surface targets. Some S300 batteries are still used in Ukraine or from Russia. Not a lot of these are needed because the Ukrainians have developed systems and tactics that minimize the effectiveness of the S300 as a SAM.

Back in July Ukraine warned that Russia was beginning to use its 1.8-ton S300 (SA-10) SAMs as SSMs (surface to surface missiles). The allegation was based on Belarus revealing that they had recently tested S300s used as SSMs. The S300 was known to have been designed with SSM capability. That means one of launch options includes SSM mode. There are two major limitations to using a SAM as an SSM. One is accuracy at longer ranges. Russian SAMs are guided to the target using a ground-based targeting radar that guides the S300 to aerial targets up to 150 kilometers away. SAMs are programmed to self-destruct if they miss their target so that the missile and its small (100-200 kg) warhead does not land on friendly territory. Used as an SSM the self-destruct is disabled and the guidance system aims the missile at a ground location, but with less accuracy than against aerial targets. Russia has apparently modified the SSM option to include a GPS option that directs the SAM to a specific ground location. The GPS option works, but not as accurately as expected. Ukraine believes that the Russians are running out of SSM missiles and using S300s as SSMs because there is not much need for their SAM capabilities, especially with the more recent and capable S400 now available. The Ukrainian prediction was apparently correct.

https://strategypage.com/htmw/htada/articles/20221002.aspx

[Kaleva]

11. Doesn't help when their military leaders are more loyal to Putin then they are competent.

Corruption in the Rus military is rampant. They also don't have an experienced and competent NCO corp who could provide leadership and take initiative in the field

[Chainfire]

12. I too have studied war history.

I think that the Russian Army is simply cartoonish. They are a Mickey Mouse Army with a Goofy leader, and their efforts have just been an comedy skit, but with real blood. It has been so bad, that I actually have some sympathy for the Russian G.I.s, but, or course, not the Russian government.

When I first heard of the "invasion," I figured it would last five days before the Russians met their goals. Plenty of egg on my face. I had no idea of how dedicated the Ukrainians were to maintaining their independence, nor their ability to fight the bear on even terms.

I think that the most dangerous part of this war is that Putin has shown the Western World that the only reliable weapons he has are nuclear; and we have to assume that they are reliable.

[WarGamer]

15. Yes and Putin just made the argument that the US legitimized the use of them in WW2.

[Chainfire]

24. He certainly has a point.

And we did in on a nation that was already breathing their last gasp. We will be paying for that sin forever...

[WarGamer]

25. But I'm trying to figure out how a tactical nuke helps Russia...

I can't come up with anything.

It's not like the loading ports in England on D-Day eve...

I can't think of a single target or 3-4 targets where a tactical nuke would badly hurt the UKR military.

They're pretty much disbursed.

[Happy Hoosier]

41. I agree..

I can’t see any advantage to using tac nukes. The U.S. and NATO could simply not stand by for that.

I think he is hoping the threat is enough.

[CentralMass]

30. We did it on a nation that had enslaved and murdered millions of civilians

during their conquest of southeast Asia leading up to Wirld War II. The enslaved. starved, and worked to death millions and brutally taped a murdered. The estimated casualties of an invasion of mainland Japan was in the millions

[Chainfire]

50. But, we did it. Because we did it, now it gets thrown back in our faces. Whadda you expect?

Our Soviet allies in that same war could be accused of all of the terrible deeds that you mentioned too, should we have nuked them too?

We attacked population centers for the purpose of terrorizing the Japanese into a quicker surrender. They were already beaten, and we knew it and they knew it. We did not have to invade Japan to end the war, we had complete control of the seas at that point, we could have convinced them to stop fighting when they got hungry enough; but we were in a hurry. We did the exact kind of thing, using firebombing in Germany too; Dresden comes immediately to mind, 35-50 thousand German civilians roasted or suffocated in one bombing, many of those killed were women and children refugees from other battle areas. It was terror for the sake of terror.

Let he who is without guilt, start throwing stones at other guilty parties!

Back to the present situation; Putin won't use nuclear weapons because it would lead immediately to his personal demise. He doesn't give a rat's ass about Russian civilian casualties, but the cowardly bastard wouldn't hasten his own death.

[CentralMass]

61. Trying to draw a corollary between the US using nuclear weapons against one of the most brutal

barbaric regimes in modern history, Imperial Japan and Russia using them against Ukraine is not a good one. Japan had killed millions in a barbaric fashion.
Some estimates of the period of just between 1937 and and the end of WWII.
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM#:~:text=By%20R.J.,including%20Western%20prisoners%20of%20war.

Around 110k were killed on Nagasaki & Hiroshima, horrific, but it ended the the reign of one if the most brutal regimes in modern history. Japan was not going to surrender and it is estimated that an invasion of mainland Japan would have resulted in 5 to 6 million deaths.

[Willto]

63. I agree

The Japanese were arming women and children with spears in preparation for the US invasion. And given the unquestioning devotion to the emperor these people had been indoctrinated with they would have charged US troops even with just a spear in hand. Can you imagine the horror of having to mow down waves of such attackers with rifle and machine gun fire? It's a terrible choice to have to make but those two atomic bombs actually saved millions of lives, both American and Japanese.

[uponit7771]

59. +1, I don't see how false equivalencies help

[Demsrule86]

46. As my Uncle stood on the bridge of a ship that would take them to the invasion of Japan...after

DD and crawling through Europe and hearing the gruesome stories out of Okinawa, he and others vowed to jump ship and drown themselves rather than go to Japan. Japan planned to fight to the end and sue for peace...the first nuke wasn't enough...it took two. Such was their resolve. Millions of Americans and Japanese didn't die because there was no invasion.

[Chainfire]

52. That is certainly how it is described in our history books.

The winners write the history...

We beat Germany without using nukes, do you think that Japan, in 1945 would have defeated us, and the Russians, and the Brits and the French unless we nuked them? The bombs were about expediency, Americans were damned tired of the war and wanted it to be over. They didn't give a rat's ass about how many Japanese needed to be incinerated to get it done in a hurry. It was as much about racism as anything else. We made the decision that it was OK to use nuclear weapons on the civilian population without ever considering that the decision might, one day, come back to bite us in the ass. It was a colossal error of judgement, as we may soon find out.

Einstein tried to warn everyone concerned about what they were about to do, but did they listen?

[EX500rider]

60. Starving Japan into submission rather then dropping the bomb...

...would have resulted in more dead Japanese civilians IMO, plus they were killing 1,000's of Chinese every week on the mainland.

[qazplm135]

19. So you have to understand the mindset at the start

1. Russian troops will overwhelm
2. Ukraine is weak, wants to be Russian, government and military will collapse
3. West is weak, won't help Ukraine

Add on these factors:

4. Russian military was in fact weak, poor equipment, training, and troops
5. Western aid and sanctions were massive
6. Ukraine was up to the challenge

What you are left with is an Army that tried to do WAYYY too much, has lost too much, and now is facing an enemy they are outnumbered by, with dwindling supplies of everything, including missiles.

Do they even have the missiles to do what you suggest? Would it really slow down Ukraine if they did? Would it engender MORE Western aid?

I get it, their decision making is bad, but the worst decision by far was the one at the start, everything else pales in comparison.

[WarGamer]

21. I caught a lot of grief here pre-war...

I said "no fucking way Putin invades"... because I thought it would be INCREDIBLY stupid and I didn't think they were stupid.

I've reconsidered that.

[Demsrule86]

47. He was KGB and wants to put back the old USSR...old men dream of past glory.

[bluestarone]

26. The ONLY reason i can think of, is maybe pooty wants to go nuclear? (this after he fucked up)

Blame US, and drop a couple and see what our response will be? I'm not sure what we would do, if they did that. That's the part that worries me the most. (our response)

[Demsrule86]

48. We would destroy them. There would be no other option.

[bluestarone]

51. Not to sure if we would choose that option

Hell, i don't even think we could remove them from NATO!

[Beastly Boy]

27. I believe what so perplexes us non-Russians in analyzing Russia's blunders has to do with

several things that are ingrained in the nature of the Russian state that are foreign to us.

First is the super-rigid chain of command of the Russian army. Initiative on the part junior officers is not only discouraged but severely punished. A lieutenant cannot make a move without receiving orders from a Major, a Major cannot make a move without orders from a Colonel, a Colonel cannot make a move without orders from a General. And the worst thing is that the Generals are 100% beholden to an individual who is the head of state, as incompetent in military matters as he is and as intolerant to dissent as he is. The result is that amateur Putin, without ever experiencing the nuances of warfare, ultimately determines the orders that a Lieutenant gives to his platoon. And these orders, relayed through the long chain of command, become irrelevant by the time they get to the Lieutenant on the battlefield.


Second is the overwhelming culture of corruption that permeates the highest echelons of Russia's institutions. It has been integrated into Russia's culture to the degree that without it Russia's institututions cannot function, and it didn't spare the Russian armed forces. Once everyone gets their cut of funds and equipment intended for the Army, what looks like an invincible force on paper, ends up as a facade behind which there is nothing but a woefully underfunded and neglected house of cards.

So Putin, the guy at the top, having no experience in warfare, and having no clue of the condition of his army, the condition that has been routinely concealed from him by the plutocrats, has been making decisions that are being informed more by his ideology rather than realistic strategic goals, and does not tolerate any advice to the contrary coming from his generals who must obey his orders or else.

This would be equivalent to the Pope telling his cardinals to perform brain surgery using rusted plumbing tools

[WarGamer]

33. +1000, great points

[Irish_Dem]

31. One explanation: Putin is in charge. He is not a military genius. He is a psychopath and ex-KGB.

It is becoming more clear that RU generals have had minimal input as we can
see the puzzling and incompetent RU military tactics and strategy.

This is reinforced by Putin deliberately sending generals to the front line where
they have been systematically killed by the Ukrainians. Putin showing his disdain for the
top brass.

From the beginning Putin was fighting a psy-ops war devised by a ruthless psychopath.

Thought he could install his puppets in Kyiv, assassinate Zelensky and military leaders.
Take over the airfields, shut down communications.

Have his men change into parade uniforms and watch civilians throw flowers and kisses at them.

But his advance team intelligence agents fumbled the bag. They knew from their focus groups
the Ukrainians were going to fight back. They were afraid to tell Putin. The puppets in Kyiv they paid to
run the new Russian gov't pocketed their bribes and took off before the war started.

Zelensky is smarter than your average bear and eluded the RU special ops teams sent to kill him.
Rumor has it part of the RU team didn't even make it to Kyiv because they were so incompetent.

Putin was probably surprised the the RU military corruption had resulted in such a poorly trained and
incompetent military. No matter, Putin thinks he is the smartest man in the world.
And he is ruthless and evil, and would burn everything down to win.

The basic problem is that those of us who are history and military buffs keep thinking along
military strategy and tactical lines. We are greatly puzzled.

Instead, Putin is fighting a brutal war of psychology: terror, death, torture, rape, murder of civilians.
This is what he knows how to do.

Terorrize the world with nuclear threats. Freeze out Europe this winter. Cut the Nordic Stream pipelines.
Move nuclear fighter/bombers jets to the Finnish border.

Turn the war into a war of attrition, i.e., a human meat grinder.
Bully Europe until they drop sanctions and force Zelensky into surrender.

I have degrees in political science, social sciences and psychology.
And I am a student of WWII and grew up as a military kid with a career USAF Dad.

The skill set most pertinent to understanding what is happening with Putin and the war is my
psychology training and understanding how psychopaths operate.

This is just my theory but it does make everything make sense.
Parsimony/Occam's razor.

[WarGamer]

34. great post, tyvm!

[Irish_Dem]

43. YW.

We are in Hitler and Stalin territory.

So studying what makes psychopaths tick may answer some of your questions.

We are confused because at least Hitler let his generals call the shots until the end.

It is looking like this is not the case with Putin.

[The Bopper]

32. Good points

I think the real winner is China, they no longer have to worry about the paper tiger to their North and can focus all their intentions toward the Pacific without having to watch their backs.

[Mr.Bill]

35. Some of our so-called experts

were also very wrong. Retired General Barry McCaffrey sat there on cable news right before the invasion and said Russia has everything they need to take Kiev in three days.

[Kaleva]

42. They probably did have everything they needed

But they wasted it through sheer incompetence.

[Mr.Bill]

49. Everything but able personnel. n/t

[Kaleva]

62. Yes

[48656c6c6f20]

37. Russian strategy is to yell Nukes! In a crowded world.

It works.

[Yavin4]

44. When was the last time Russia fought a war on a scale like this?

Probably Afghanistan in the 1980s which also didn't go as well as they hoped, but that was approx. 40 years ago. Since then, Russia has had major internal changes. In sum, they've lost over 2 generations of military muscle memory for fighting a war like this.

Takes years of building up your armed forces and frequently invading/conquering nations to develop the expertise that it takes to do it well.

[WarGamer]

45. +1000 nt

[Xolodno]

56. Because that would be an escalation.

If they escalate, then NATO will do so as well. It's a proxy war being fought, so a difficult balance is being held. Add to that, most of the productive areas of Ukraine are now under occupation of the Russian armed forces, even with the recent defeats, they are morale builders for Ukraine but don't have much value. It's not a full declaration of war....at least not yet and let's hope it never gets there. But most of Ukraine's main economic hubs are gone.

Furthermore, the whole notion Russia is out of tanks is bonkers. Putin attacked with the forces of one military district and only one and was designed for defense, not offense. The remaining four have to be maintained with its equipment and troops in case of the possibility of someone taking advantage of depleted forces near their border...and they have a huge fucking border. They also keep the bulk of their conventional forces and production closer in, it's what saved them in WW2.

With that said, I've seen some twitter feeds where they are moving equipment from other military districts to areas near Ukraine. And the troops in those districts will probably be rotated in. The mobilized troops will probably take their places and moth balled equipment will replace the transferred equipment. But at different rates, for example 50k troops will be replaced by 80k mobilized.

Just about every US General said they attacked with not enough equipment and troops. But that may change soon.

Finally, we are here in an echo chamber, so it's very one sided (hey, some think they know better than our current DOJ). But recent polls here in the USA show that people are tiring of the war and want to see a negotiated settlement. Likewise, energy prices in Europe are skyrocketing which is sapping the populace there. And nations that took in refugee's are starting to resent it. And we have a global recession on its way...it's not here yet, but it is coming. This is what Putin is waiting for, the taste for war to leave everyone's mouth and force a North/South Korea type of settlement. His speech the other day made clear what Macron and Blair warned about a while back, Russia is basically divorcing Europe and embracing Asia.

Nor is this one theatre of operations, both China and Russia have been active in Africa, Asia, the Pacific, South and Central America. All of the West and aligned West nations oppose this war, the rest of the world is basically "whatever" and give the token admonishment.

Some even see this as NATO's play to look strong again after the disastrous pull out of Afghanistan and ongoing problems in Libya. And those more cynical....ah, I won't say it, said plenty to get flamed already. And I'm getting tired of trying to act logical vs. those emotional.

[Happy Hoosier]

64. Nope

They flattened Mariupol. They have no scruples about destroying civilian targets when they can.

They were a paper tiger.

[Happy Hoosier]

65. A Follow-up on our conversation....

A report from the Russian perspective that seems to verify some of our conclusions: Not enough forces, Refusniks leaving holes in the line, no cross-unit coordination, poor recon and communication.

Link to tweet

?s=21&t=Qe9KcjfZIvsnggkxavS_qw