Bill Roggio, Daily Mail: Putin may be losing the information war, but Zelensky's NATO concession suggests Ukraine may be losing on the battlefield. The West must not fool itself into thinking otherwise, writes military expert BILL ROGGIO
As Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine grinds on into its fourth week, the physical war rages in the cities and countryside, while an information war is waged over the airwaves and on the internet and social media.
On the actual battlefield, the Russian offensive has undoubtedly slowed over the past week. But what is being described as a 'stalled' takeover may be the result of the Russians taking time to reorganize their forces and improve their logistics.
On the Western side of the information war, we were told from the opening days of the conflict that the Russian military would break due to high casualties and defections, loss of tanks, armored vehicles, artillery and aircraft, and domestic opposition.
Videos of Russian battlefield setbacks abound in the media, and strangely there is little reporting on Ukrainian losses.
And yet, over three weeks into the war, Vladimir Putin remains president and the Russian war machine has not collapsed but in fact continues its plodding, imperfect, and messy advance.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: Another must read post from Bill Roggio.
9 comments:
Russia is losing , and losing badly
Very interesting article. It's only a matter of time before Ukrainian forces are cut off & surrounded in cauldron battles. I hope lessons are learned by the politicians after this. Keep ducking ð
Taliban won, North Vietnam won so Ukraine can win. Now is the time for the West to do for Ukraine what Russia did for north Vietnam. Provide sophisticated weapons to take away invaders advantages.
Unknown, you are wrong. By the time they are cut off there will be a cauldron, but there won't be much of a battle. They will be out of supply.
The Shot That Was Called: Intelligence and the Russian Invasion of Ukraine - íėŽė
CIA director dispatched to Moscow to warn Russia over troop buildup near Ukraine NOV 5th
‘Sanctions from hell’: Senators back Ukraine against Russia following drone strike aka "Senators barked. No one scared."
If DC saw this coming back in November 2021, they around 4 months or longer to change the out come. There were warning back in October. DC had 5 or 6 months to prepare.
As poorly as the Russia have done putting US troops On the Northwest flank of Kiev would have prevented its encirclement. Just putting 5,000 or 10,000 troops in Ukraine would have prevented invasion or given Russia much higher casualties to make it cost prohibitive.
There are only two cases. One is you are afraid of a nuclear war. The other is you are afraid of high casualties for something not in America's interest. They are both canards. On the first one in actual life and in movies many people say that when you go into battle assume you are already dead. Well diplomats and statement should assume the same and operate that way. If threat of nuclear prevents you from coming to the aid of any country that already does not have a defense pact, then Russia can declare war on Finland and Sweden. WTF are you going to do? Nothing, because you are afraid of nukes remember. Don't assume that Russia won't attack Sweden because their combat performance is poor. Due to lesson learned, they will get better. They could even get great. Sleep easy Sweden. On the second Ukraine is not in the American interest. Sure and with no grain supply, if we get an second or worse Arab Spring is that in America's interest.
DC is full of worthless, unimaginative cowards.
All in all this analysis isn't as bad as I might have expected but must agree it is a "must read." The author of this is essentially a "senior fellow" of an organization of busy bodies. As such, not much would be expected.
Nonetheless this man in spite of his affiliations that no doubt undermine his judgement makes an attempt at a serious analysis. While it could've been better, it's a great start.
Mr. Reggio does correctly conclude that the ultimate outcome isn't known at this time and that Ukraine is the relative good guy in this conflict. He blithely assumes "western"/NATO/US conventional forces are better trained and have better tactics than Russian ones. The only way to "know" would be to have a shooting war between the leadership forces of both sides. I pray this doesn't happen
He incorrectly says the United States is not at war. We are actively supporting one side with weapons and other support. This means we are at war. I would add Congress did not declare war as is required by the Constitution.
Furthermore meaning no disrespect to the author of this article or WNU Editor we are "directly involved." The moment we supplied aid to one side the enemy will view it this way. In the eyes of the enemy, all American assets including our homeland are legitimate targets.
Mr. Roggio's NATO analysis seems a bit silly. Even if the shooting war never happened the corrupt chump of a country named Ukraine was never going to be a member. While I'm sure the US leadership class would've jumped to add them, others are far more serious will be more circumspect and reject such silliness.
Before the shooting war NATO was weak and disorganized. It's unlikely they could've fixed the systemic issues that plague it in only three weeks. It's no offensive threat to Russia and scarcely a defensive one. It's a bit insane that Vladimir Putin would give it nuch thought much less worry about it.
Ukraine should be free to join whatever fraternity it wants to. The fraternity Brothers of NATO were never going to vote Ukraine in. By stating this Mr. Zelensky stated the obvious that those who have been paying attention already knew. This hardly qualifies as any kind of "concession."
The author observes we don't get much reporting on Ukrainian casualties. This isn't surprising as it would undercut the narrative that Russia is losing. Also, it's not surprising that the Pentagon's reporting on this closely tracks what the Ukrainian government reports. Anyone who pays attention to our government understands our leadership class often makes decisions based upon ideology making them easy to manipulate.
True friends of Ukraine such as Naftali Benet PM of Israel and Rep Marjorie Taylor-Greene have issued what I believe to be frank and correct assessments of the situation. The Chinese reminded those who forgot or didn't pay attention that the world's most populous countries didn't sign onto to the UN Resolution in support of Ukraine and condemning Russia. This looks to me like a warning suggesting the "neutrals" have assessed the situation and are on the verge of a decisive break in the direction of Russia. I think the western Europeans are going to want out of this pretty soon to.
I hope and pray myself, Mr. Benet, Ms. Taylor-Green and others are wrong. I pray Ukraine prevails.
The analysis of Mr. Roggio though not without flaws is a serious one and is appreciated. It's a definite improvement over the analysis presented by our leadership class and their media messengers with is little more than Ukraine/Zelensky's cheering section.
"Leadership forces" in paragraph 3 should read as "leading forces." For example, when US forces fought the so called "Wagner Group" of Russia, this was essentially Russia's "third team" vs America's "first team" and tells us nothing regarding how our forces and theirs match up. Frankly Mr. Roggio makes some assumptions in this area without the proper due diligence.
Poor, poor apologist Poster. The Americans were a sprinkling among the Kurdish forces. Are the Kurds cream of the crop or first rate. Wagoner was or could be backed up by the Syrian Army and air force. They could have been backed up by the Russian military.
Wagoner recruits could have training. The Russians gave them no training, crappy training or did not care. Was there no training or crappy training because the Russians have a hard time financing the training of Russian conscripts as it is?
If you read about the Russian Chechen wars, the Russian conscripts had very shitty training.
"He incorrectly says the United States is not at war. We are actively supporting one side with weapons and other support. This means we are at war."
Sino-Vietnam War of 1979 saw Russia actively helping Vietnam. Everyone knew it, yet Russia was not considered at war.
Believe Bill Roggio or Putin Fan boy? Decisions Decisions.
Post a Comment