The European military logistics and capability required to penetrate Russian lines and send them into chaos isn’t big. It’s the requirement for ‘leadership’ – which is immense. Remember, the EU (1993) is a post-Soviet (1991) organization built to foster compromise, not leadership and determination.
Russia’s position in its ongoing war in Ukraine exhibits significant fragility across multiple critical dimensions, including severe military setbacks, deepening economic pressures, worsening demographic crisis, and unsustainable equipment losses. Despite evidence of Russian resilience—such as limited economic adaptation and persistent territorial control—these strengths are increasingly overshadowed by systemic vulnerabilities. A modestly sized but well-organized military coalition could exploit Russia’s thinly stretched lines, triggering a prolonged military crisis. Recent history has repeatedly shown Russia’s weaknesses in responding swiftly and effectively to unexpected offensives or deep penetrations of its defensive lines.
[Cook lays out a number of points to support his argument and even some reasonable counterpoints. They range from military weaknesses, economic strains, to the almost universal demographic crisis. You can read them at the link.]
Recap and Analysis: Even considering Russia’s points of resilience, its overall strategic position remains profoundly fragile. A well-coordinated, modest-sized military coalition could effectively penetrate Russian defenses, causing long-term disruptions to its military operations. Europe must urgently confront this reality and significantly upgrade its defensive/offensive capabilities. Yet, European leadership has consistently failed to act decisively, instead relying on American security assurances. (This is not a peacekeeping force I am suggesting. This is a pacification force. Make no mistake, Europeans would be killing Russians in Ukraine.)
https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/actually-russia-is-at-its-most-fragile
Comment: Those maps are not from Benjamin Cook’s article or from Tom Cooper’s Sarcastosaurus Substack. They are from somebody’s X account who doesn’t strike me as possessing any real military or area expertise. The first is fairly straightforward. We know Russia has been denuding the country of troops to shore up their war in Ukraine. The second is a flight of fancy in my opinion. Here’s the comments that accompany those maps.
There are no Ru infantry, mech, tank, or artillery units anywhere in the space between NATO and Moscow. There haven’t been any for 18 months. There’s only air and air defence. This is the most astonishingly under reported fact in the whole Ukraine War. NATO could be in Moscow in days, like Prigozhin was 18 months ago.
With NATO air support, there is no reason why the Estonian ground forces—one division—could not march to Moscow. Add Latvia, Lithuania, and Finland, and that force would be bigger than Prigozhin’s—and he only stopped because he was conned—and would sack the Kremlin for sure.
One Estonian division is not going to march to Moscow with or without NATO air support. A force of several divisions from Poland, the Baltics and Finland are not going to do that, either. First, there is will or desire to do such a foolish thing. Second, NATO forces have no experience on a drone dominated battlefield. There may be no Russian drones in the first few days, but they would be there shortly. Third, such a NATO move would trigger a frantic Russian response, hypersonic missiles on European cities or even nuclear strikes. That would be gambling with WWIII.
Fantasies aside, what else does all this suggest? Russia is either totally unconcerned about a ground invasion of Russian territory or just doesn’t have the troops to guard her borders against a ground invasion of her territory. Probably a combination of both. And NATO, including the Baltics, face no immediate threat of invasion from Russia. Admiral Stavridis, USN, Ret. posted a graphic of the comparative strength of European NATO countries compared to the US, China and Russia and left this comment.
Europe has enormous capability in the military especially land forces — see this graphic. The question is: do they have the will to use it, if needed, against Russia. Now that the United States is increasingly aligned with Putin, watch for them to decide they will do exactly that.
https://x.com/Doktor_Klein/status/1895523734272033148
I consider it very likely that NATO will have to stick by Ukraine’s side without the US. They talk brave, but are still full of trepidation. They’re never had to do this before. Given the current weak state of Russia and the potential that Europe can cobble together in a coherent response for her beleaguered neighbor, I am confident that it can be done. But it’s not a sure thing. I’m sure Trump can almost taste his Trump Tower in Moscow as he cuts off all US aid to Ukraine and abandons NATO. the wild card in all this is China. Ukraine has reached out to Beijing this weekend. Xi may want that Nobel Peace Prize just to rub it in Trump’s face.
TTG
Yikes. This – a NATO/European invasion of Russia – is an insanely dangerous fantasy. I can’t believe that anyone with any real info and/or understanding of the strategic and operational situation would take this seriously.
IMO, this is propaganda aimed at Liberal Democrats and their European counterparts who desperately want to believe that “we” – US/NATO/Europe/Ukraine – can beat Putin.
Most of my friends and acquaintances are Liberal Democrats, and they are all in a tailspin from the $hitshow at the White House last week. They have fallen into the trap of framing policy as a clash between Good Guys (Zelensky) and Bad Guys (Putin, Trump, and Vance). I largely agree with their opinion of Trump, but that framework for setting policy is too easily manipulated by Wag The Dog propaganda.
One friend posted something on FB applauding European leaders for a plan to “to replace the US in NATO with Ukraine, start curb stomping Russia”. Luckily, the writer is wrong about the facts (there is no such plan); my point is more that Liberals have gotten sucked into same damned Good Guy/Bad Guy framework which Cheney and the NeoCons used to sell the invasion of Iraq.
Regarding Ukraine, partition is inevitable, it’s just a question of where the new lines get drawn. My best hope is for a quick end to the damned war, with new borders drawn near the current LOC; anything else would involved a *lot* more death and destruction.
Of course it is propaganda. As well as being utterly delusional.
If you want to get a feel for who Benjamin Cook is then go here:
https://bpcusc.com/
He is a PhD student in political science
https://sc.edu/study/colleges_schools/artsandsciences/political_science/our_people/grad/benjamin_cook.php
and also “Executive Director and Co-Founder of the Ukraine Assistance Organization”
https://giveuao.org/
If you want to have a handle on what real-life insights into military strategy that position has gifted to him then go here:
https://giveuao.org/about-us/
It is an organization of two men, two women, and two dogs. I kid you not: both mutts have their own photos up on that “about us” page.
I would trust what Benjamin Cook has to say about as far as I can throw him, and judging by the photo he is one hefty dude.
Ha, thx. I’m particularly curious about what services Anastasia provides as “pharmacy liaison”!
Elkern –
That substack is called “SARCASTOsaurus for a reason.
Crazy, I fully agree with you or Bernard/MOA in this context, although I would never have voted as he did in our last election. 😉
Absolutely enjoyed his Aesop reference, a mountain giving birth to a mouse:
https://tinyurl.com/Mountain-Mouse
So we finally approach EO’s scenario, Europe (UK-France-Italy …, once again: A Coalition of the Willing? Interesting!) wanting to send troops with the US having its back? Not really that purely peacekeeping anymore either?
Who is Doktor Klein? European waving Spanish, Ukrainian & European flag with a German name picked from a TV series?
Watling, senior Rusi fellow, & Kofman research director at CNA in Arlington Virginia, here on: War on the Rocks, assume 750 not 600 miles that do not really have to be covered, they argue in:
https://tinyurl.com/Willpower-not-Manpower
Deploying Forces
Given the significant degradation in Russian force quality over the course of the last three years of fighting, the initial force deployed could be as few as three combat brigades, or their equivalents. The force may need to grow over time as Russia reconstitutes. This would amount to perhaps 15,000 to 20,000 personnel in country, with another 30,000 to 40,000 required for sustained rotation, for a total of 45,000 to 60,000 troops. A notional force structure would include a divisional headquarters, three maneuver brigades, a logistics brigade, and a fires brigade. Conversely, nations could set up their own national support elements in place of a logistics brigade. …
European leaders may worry what will happen if this force is engaged by Russian strike capabilities. There is a somewhat fraught discussion at present about the need for robust air defenses. Yet the war has shown that dispersal is highly effective, as is entrenchment, and Ukrainian air defense (much of it Western systems) intercepts a significant percentage of Russian strikes. If anything, the experience has illustrated that air and missile defenses are more effective than expected, while a force that is properly dispersed is a very unattractive target for prestige strike systems. A multinational force could manage its footprint in country to make itself a hard target, in much the same way as hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian troops do every day. Indeed, mass casualty events are rare, even relatively close to the front line. If losses take place from skirmishes, or incidents, there’s no reason they would lead to a war with Russia, and in many similar cases have not in the past.
I agree that if any troops it should be UN forces from neutral countries:
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/uk-france-ukraine-meeting/
Secondly, there should be a United Nations peacekeeping force with soldiers drawn from genuinely neutral states from the “Global South.” Russia calls these countries “the Global Majority” and has made reaching out to them a central part of its international strategy. Several are also fellow members of the BRICS group. Indian, Brazilian and South African peacekeepers would not be able to defeat a new Russian invasion (or a Ukrainian resumption of the war) — but Moscow would be deeply unwilling to risk killing them
But we aren’t even halfway there. Thus, the talk is premature. …
Elkern – a “quick end to the damned war” is indeed urgently needed but it won’t be got solely by “drawing new borders”.
The Russian aims also cover “denazification and demilitarisation” of remnant Ukraine, the lifting of sanctions , what would amount to withdrawal of missiles that could be nuclear on or close to their borders and a cessation of manoeuvres on their sea and land borders.
“Denazification” is a vague term and would probably only amount to the removal of memorials to WWII collaborators, cessation of persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church, and the elimination of material glorifying the OUN in the schools. That, demilitarisation and the territorial adjustments, are solely an internal Ukrainian matter and can be imposed on or will be agreed to by the government of remnant Ukraine, whatever that government turns out to be, without reference to European demands.
But it’s not as simple as that any more!!!
The Russians now also want the withdrawal of all sanctions and“a new security architecture” along the lines of the late 2021 draft treaties. Those conditions cannot be dealt with solely by President Trump. They require the assent of the Europeans.
President Trump can work towards the normalisation of diplomatic relations with the RF. Provided he can overcome internal resistance to that normalisation that at least is within his power. He obviously has the determining voice when it comes to the removal of missiles on or close to the Russian border because those are American missiles under his control.
But he cannot lift all sanctions because so far the Europeans do not wish to do so. And although he can ensure his forces stay clear of the Russian border, he cannot ensure that the Europeans do the same with such forces as they can muster or might be able to muster if European rearmament comes to anything.
That is why a workable peace settlement is not in President Trump’s power. He needs the Europeans for that.
What the Europeans and indeed many American politicians fail to understand is that the West cannot win this war for Kiev no matter what help is given. That is the military reality and has been since February 2022 or at the latest since the failure of the sanctions war. There can be no victory here for the West. What the West can do, however, and has hitherto been doing, is to prolong the war by promising help to the Kiev forces that they are unable in practice to deliver.
That keeps the Ukrainian forces fighting. The only result of that fighting is more Ukrainian casualties and further loss of Ukrainian territory. I believe there are significant Russian casualties also, maybe in the order of 100,000 dead by now. This further hardens the Russian resolve. So the more support we give or promise to the Ukrainians, the more they will lose.
The new American administration understands that. The European politicians either don’t understand that reality or cannot acknowledge that reality without losing face. They have no strategy for ending the war, let alone winning it, and are at odds with the Americans because the US wants to cut its losses and move on.
On the contretemps in the Oval Office, President Trump’s peacekeeping plan, linked as it was to a most unsatisfactory deal over minerals and infrastructure, looked foolish at first. It wasn’t even a finished deal in the first place. More a mere declaration of intent.
But it wasn’t as foolish as it looked, not at all. It could have inched Kiev into starting along the road to peace. Its rejection means there is as yet no path to any agreed peace, for neither Kiev nor the Europeans have any other path to peace to suggest nor any intention of taking one.
That minerals and infrastructure agreement had been a Kiev suggestion in the first place. It had been hammered out during some difficult negotiations in Kiev between Zelensky and American representatives. It was understood from the beginning of those negotiations that there was no prospect of American “boots on the ground” or air cover . But all along the Ukrainians and the Europeans hoped to persuade the Americans to change their mind.
That was not going to happen. Kiev, the Europeans, and many in the States are nevertheless still hoping it will. John Bolton was on BBC radio stating how he thought the Europeans should attempt to get the Americans to change their minds – oddly enough, though coincidentally, what the Europeans did was in line with Bolton’s recommendations.
But Bolton, Zelensky and the Europeans were clutching at straws if they thought they could persuade or trick the Americans into a commitment they clearly did not wish to make and a commitment that would not have led to peace in any case. Flattery and a visit to the Palace, which was what Bolton suggested and in the event was the tack Starmer took, was supposed to help to get an American President to go back on an election promise? These people are truly living in fantasy land..
General Keane states that there was a twenty minute meeting, no press present, before the confrontation in the Oval office*. He states that at no time during that twenty minute meeting did Zelensky or his advisors say they were unwilling to accept the deal they had agreed. It was only when the press were present that Zelensky went back on the agreement. Thus losing any trust the Americans might still have had in him.
I’d guess that it was at that stage that the Americans saw Zelensky had no intention of trying for peace – unless on terms in line with his “Victory plan” – and terminated the meeting. Zelensky had done something the Americans will not forget. He had turned up at a press conference that was supposed to be a triumph for the Americans – “Look, we’ve started to get peace!” – and had turned it into a fiasco.
Zelenski then returned to Europe to a hero’s welcome. That I found almost unbelievable. Return to Europe for consultation, fair enough. But such an effusive welcome, and such extreme demonstrations of support for Zelensky when he’d just fallen out with the Americans, that was quite unnecessary and, I believe, deliberately confrontational. It also demonstrated to the Americans that there’s no intention on the part of the Europeans as well to look for peace other than on terms that are patently unrealistic.
Barring military collapse or internal changes in Ukraine or Europe this war will therefore drag on until the final capitulation. And more lives and territory will be lost than need have been. “A quick end to the damned war”, unless those internal changes come about somehow, is therefore unlikely.
Apologies. Forgot. General Keane reference:-
* Four-star general blasts Zelenskyy’s lobbying during Trump meeting: ‘Absolutely misguided’ ”
https://youtu.be/SEFTU8RHIT0?t=151
I think Trump has focused European minds to the point that they know that they have to come up with a credible response. Trump and Putin are trying to put together how the world was a century ago and we know how that ended up. I also think that at least in the Senate, there is dismay that will work itself out in public. But now we have a new day of infamy and Trump owns it,
From information that I have seen for quite some time now, Russia has essentially put itself between a rock and a hard place, militarily and economically and that will eventually manifest itself politically. In today’s world, you cannot control information and that will be their undoing. The fax machine undermined the Soviet Union’s ability to control the narrative and the Internet will do it even more so today. I know I like my VPN and so does many others. It is an indication that they are up against the wall as they now have to rely on Trump and Vance to assist them.
China has about 1700 deployed U.N. blue-helmeted peacekeeping troops. Mostly in Africa. Not sure how good they would do in Ukraine. Chinese peacekeepers reportedly ran away in Sudan during the Battle of Juba.
In Ukraine it’s a 600 mile long front line. Impossible to police. Putin of course would not want to make an enemy of Xi. But it’s damn easy to do a false flag. In the case of any Chinese casualties, Putin’s fallback would be “the Ukronazis did it”. Hard to believe though that Xi would believe Kremlin lies. He’s not so gullible, although he could choose to eat those lies in the interest of keeping the flow to China of Russian crude.
Would Xi twist Little Kim’s arm and get him to stop sending Russia troops and missiles? Doubtful. Beijing has good relations with Tehran, but there’s no way that Khamenei stops sending weapons to Putin.
The best Peace Accord for Ukraine is a powerful military industrial complex with the West investing in Ukrainian military production and technology.
Plus they need a strong and stable front line, based on massive use of artillery; lots more long range SAMs i.e. Patriot; and lots more long range strike weapons i.e. ATACMS & HIMARS. But we know that’s not going to happen.
“I consider it very likely that NATO will have to stick by Ukraine’s side without the US.”
And why wouldn’t the Europeans do exactly that, ‘stick with it’ I mean – they’ve got them Rooskies right where they want ’em – *over a barrel so to speak? AmIright!
https://energyandcleanair.org/publication/eu-imports-of-russian-fossil-fuels-in-third-year-of-invasion-surpass-financial-aid-sent-to-ukraine/
(Well … Somebody’s got somebody over the proverbial barrel anyway.)
“There are no Ru infantry, mech, tank, or artillery units anywhere in the space between NATO and Moscow. There haven’t been any for 18 months.”
Based on what intel, exactly?
“This is the most astonishingly under reported fact in the whole Ukraine War.”
Well, yeah, it would be if it were a “fact”. It is rather less astonishing if that author was confused about the difference between “his conjecture” and “a fact”.
Here is a fact: the Ukrainians are claiming that the Russians have committed 600,000 of its armed forces to the SMO.
Here is a fact: The Pentagon estimates that the Russian armed forces is now 1.3million strong.
When means that some 700,000 members of the Russian armed forces are unaccounted for.
I wonder where they might be?
Between NATO and where those big blue arrows might be pointing, perhaps?
JK –
The map shown is only claiming that Russia has no infantry, mech, tanks or artillery in that area east of the Baltics. Poland and Finland. In other words he’s speaking just of ground troops and not the Russian Armed Forces as a whole. It looks like there ar plenty of other non-ground forces in that area.
And he’s only speaking of those particular 10 or so provinces in that area west of Moscow. He may not know what he is talking about. Although I have seen other sources, some here on this blog I recall, that said Putin had completely stripped out all ground troops from the border with Finland to send them to Ukraine. But googling just now I note there are press reports that Putin said he was going to redeploy troops there due to Finnish accession to NATO. I don’t know if that has happened.
PS – is that 1.3 million figure current?
Yes, the current estimate is 1.32 million on active service.
And, yes, I was comparing apples with apples: the Ukrainians say 600,000 Russian servicemen are committed to the SMO (of which they claim 200,000 are soldiers fighting on the front lines), while the Pentagon says that there are 1,320,000 Russian servicemen in total.
So I am correct that there is some 700,000 servicemen unaccounted for. And if you use the Ukrainian statement as a rough guideline then that would imply somewhere near 220,000 Russian front-line soldiers who are unaccounted for.
I don’t think it is a stretch to assume that they are in that big ol’ empty space in case NATO attempts to go all Blue-Arrow-like on Moscow.
I read that blog post by Benjamin Cook and as I read it I kept hearing a faint echo in the back of my mind of someone espousing a similar view: “We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down”
I’m sure you know who I am referring to. I wonder… whatever happened to him?
Yeah, Right,
The maps show a lot of Russian military units in that area. They’re just not army maneuver units. There are a lot of airfields with aviation and air defense units and logistical hubs, but those would be targets for an improbable land raid. Then there’s the ports at Saint Petersburg and Murmansk. Lot of Russian military in those fleets.
Ukraine also has a million men under arms, but nowhere near that number in front line maneuver units.
YR apparently confuses pilots, mechanics, technicians, radar geeks, missileers, GRU, cooks, bottlewashers, mess-kit-repairmen & sailors with infantry & tank crew.
By the way, NATO has no intention of sending troops to Moscow or anywhere else in Russia. YR knew that already. If Putin attacks NATO that could change. But my bet is it would be massive air and missile attacks and not ground troops. Except perhaps for that area formerly known as Konigsberg or Królewiec or Karaliaučius.
“YR apparently confuses pilots, mechanics, technicians, radar geeks, missileers, GRU, cooks, bottlewashers, mess-kit-repairmen & sailors with infantry & tank crew.”
No, I absolutely do not and do not take kindly to you misrepresenting what I have written
ONCE MORE FOR THE SLOW PEOPLE
The Ukrainians are claiming that the Russians have committed 600,000 servicemen – total – to the SMO, which the Ukrainians say equates to 200,000 front-line troops.
That leave 720,000 Russian servicemen unaccounted for, and the same equation would mean that well over 220,000 front-line soldiers are unaccounted for.
I’M USING UKRAINIANS OWN FORMULA TO COME TO THAT FIGURE.
It is not “confusing” to suggest that those “missing” 220,000 front-line troops are in precisely that area because – fer’ cryin’ out loud – the Russians can read a map.
There are none so blind….
Yeah, Right,
That’s not a Ukrainian formula. That’s a flawed extrapolation on your part. Russia is at war. Her combat forces are not distributed evenly across her entire territory. If they had that many reserve combat formations, they wouldn’t need North Korean troops and they would have totally reduced the Kursk salient by now.
TTG,
And “needing” North Korean troops is flawed extrapolation on your part. There are other reasons North Korean troops might be there. One is simply that the NORKs wanted some to obtain experience on the modern battlefield and the Russians saw providing that opportunity as serving dual purposes, like some kind of thinly veiled threat of a NORK invasion of South Korea, with Russia’s blessing, being in the works.
Who knows? but your certainty that Russia needed them is unsupported except by the voices in your echo chamber.
Eric, TTG is indulging in war-by-wish-fulfilment.
It is a fact that if the Ukrainians are correct that there are 600,000 Russian servicemen committed to the SMO then that means more than half of all of Russia’s military AREN’T there.
They gotta be somewhere else, obviously.
So where are they, and what are they?
TTG is attempting to argue that the 200,000 Russian frontline troops that are in that 600,000 strong commitment are the vast bulk of Russia’s front line fighting force.
Which must necessarily mean that out of an Armed Force of 1, 320,000 men only 200,000 of them are fit to fight.
Preposterous.
It also requires us to accept the notion that the Kremlin will shovel all 200,000 fighting men that they have into the SMO, even though they are perfectly capable of looking at a map and musing about “well, if NATO drives a big blue arrow through there then we’re foooooooked”.
Which is preposterous. Macron and Starmer are acting irrationally. The Baltic states are barking-mad. Mark Rutte is a Dutch rent-boy who will agree to anything.
There is NO WAY ON EARTH that the Russians are going to leave that area wide-open for NATO to march in.
If the Kremlin is stupid enough to do that then Putin may as well unzip his fly now, drop his pants, and bend over. And he would deserve it.
There are 650,000 Russian servicemen unaccounted for. It is a *certainty* that they are in that gap because – let’s face it – that’s the obvious place to put them.
And they aren’t going to be cooks. They aren’t going to be logistics personnel. They aren’t going to be payroll officers or latrine cleaners. They aren’t going to be men in uniform who can’t fight their way out of a paper bag.
They are going to be fighting men, because otherwise the Kremlin is staffed with stupid people, and the Kremlin is not staffed with stupid people.
TTG thinks otherwise, because he *wants* the Kremlin to be stupid. He *wants* that area to be undefended. And so he is convinced that this is the case.
War-by-wish-fulfilment.
Yeah, Right,
“There is NO WAY ON EARTH that the Russians are going to leave that area wide-open for NATO to march in.”
Isn’t that exactly what the Russians did along the border allowing the Ukrainians to launch their Kursk incursion? That was stupid. They’ve also removed most of their combat units from Kaliningrad to reinforce their forces in Ukraine. They removed specially trained and equipped arctic brigades from the north to do the same. It’s a calculated risk to remove maneuver battalions from borders of the Baltics and Finland. Leaving a border area facing Ukraine practically devoid of forces was a stupid risk.
Those 1,320,000 men in the Russian Armed Forces include the Navy, the Aerospace Forces and the Strategic Rocket Forces. There are also the railway, pipeline and road brigades of their logistic forces. There are also the armies still located in the Eastern and Central military districts.
TTG: “There are also the armies still located in the Eastern and Central military districts.”
I want to examine that statement in detail, because it is a poster-child for the confirmation-bias that is so rife in this place.
Here, let me spell it out:
It is January 2022 in the Kremlin, and the Generals are examining the maps.
They got forces up along the border with Ukraine to spook Zelensky against attacking Donbass. Check.
They got forces in the area north of Ukraine to deter NATO from threatening Russia. Check.
They got armies in “central and east asia” to do, well, what, exactly? Whatever. Check.
They look, and they think “I could always use more soldiers but, yeah, that looks about right”.
Roll forward to February 2022 and Putin gives the “Go! Go! Go!” order. The SMO troops lunge into Ukraine, much smaller than the Ukrainian army but moving very fast.
Putin is clearly attempting to spook Zelensky into capitulating quickly.
The forces north of the SMO? They stay still
The eastern forces? They stay still.
All the action is in the SMO and… it very nearly works: the Ukrainians pencil an agreement in Istanbul, and it’s all over bar Z’s signature on the deal.
And then in waddles Bonkers Boris, and he tells Zelensky to fight to the death.
The Russians are now in a pickle: their SMO forces are much smaller than the Ukrainian forces, and the Ukes are now getting endless supplies of weapons from the West.
Time to reinforce, and fast.
There are a couple of options for doing that.
Option (1): Send the troops that are up north down to reinforce the troops in the SMO, and also send the eastern forces to the west to take their place.
There’s sense in that: the SMO is reinforced, NATO is still facing troops, and there’s finally a useful task for those (now-ex) eastern soldiers.
The disadvantage: everything is put in motion, and so it is a move that is vulnerable to NATO disruption i.e. if NATO starts rattling its sabre mid-move then the Kremlin is thrown into turmoil.
Option (2) The troops to the north stay where they are, and the SMO is reinforced with troops from the east.
That solves the problem with Option (1), but it brings with it the disadvantage that it will take more time and the risk is that the Ukrainians will overrun the SMO troops before those guys can arrive.
Option (3) Denude the forces that are facing NATO to reinforce the troops in the SMO, and then DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING with the troops in the east. They stay where they are.
That’s the “TTG Plan”, and it is completely bonkers.
Why do that? Why leave yourself wide-open when you don’t have to?
When, indeed, you could go with Option (1) or (2) instead, either of which is more sensible that this irresponsible move.
Nah. I’d choose Option (2) and tell the SMO commanders that if they come under threat then withdraw to shorter lines rather than attempt to hold your ground.
Now, I hear voices down the back. They are shouting “Do you have any evidence to back this up?”
Thanks for asking. Yes. Yes, I do.
Circumstantial evidence, sure, but evidence nonetheless.
Exhibit (A): During the First Great Kharkov Offensive the Russian troops in the SMO did not attempt to hold their lines. They did not attempt to cling onto captured territory until reinforcements arrived.
They made a fighting withdrawal instead, because they knew that those reinforcements are coming from a long, long way away. From the east.
Exhibit (B): During the Second Great Ukrainian Offensive the Russians did exactly the opposite: they stood their ground and destroyed the Ukrainians.
Why? Because all those reinforcements from the east had arrived.
Exhibit (C) I don’t know why I have to point this out, but I have three words for TTG “North Korean Soldiers”.
Those aren’t North Koreans at all. They are those central and east asian Russian troops that *you* insist are just sitting around in the tundra and twiddling their thumbs.
I mean, good grief, think about it: if the Russians are sooooooo desperate that they need “North Korean troops” then why on earth would Kremlin be leaving “armies still located in the Eastern and Central military districts”?
WTF?
TTG. Everyone. I am right on this: the Russians have committed 200,000 combat troops to the SMO. That still leaves them with more than 200,000 combat troops to put somewhere else.
(400,000 combat troops in an army of 1.3million is perfectly compatible with the US military, which has 450,000 combat troops in a military that is 1.9million strong)
Q: So where are those “other” 200,000 combat troops?
A: Facing off against NATO in the north of the SMO.
Q: Why do you think that?
A: BECAUSE THAT’S WHERE ANYONE WITH A FUNCTIONING BRAIN WOULD PUT THEM.
Yeah, Right,
Before the invasion, the Russian Army had several VDV and Spetsnaz brigades station in and around Pskov. They were more than enough to blunt any hypothetical invasion attempt from the Baltics. All those units are know engaged in Ukraine. Further north facing still neutral at the time Finland is the 6th Combined Arms Army. Its maneuver brigades were also sent to Ukraine. One, the 25th Brigade was destroyed and withdrawn to Belarus to be rebuilt. Even further north is the 14th Army Corps at Murmansk. Its arctic motorized rifle brigades also ended up in Ukraine. That accounts for all maneuver formations north of Belarus between the Latvian, Estonian and Finnish borders and Moscow.
The maneuver brigades of the 41st combined arms army at Novosibirsk were sent to Ukraine at the very beginning of the invasion. I haven’t looked at what happened to the maneuver brigades further east of Novosibirsk. But it looks like Moscow went for option (4). Three years of war have brought damned near all or maybe all maneuver brigades to the party in Ukraine. There are still plenty of Russian military personnel in the area between Estonia and Moscow as shown on the map that started this back and forth. There are Aerospace Forces, Strategic Rocket Forces, air defense and a butt load of logistics troops. I sure there is also at least a skeleton force of border troops along that border, as well.
Oh yes. There’s also a battalion of infantry left in Kaliningrad.
Sorry all, typo in my previous post.
I wrote: ” the US military, which has 450,000 combat troops in a military that is 1.9million strong”
It should actually be “that is 1.3million strong”
YR,
You may very well be correct. However, I think the whole argument is academic and, practically speaking, irrelevant. If NATO invaded Russia in a sector that is insufficiently defended, Russia would probably just blast the NATO troops with tactical nuclear weapons, or maybe even the really big ones.
And it’s not like NATO could even begin to stage an invasion without Russia seeing it happen, with ample time, like many months – more realistically, much more than a year – to prepare. NATO would have to call up troops and train them. Russia would do the same during the same time period. NATO would have to produce ordnance, etc. prior to the invasion. Russia would do the same. Russia would cut off energy sales to Europe to slow (or halt) NATO’s efforts.
And what would the objective of the invasion be? To march through the streets of Moscow and burn down the Kremlin, hang Putin, capture the energy production? How has that ever worked out for the crazy ass Euros who tried?
The whole thing is about as loser moronic as loser moronic gets. It’s like some pimple faced kid, in his mom’s basement, masturbating to anime or “fans only” and imagining that he is having a real intimate relationship with a real woman.
Only slightly less so is the notion that NATO, less the US, can continue the war in Ukraine. Dependent on Russian energy. Decayed manufacturing. Effete welfare taxed society of soy boy takers + disinterested/disloyal muslims.
Again, what is the end game? Keep the propaganda going that Russia is juuuuuust about beaten and, any day now, will withdraw all troops to pre 2/2022 borders, IF – ONLY IF – more money is poured into wherever money goes when passed to Ukraine. Yeah sure, and that anime girlfriend is real.
The truth of the matter is the Krusk offensive was planned by UK(NATO?) and executed by elite Ukranian troops. What happened? They were decimated and owly ground down. Now the Baltic States want to take a ride to Moscow say with 30,000 troops and these are the states with hardly any military industry. It seems to me that some of the commentators are writing comedy scripts, unfortunately it is serious business. Thanks
Muralidhar Rao,
NATO was surprised by the Kursk offensive and even displeased by the move. Russia has not yet been able to dislodge the Ukrainians from Russian soil. I do agree that a Baltic offensive into russia is a complete fantasy.
TTG,
Surprised? Because that is what they publicly said? How do you – or we – know what really happened? I mean you’re retired, aren’t you?
From Benjamin Cook’s own blog: “For the past 13 years I have visited, lived in, and worked in Ukraine. Currently I am the Executive Director and Co-Founder of the Ukraine Assistance Organization.”
That means he came over to Ukraine in 2011 i.e. three years before the culmination of the CIA-orchestrated coup against Yanukovych.
Not at all suspicious, that….
” such a NATO move would trigger a …”
A declaration of war. That’ s what it would trigger. Which dumb SOB is trotting this out, other than to point to the flip side you point to: Zero RF troops potentially going the other way. Zero risk of Russia marching West anywhere.
The EU idiots want the US to keep footing the bills that keep their social welfare state afloat. They are broke, going broker faster, and are as desperate as fat Sam Bankman-Fried before he got imprisoned. All the recipients of Sam’s graft though, still free. For now.
Filed under humor/satire or delusions/mental illness? Europe doesn’t have the men,ordnance or equipment to fight Russia – or the guts, without the US. Their attempts to suck the the US into WW3 have failed. Europe will have to stick with self destruction via Green policies, welfare state and Muslim invasion. The best thing that could happen to them is the paranoid fantasy of Russia marching to the western shores of the UK miraculously actually occurs.
Western Europe has been addicted to US NATO contributions for a long time. Unfortunately for them, the addiction is ending. There are many ways to end it but the one the US population wants is the cold turkey method. Short term, by far the worst approach. Long term, it’s their best shot at a successful de-tox.
Babel –
Europe’s NATO defense spending is huge, perhaps seven or eight times higher than US spending to defend Europe. Trump confuses our total defense spending all as contributions to NATO. That’s BS. Only a tiny portion of US defense spending goes towards defending Europe’s security.
leith, you are contradicting yourself.
The European member states don’t pour their defense budgets into a big pool and allow Brussels to spend it on their behalf.
They spend that money on themselves, same as they ever did, and the added complication of NATO is that it is both
(a) a treaty wherein they all agree to aid each other in mutual defense while also being
(b) a Brussels-based bureaucracy that decides on standards of interoperability, etc., and an overarching command structure to coordinate that interoperability and decide on issues of grand strategy.
Compared to (say) the military budget of France or the UK the spending that actually occurs in Brussels is tiny.
“Trump confuses our total defense spending all as contributions to NATO.”
Yet you are equally confused.
You equate all of (e.g.) Germany’s military budget as being “NATO Defense spending” when it is not.
The NATO Charter Article 5 is quite clear on that matter: all member states (the USA and the Europeans alike) are to regard an armed attack on one as an armed attack on all, but their individual obligation is to provide “such action as it deems necessary”, of which the use of their own armed forces is but one possibility.
Apples need to be compared to Apples, and so if *you* are to take the entirety of the military spending of all European member states then *Trump* is equally entitled to take the entire US military budget as an equivalent point of comparison.
After all, Starmer and Macron are always going to be able to put their entire respective armed forces out of NATO control if they wish, or put it all at NATO’s disposal, as they see fit.
The. Choice. Is. Theirs. And. Theirs. Alone.
That same choice is available to the Commander in Chief in the White House, so he is entirely correct to claim that the USA’s entire defense spending is able to be compared to the entire defense spending of any – or all – European NATO member state(s).
I looked it up but believe what you choose. A lot of that going on around here. If you believe they have super strong militaries you are free to do so. If you believe their staunch brand of socialism is fully self funded believe that as well.
All I know is there is a new era rising in America. It will not be participating in euro nonsense anymore I do know that much. The youth isn’t going to put up with it.
leith
How much is the defense spending if one or more of the European NATO countries draws the US into WW3 ?
Trump correctly assesed that those bunch of retards are a liabilty the US can do without.
Old Town et al –
Those retards as you call them all joined the US Coalition against al-Qaeda after 9/11. They suffered 1200 KIA. Several (UK, Estonia & Denmark) had casualty figures proportional to US casualties based on deaths per million of their population.
Leith,
Irrelevant point made by you.
It was in their interest to join the fight against jihadis because the jihadis were – and did/are – gunning for Europe too.
It is not in the US’ interest to defend Ukraine. Russia is not going to attack the US, not is it going to attack NATO countries.
Eric Newhill –
In 80 years of NATO, the only time Article 5 was ever used was when America asked for it after 9/11.
Leith,
You don’t think a bunch of diplomats sat down and discussed using art 5 and the response to it before art 5 was mutually decided that it would actually be invoked? Like I said, it was in everyone’s interest.
Eric Newhill –
Actually it took only a single day. NATO invoked Article 5 on 9/12 just 24 hours later, unanimously.
Were they worried about their own safety? Of course they were.
But they put their own cities in more danger by invoking Article 5. Al Qaeda responded by attacks in Sweden, the UK, Paris, Madrid and thwarted attacks in Italy & Germany.
Leith
So they follow the US around attacking other countries. Many of them attacked Serbia and decided that a big chunck of that country is no longer Serbia.
They attacked Iraq. I believe even Ukraine sent troops there, to a country that never threatened it.
But that doesnt make them retards, just aggressors.
They are retards because they allowed themselves to become vassals and do not act in the best interest of their peoples.
Oldtown –
Are you from Old Town in Chicago? I knew some Serb-Americans from there and from the South Side over 60 years ago. My first wife was born just outside of Belgrade. Her mother fled with her when she was two years old and when the Ustashe, the Reds, and the Nazis were raising hell there.
Those countries that you call vassals went into Afghanistan along with us did so because of NATO’s Article 5 after America was attacked by Al Qaeda. But IMHO we and everyone else should have left Afghanistan long ago in May 2011 after Osama was taken out.
We never should have gone into Iraq. But dumb-arse Junior Bush got his head shaped by Cheney, Rumsfeld and other neocons. But yes, Ukraine was asked to support US troops in Iraq, and they lost 18 KIA there. And they went into Iraq along with 47 other countries. But NATO did not participate as I recall.
Oldtown –
PS – Ukraine also served in Afghanistan. Primarily medical personnel supporting Provincial Reconstruction Teams and some training cadre. They also allowed use of Ukrainian airspace and airbases to the US for cargo flights into Bagram and other Afghan airfields.
A unit of Russia’s GRU was also there in Afghanistan during that time. But they were there to pay bounty to terrorists to kill Americans.
If this is Russia at it’s most fragile what is the status of European NATO members like. My guess is they are worse off.
The UK is a joke. Denmark or Sweden can kick the UK army around. Germany sucks as bad.
https://archive.vn/qsHKn
“The Royal Armoured Corps has not been able to deploy a realistic Challenger 2 regiment of 59 tanks for many years. Lack of available Challenger 2s has meant that the army’s ambition for MBTs has been at the 20-25 level, at the very best.
When Denmark and Sweden have more credible tank forces than the United Kingdom, you know there’s an issue”
and
“I sat next to a lieutenant colonel who was taking over an AS90 regiment: “I have 24 guns in the shed, no tracks, no engines. I will have to do a lot of work to stop morale falling”. That was over 5-years ago, and, again, the issues of no spares and defunct supply chains have not made this situation any better.
At least 32 AS90 have been gifted to Ukraine – an entirely sensible move. But this has left the army with little to no artillery. An interim batch of 14 Swedish Archer 155mm guns has been bought – but this is an incredibly limited number.”
Maybe the Brits can rent some artillery pieces from the South Koreans.
After all, if Joe Biden can “rent” howitzer shells from the South Koreans then anything is possible…..
(BTW, is it just me or is South Korea the only “western” (hahahah) country that still makes new tanks and new self-propelled artillery on an industrial scale?)
Yeah, Right,
South Korea can produce new tanks and howitzers faster than the US. That’s why Poland has contracted to buy 1,000 K2 Black Panther tanks and over 150 K9 155 self-propelled howitzers. Most of the tanks will be built in a Polish factory.
TTG, South Korea can produce new main battle tanks *infinitely* faster than the USA because while they have an assembly line for making K2 tanks, the USA stopped making new Abrams tanks decades ago.
Every “new” Abrams is a reconditioned older model. They are not “new” at all. The USA lost that particular skill a long time ago.
“Most of the tanks will be built in a Polish factory.”
And pigs will fly.
Arms manufacturing in Europe is just an excuse to create slush funds that the European elites can then plunder.
They never produce the weapons in the numbers promised, and in many cases don’t produce any weapons at all.
But, gosh, the sums of money are astronomical, and nobody ever seems to keep track of where it goes.
TTG,
Sure SoKo will give the Euros all their good stuff so they can be defenseless against NoKo.
Something tells me the South Koreans aren’t as stupid as the Euros. Just in case NATO/US neocon mental illness is contagious, Trump should tell SoKo that if they deplete their ability to defend themselves such that NoKo is encouraged to attack, they’re on their own.
Last year Europe spent $457B on their military , while Russia spent $146B. Europe has about 2 million in uniform, while Russia has 1.3 million and Ukraine 1 million. What Europe lacks is a central command and control, but there are efforts to remedy that. What is not talked about a lot is how much profit US companies are making in Europe and how much of that they will lose, in addition to the current weakening of the US economy. As both the stock market and the bond market have shown lately, some people are waking up to the reality of Trump’s incompetence.
Eric Prince confirms Cavoli’s judgement that the Russian army is stronger now than it was:-
https://x.com/clashreport/status/1894632310206533681
Taken from (penultimate video):-
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/sitrep-22625-putin-plays-peacemaker
While all this is happening the European politicians and press remain blind to the reality of this war. “The US is now the enemy of the west,” was a headline in the English Financial Times a few days ago. “Washington has decided to abandon both Ukraine and its postwar role in the world.”
Such nonsense from the English equivalent of your own neocon ghouls in the States. Look at the video just above the one linked to. You’ll see soldiers still getting on with their job in circumstances in which a whole lot of armies would simply collapse. As in the Summer Offensive, as in Krynky, is it right to insist on throwing away the lives of men like that in a cause long since lost?
Might have said that before, Lars. Well, since 2022. But how much longer must the ghouls, for what are now little more that reasons of saving face, keep feeding men into the killing fields?
If you believe in the benevolence of Putin, then it does not make sense to keep fighting, as Benedict Donald does, but reality will tell us something different. Russia is mainly getting some help from North Korea, of dubious quality, but Ukraine is getting much better assistance and Russia is using up both material and people in alarming ways. Putin needs the fighting to stop more than anyone, since the cost is getting overwhelming and as they helped Trump in the 1980’s, he is trying to do the same now. Any ceasefire would not last long and unless everybody, including Europe is in on it, there will not be any peace. Of course, if Russia stops and retreats, the problem is over, but we know that is not going to happen, since Putin may not survive that for long. He would not be able to stay away from windows for ever.
Looks like everyone missed the protests in Romania over voiding the election. Oh, and the construction of the size of the NATO airbase to make it the largest in Europe to serve as a staging point for “retaking” Crimea.
Anyone concerned over WW3 or just enjoying the 3 card monte minerals ‘deal’?
Lars – one thing I noticed about that piece. That guess of some 100,000 Russian dead. I’d thought it had had to have gone up steeply because the move to aggressive attrition over such a wide front must result in heavier casualties. Simplicius, who watches all this much more closely of course and with access to very many more sources, confirms as far as it is possible to confirm.
They get their lightly wounded back in action quickly but the maimed stay maimed. Add in those with PTSD and the cost to the Russians is enormous. More so for the Ukrainians. Several million families are now finding their lives changed for ever as a result of this war.
We disagree both on the causes and the outcome of this war and I know you don’t like Trump. But however remote the chances of his intervention doing anything useful, he is at least attempting to prevent more casualties.
It’s come out that we ourselves were micro-managing this war, often suggesting offensives that the Ukrainians themselves thought unwise. Worse, some of the more suicidal offensives, such as Kursk, were undertaken solely for PR purposes. There was never any military justification for how we ran this war and there is none now. As said above and often before, the Ukrainian regulars are good soldiers and they’ll keep battering their heads against a brick wall for as long as they’re told to. Time we and our accomplices in Kiev stopped telling them to.
EO,
Putin’s Army is sending its wounded soldiers into assaults on crutches. I can see putting them into a defense out of desperation, but to choose to send into an assault is callous beyond belief. Why do they “keep battering their heads against a brick wall for as long as they’re told to” in a war of choice.
TTG,
Are they on crutches because their own officers shot them for fun while drinking gallons of vodka? Being drunk, I supposed the Os missed center of mass and only hit the Es in the legs. Or maybe that is also because Russian weapons are so badly made and weapons training so minimal that they couldn’t shoot straight even if the barrels weren’t manufactured bent in the worn out machinery of Russian factories, totally rundown due to the awesome sanctions. Or maybe it is part of Russian warped psychology that the Os find it amusing to shoot their Es in the legs and then watch them assault enemy positions on crutches. Ivan is so psychopathic and backwards!
These fantasies of yours are reverting to risible levels – out of desperation I presume.
Eric Newhill,
There are multiple videos of Russians assaulting on crutches… and usually succumbing to Ukrainian drones. the russians are even filming their own walking wounded assault units.
TTG,
“usually succumbing to Ukrainian drones.”
Why are they killing men on crutches?
Fred,
They were armed and taking part in combat. They were legitimate targets. What’s more concerning are the videos of drone attacks on already wounded soldiers, unarmed and no longer capable of combat. That’s killing the wounded. I’ve also seen drone videos of attacks on stretcher parties removing wounded from the battlefield. That’s most likely a war crime.
and usually succumbing to Ukrainian drones. the russians are even filming their own walking wounded assault units.
Explain? TTG, war is war?
Can I assume a huge amount of gleed in some quarters watching this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSPM2ucktDg&rco=1
Oh, they are sent on their final mission to localize enemy troops? With the Ukrainians helping them out to get rid of those men?
Above video shows, supposedly: Russian forces deploy wounded soldiers on crutches to locate Ukrainian positions????!!????
https://tinyurl.com/Sent-on-Final-misson
LeaNder,
The Russian videos are of squads and platoons preparing for assaults, each with several walking wounded among the advancing troops. There are pre-combat videos.
TTG,
Oh Ok, yeah I’ve seen the videos.
Brought to us by the studio that made ‘The Ghost of Kiev’ famous.
Also, you make it seem as though the videos show a whole battalion of limping/crippled troops attacking Ukrainian positions. Rather, it is one or two guys here or there. Assuming (risky) for a moment that the videos are depicting something real, are the soldiers headed toward or away from the front? What is the context?
But sure, by all means, have fun and extrapolate from a couple unclear videos of unknown provenance that the Russians are so desperate as to send crippled soldiers on crutches into combat.
Eric Newhill,
It’s Russian accounts that describe “crutch battalions” being organized. Russian war bloggers are the ones making these complaints. I bet those include exaggerations. I doubt whole battalions are on crutches, but Russian videos show platoons and squads moving to the front with several soldiers on crutches and canes.
TTG,
Russian war bloggers? What Russian war bloggers?
Bloggers never report nonsense?
Amazing what USAID can buy; transvestite operas, European media, “Russian” bloggers.
But why stop at a few men on crutches when you can have battalions of them?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmsO_f9Y5bw
IMO, the Ukrainians killed a few Russian walking wounded who were headed from the front to a battalion aid station, but if you want to try to convince everyone that they were headed at a Ukrainian position, have fun. The war should be over any day now with a huge Ukrainian victory. Clearly Russia had reached some new low of a culmination point. Just a few $billion more!
Sometimes I worry that actually might believe this stuff.
TTG,
How does a drone take prisoners? How do you track who runs which drone at which time?
You are talking about moral corruption writ large. We shouldn’t be supporting such people.
Fred,
There have been a few instances of Ukrainian drones guiding surrendering Russian soldiers to Ukrainian lines.
TTG,
So most of them just get killed by the operator kilometers away.
Moral corruption writ large. They should have made peace long ago. Spare me the Russia can leave any day line, they obviously won’t.
What I mostly learned on SST/Turcopolier is about the psychology of the Jesuits.
It’s over folks. There are however several breeds off military fantasists who have yet to discover this fact.
1. Forgetful liberal academics who don’t remember the multiple Russian attempts to negotiate lasting security agreements that were rejected by the West. For some reason they expect Russia to engage with them.
2. Deep staters who expect that the Russians would be naive enough to believe that we would be as good as our word and stick to any agreement made.
3. Military fantasists who believe that there is enough life left in the Ukraine military to remove the Russians.
4. Idiots who think that Europe has a miliary capable of stopping the Russians without American support.
5. Idiots who think that Ukraine is a sovereign country which deserves to exist instead of being a twentieth century construct. These people forget that there are some sixty identified tribes in Europe, most of whom hate each other. For example Scots, English, Welsh, Irish, Flemings, Waloons, Bavarians, Sicilians, Prussiians, Rurhenians, etc. etc.
In my opinion, Putin is going to the Dnieper or where the Russian population resides. He will not stop as all eviddence is that he would be wrong to trust a word we say and who could blame him?
Ukraine is going to be made into a terrible n example of a nation that embarked on a war of choice with outside encouragement.
Scot Ritter, Geoffrey Sachs, Mearsheimer and similar are the ones to follow.
Walrus,
Yugoslavia was broken up along ethnic lines. Same thing is going to happen here. The butchery need not have happened. Elites should, but probably won’t, be held to account.
Walrus, good to hear from you!
You, like many of us, are getting up there in years, and I wondered how you have been.
(P.S. Does anyone know what happened to F&L? I miss him.)
As to Geoffrey Sachs, this seems a good retrospective on how we got into this Ukraine situation:
https://youtu.be/J9x5E0ETyv8
Going way back to what the U.S. promised the Soviets regarding NATO, here is a look back:
https://kwharbaugh.blogspot.com/2025/03/why-russia-justifiably-cannot-trust.html