I didn't want to interrupt the blog post with this but it includes several more examples of major mistakes made in the first year of the war.
Professor OBrien’s running commentary on military mistakes in the first year of the war
I follow Professor Phillips P. OBrien who is a professor of military history and strategy with a special focus on logistics. During the first year of the war his twitter feed was a running commentary on the major mistakes the Russian army did.
He doesn’t comment so much directly on their strategy today because with the drone patrolled corridor there is very little by actual front line strategy any more.
But back in 2022, if Ukraine had had just a bit more by way of military support from the allies they could have exploited these over and over again. Putin could only keep going through all these mistakes because the Ukrainians back then were militarily so weak, so badly equipped compared to the Russians.
Now they are better equipped but the minefields and the drone patrolled corridor makes it next to impossible for them to exploit Russia’s weaknesses today.
You want to guarantee you will fight a stupid campaign? Give yourself a hard deadline to declare victory, after suffering huge losses, in the muddy season, while fighting a determined and increasingly well equipped enemy. The quadrifecta of strategic stupidity.
Because of the strategically nonsensical way the Russians went into the campaign, shifting troops from the edges to the east will be no easy task. There are no simple road communications they can use.
The inability of the Russians to gain control of the air, was such a fundamental failing of modern complex systems warfare, that it also instantly called into question their overall war fighting ability in my analysis
This map is a strategic catastrophe waitinng to happen A drive on Kyiv, an attempt to seize Sumy (the Bastogne of this war) a continuing bombardment of Kharkiv, a siege of Mariupol, an attempt on Odessa and even a possible more for Dnipro. No way they can do all of this.
This situation overall is indicative of the logistic failure discussed earlier and the complete failure of Russia's initial strategy. They had no idea what they were about to encounter, underestimated the Ukrainians, and are now trying to make up a strategy as they go along.
Yep. There has been a weird attempt over the last week or so to argue Bakhmut has strategic value. Still don’t see it. Just seems a political Russian campaign that plays into Ukrainian hands.
If this is actually what Russia ends up doing; they are strategically bankrupt and haven’t learned a thing. Just drip feeding forces as they become available is a recipe for Russian failure.
A really interesting reflection that supports the idea that the Moscow leadership is not really well informed about the state of their army in Ukraine. Russian behaviour around Kyiv never made any sense. They had far too few troops, advanced like they had no real opposition…
QUOTE: One thing about the Hostomel Airfield — Russians dug up really hard.
Lots of trenches and BMP scrapes dug within the facility and on the edges, one can see that.
Up to the final moment in late March, they were supposed to stay for a long static war.
Milley, Russia has made a terrible strategic mistake. Wanted to overrun all of Ukraine and lost first their strategic objectives, and now their operational ones. Listing Russian operational failures. All have failed, 'every single one'
Yes. That will be great so see and they can do it fast. After a hurricane most of the building is done in a year or so. Depending on the finance but you can build a house pretty fast if you have the funding and even a multi-story building.
They have already rebuilt the places that Russia bombed north of Kyiv in 2022. They completely rebuild Bucha by May 2023 a year after the shelling and Russian occupation of Bucha.
BLOG: Yes we can rebuild after a war
— one day all Ukraine's cities damaged by the war will be restored
Rebuilding Ukraine after the war is a question of financing. Ukraine's economy was weak before the war and Ukraine was one of the poorest European countries in terms of GDP per capita. Will Ukraine be able to rebuild its economy in the event of a long-term freeze of the conflict? I simply cannot imagine how Ukraine can build a sustainable and strong economy. As the example of Vietnam shows, it may take decades to rebuild the country after the end of the war.
More likely Russia will decide to invade Central Asia, Mongolia, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Moldova after Ukraine. Russia is weak compared to NATO but I think they can conquer Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan or Mongolia in a week. Also let's not forget that Ukraine is having a hard time fighting the Russian army and the pressure from the Trump administration's policy of not providing aid to Ukraine, and Trump trusts Putin and thinks he is a good guy. Yes, NATO is safe, but Russia's foreign policy will cause millions of deaths in the next three decades and unfortunately the West will not be able to stop Russia much.
Everyone thought Ukraine would fall in 3 days yet look at them now. I don’t think Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan or Mongolia would easily fall either. The main thing here I’m thinking of is China. China views central Asia as a buffer zone between it and Russia and the two are already competing for influence there. Kazakhstan & Uzbekistan are key parts of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. As for Mongolia I think that’s even more serious because China historically views Mongolia as within their sphere of interest. I don’t think Russia would be willing to go up against China like that when they are relying on China so much to even stay afloat these days. I think Georgia and Moldova are the most likely - however, I think if Ukraine can pull a good victory from Russia, then that will deter Russia from starting another war like this. I also think Georgia should be admitted into NATO too, that’s the biggest deterrence.
The reason is I often aren't able to respond to comments for some time and the unanswered comment can scare people who come to this post for help on something else
Also even when answered the comment may scare them because they see it first.
It works much better to put comments on other topics on a special post for them.
It is absolutely fine to digress and go off topic in conversations here - this is specifically about things you want help with that might scare people.
PLEASE DON’T TELL A SCARED PERSON THAT THE THING THEY ARE SCARED OF IS TRUE WITHOUT A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE OR IF YOU ARE A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE YOURSELF - AND RESPOND WITH CARE
This is not like a typical post on substack. It is specifically to help people who are very scared with voluntary fact checking. Please no politically motivated exaggerations here. And please be careful, be aware of the context.
We have a rule in the Facebook group and it is the same here.
If you are scared and need help it is absolutely fine to comment about anything to do with the topic of the post that scares you.
But if you are not scared or don’t want help with my voluntary fact checking please don’t comment with any scary material.
If you respond to scared people here please be careful with your sources. Don’t tell them that something they are scared of is true without excellent reliable sources, or if you are a reliable source yourself.
It also matters a lot exactly HOW you respond. E.g. if someone is in an area with a potential for earthquakes there’s a big difference between a reply that talks about the largest earthquake that’s possible there even when based on reliable sources, and says nothing about how to protect themselves and the same reply with a summary and link to measures to take to protect yourself in an earthquake.
I didn't want to interrupt the blog post with this but it includes several more examples of major mistakes made in the first year of the war.
Professor OBrien’s running commentary on military mistakes in the first year of the war
I follow Professor Phillips P. OBrien who is a professor of military history and strategy with a special focus on logistics. During the first year of the war his twitter feed was a running commentary on the major mistakes the Russian army did.
He doesn’t comment so much directly on their strategy today because with the drone patrolled corridor there is very little by actual front line strategy any more.
But back in 2022, if Ukraine had had just a bit more by way of military support from the allies they could have exploited these over and over again. Putin could only keep going through all these mistakes because the Ukrainians back then were militarily so weak, so badly equipped compared to the Russians.
Now they are better equipped but the minefields and the drone patrolled corridor makes it next to impossible for them to exploit Russia’s weaknesses today.
You want to guarantee you will fight a stupid campaign? Give yourself a hard deadline to declare victory, after suffering huge losses, in the muddy season, while fighting a determined and increasingly well equipped enemy. The quadrifecta of strategic stupidity.
https://x.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1514657093097242635
Because of the strategically nonsensical way the Russians went into the campaign, shifting troops from the edges to the east will be no easy task. There are no simple road communications they can use.
https://x.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1508063592943390722
If only Ukraine’s partners had the courage to arm Ukraine to win, Putin might have made the stupidest strategic decision in history.
https://x.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1865105732942622760
to be extra clear--The way the fate of Severodonetsk was decided was not a 'strategic defeat' for Ukraine, its a sign of strategic failure for Russia.
https://x.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1541036376703090689
The inability of the Russians to gain control of the air, was such a fundamental failing of modern complex systems warfare, that it also instantly called into question their overall war fighting ability in my analysis
https://x.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1505573343998709763
This map is a strategic catastrophe waitinng to happen A drive on Kyiv, an attempt to seize Sumy (the Bastogne of this war) a continuing bombardment of Kharkiv, a siege of Mariupol, an attempt on Odessa and even a possible more for Dnipro. No way they can do all of this.
https://x.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1503348126995861510
This situation overall is indicative of the logistic failure discussed earlier and the complete failure of Russia's initial strategy. They had no idea what they were about to encounter, underestimated the Ukrainians, and are now trying to make up a strategy as they go along.
https://x.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1500740232173527044
Yep. There has been a weird attempt over the last week or so to argue Bakhmut has strategic value. Still don’t see it. Just seems a political Russian campaign that plays into Ukrainian hands.
https://x.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1605550393626222596
If this is actually what Russia ends up doing; they are strategically bankrupt and haven’t learned a thing. Just drip feeding forces as they become available is a recipe for Russian failure.
https://x.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1514281199119785986
A really interesting reflection that supports the idea that the Moscow leadership is not really well informed about the state of their army in Ukraine. Russian behaviour around Kyiv never made any sense. They had far too few troops, advanced like they had no real opposition…
QUOTE: One thing about the Hostomel Airfield — Russians dug up really hard.
Lots of trenches and BMP scrapes dug within the facility and on the edges, one can see that.
Up to the final moment in late March, they were supposed to stay for a long static war.
https://x.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1512694644626399235
Milley, Russia has made a terrible strategic mistake. Wanted to overrun all of Ukraine and lost first their strategic objectives, and now their operational ones. Listing Russian operational failures. All have failed, 'every single one'
https://x.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1592958347955036160
So they will loose against NATO countries!
Absolutely. They would never have got anywhere if they'd attacked even tiny Estonia.
Yes. It makes me think about how the country will be rebuilt once Russia stops bombing it.
Yes. That will be great so see and they can do it fast. After a hurricane most of the building is done in a year or so. Depending on the finance but you can build a house pretty fast if you have the funding and even a multi-story building.
They have already rebuilt the places that Russia bombed north of Kyiv in 2022. They completely rebuild Bucha by May 2023 a year after the shelling and Russian occupation of Bucha.
BLOG: Yes we can rebuild after a war
— one day all Ukraine's cities damaged by the war will be restored
— and the economies of Ukraine
— and Russia too
— rebuilt and renewed
You can read it here: https://debunkingdoomsday.quora.com/Yes-we-can-rebuild-after-a-war-one-day-all-Ukraines-cities-damaged-by-the-war-will-be-restored-and-the-economies-of
Rebuilding Ukraine after the war is a question of financing. Ukraine's economy was weak before the war and Ukraine was one of the poorest European countries in terms of GDP per capita. Will Ukraine be able to rebuild its economy in the event of a long-term freeze of the conflict? I simply cannot imagine how Ukraine can build a sustainable and strong economy. As the example of Vietnam shows, it may take decades to rebuild the country after the end of the war.
Frozen Russian Assets, $300billion of it.
More likely Russia will decide to invade Central Asia, Mongolia, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Moldova after Ukraine. Russia is weak compared to NATO but I think they can conquer Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan or Mongolia in a week. Also let's not forget that Ukraine is having a hard time fighting the Russian army and the pressure from the Trump administration's policy of not providing aid to Ukraine, and Trump trusts Putin and thinks he is a good guy. Yes, NATO is safe, but Russia's foreign policy will cause millions of deaths in the next three decades and unfortunately the West will not be able to stop Russia much.
Everyone thought Ukraine would fall in 3 days yet look at them now. I don’t think Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan or Mongolia would easily fall either. The main thing here I’m thinking of is China. China views central Asia as a buffer zone between it and Russia and the two are already competing for influence there. Kazakhstan & Uzbekistan are key parts of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. As for Mongolia I think that’s even more serious because China historically views Mongolia as within their sphere of interest. I don’t think Russia would be willing to go up against China like that when they are relying on China so much to even stay afloat these days. I think Georgia and Moldova are the most likely - however, I think if Ukraine can pull a good victory from Russia, then that will deter Russia from starting another war like this. I also think Georgia should be admitted into NATO too, that’s the biggest deterrence.
PLEASE DO NOT COMMENT HERE WITH POTENTIALLY SCARY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OTHER TOPIC:
INSTEAD GO TO THIS SEPARATE POST AND COMMENT THERE INSTEAD: https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/post-to-comment-on-with-off-topic-594
The reason is I often aren't able to respond to comments for some time and the unanswered comment can scare people who come to this post for help on something else
Also even when answered the comment may scare them because they see it first.
It works much better to put comments on other topics on a special post for them.
It is absolutely fine to digress and go off topic in conversations here - this is specifically about things you want help with that might scare people.
PLEASE DON’T TELL A SCARED PERSON THAT THE THING THEY ARE SCARED OF IS TRUE WITHOUT A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE OR IF YOU ARE A VERY RELIABLE SOURCE YOURSELF - AND RESPOND WITH CARE
This is not like a typical post on substack. It is specifically to help people who are very scared with voluntary fact checking. Please no politically motivated exaggerations here. And please be careful, be aware of the context.
We have a rule in the Facebook group and it is the same here.
If you are scared and need help it is absolutely fine to comment about anything to do with the topic of the post that scares you.
But if you are not scared or don’t want help with my voluntary fact checking please don’t comment with any scary material.
If you respond to scared people here please be careful with your sources. Don’t tell them that something they are scared of is true without excellent reliable sources, or if you are a reliable source yourself.
It also matters a lot exactly HOW you respond. E.g. if someone is in an area with a potential for earthquakes there’s a big difference between a reply that talks about the largest earthquake that’s possible there even when based on reliable sources, and says nothing about how to protect themselves and the same reply with a summary and link to measures to take to protect yourself in an earthquake.
Thanks!