First of all thank you for the time and effort that went into writing this in-depth analysis. I have to give you credit this was the most in depth analysis I've read since the start of the Ukrainian conflict, I'm also glad I came across your article because I've just joined substack. In your article you refer to what I think is the most unexpected flaw in the western strategy going into Ukraine, and that's the economy and specifically the back firing of the sanctions seeing as to how the eu economy is going increasing inflation and a grinding down of industry. My question to you, going forward how realistic do you think we will see an increase in domestic unrest in the eu to the point the grip of Brussels crumbles? Would this change the trajectory of this conflict or the west led by the United States will continue regardless. And finally if I can squeeze one last question to you, when do you think this conflict ends? Thank you.
Thank you for this very thorough article as another commenter said. It is good to see that there are still people who think seriously, against the current of media propaganda.
As I read through your analysis you have mentioned a couple of times that the west expected Russia to win quickly. As an example:
"Before the beginning of the war, through Russian deception, the West thought, Russia will use all its military might and end Ukraine within days/weeks."
My question is, what did the west have to gain from this such that they would have Ukraine fight Russia?
That's a very good question that you've brought up here 😊
The answer is as follows: If Russia had overrun Ukraine within a few days or weeks, the next phase would have started: insurgent warfare against the Russian troops. All the hardcore nationalists, as well as the well-trained Ukrainian special forces and insurgency experts, would still be alive to fight Russia within Ukraine on all possible fronts - militarily, culturally, economically, everything.
We can now be pretty sure that all of these people are... worn down.
Remember the stated goals of the Special Military Operation. This can be explained, to some degree, in this way. (This is not my opinion or wish, but an analysis of the situation).
Why is Russia not using thermobaric weapons to some greater degree? Would thermobaric weapons not help solving the problem of Ukrainian troops occupying fortified positions? It is well-known that Russia has tracked "flame thrower" systems, really launchers of thermobaric rockets, that can clear several football field's worth of area with one salvo. Their range is pretty short, though, only a few kilometers, so is that where the problem lies, because they get too exposed when brought up so close to the front line? I understand there might be concerns about civilians when using these weapons, but there must be times and places where thermobaric weapons could be used without any concerns for civilians, like when attacking trench lines in open terrain. Then there should also be smaller thermobaric weapons that could be used in urban fighting. Why try storming some building when it can be cleared out by firing a thermobaric grenade into it? Does Russia have such handheld thermobaric weapons? At some point, it was reported that the Americans do. Of course, if that is true, it can be asked why the Ukrainians haven't got them. This is not a wunderwaffen question, I am just trying to understand.
Concerning popular western support for the war, it is -imo- imaginary. Most people are simply not interested. Sure there a few that still want to "beat Russia" because of... well. cold war?
But most younger people don't care at all either way. For them the war is something you read about in the paper... euh, no they don't read papers anymore. Ok something they see on TV... euh, nope, they don't watch TV anymore. If you were to ask a young guy on the street if he were willen to bicycle to work to support the war in the Ukraine, he would look very strange at you and then declare that you must be stupid, and then step into his car.
First of all thank you for the time and effort that went into writing this in-depth analysis. I have to give you credit this was the most in depth analysis I've read since the start of the Ukrainian conflict, I'm also glad I came across your article because I've just joined substack. In your article you refer to what I think is the most unexpected flaw in the western strategy going into Ukraine, and that's the economy and specifically the back firing of the sanctions seeing as to how the eu economy is going increasing inflation and a grinding down of industry. My question to you, going forward how realistic do you think we will see an increase in domestic unrest in the eu to the point the grip of Brussels crumbles? Would this change the trajectory of this conflict or the west led by the United States will continue regardless. And finally if I can squeeze one last question to you, when do you think this conflict ends? Thank you.
Hi Ahmed.
Thanks, for the great feedback.
I would like to ask you, to read all my other articles. They should fully answer your questions.
If you then still have questions, then ask again and it would be a pleasure to answer them, then.
Aleks
Thank you for this very thorough article as another commenter said. It is good to see that there are still people who think seriously, against the current of media propaganda.
Will do Aleks :) thank you very much will definitely comment after reading all the articles
No comments. Just admiration for your analysis.
Thanks🤝
As I read through your analysis you have mentioned a couple of times that the west expected Russia to win quickly. As an example:
"Before the beginning of the war, through Russian deception, the West thought, Russia will use all its military might and end Ukraine within days/weeks."
My question is, what did the west have to gain from this such that they would have Ukraine fight Russia?
That's a very good question that you've brought up here 😊
The answer is as follows: If Russia had overrun Ukraine within a few days or weeks, the next phase would have started: insurgent warfare against the Russian troops. All the hardcore nationalists, as well as the well-trained Ukrainian special forces and insurgency experts, would still be alive to fight Russia within Ukraine on all possible fronts - militarily, culturally, economically, everything.
We can now be pretty sure that all of these people are... worn down.
Remember the stated goals of the Special Military Operation. This can be explained, to some degree, in this way. (This is not my opinion or wish, but an analysis of the situation).
Why is Russia not using thermobaric weapons to some greater degree? Would thermobaric weapons not help solving the problem of Ukrainian troops occupying fortified positions? It is well-known that Russia has tracked "flame thrower" systems, really launchers of thermobaric rockets, that can clear several football field's worth of area with one salvo. Their range is pretty short, though, only a few kilometers, so is that where the problem lies, because they get too exposed when brought up so close to the front line? I understand there might be concerns about civilians when using these weapons, but there must be times and places where thermobaric weapons could be used without any concerns for civilians, like when attacking trench lines in open terrain. Then there should also be smaller thermobaric weapons that could be used in urban fighting. Why try storming some building when it can be cleared out by firing a thermobaric grenade into it? Does Russia have such handheld thermobaric weapons? At some point, it was reported that the Americans do. Of course, if that is true, it can be asked why the Ukrainians haven't got them. This is not a wunderwaffen question, I am just trying to understand.
Hi:)
The thermobaric weapons are exactly in use, as you described it :-)
So, don't worry.
Both, the big tracked TOS launchers and the men held RPO Shmel for the infantry assault detachments.
An interesting reading. You just got yourself a new subscriber :)
Long but worth while, thank you.
Concerning popular western support for the war, it is -imo- imaginary. Most people are simply not interested. Sure there a few that still want to "beat Russia" because of... well. cold war?
But most younger people don't care at all either way. For them the war is something you read about in the paper... euh, no they don't read papers anymore. Ok something they see on TV... euh, nope, they don't watch TV anymore. If you were to ask a young guy on the street if he were willen to bicycle to work to support the war in the Ukraine, he would look very strange at you and then declare that you must be stupid, and then step into his car.