Finally...

 

somebody is making a lil sense finally.

The West must stop ‘shooting behind the duck’ and provide Ukraine the weapons it needs

"Retired Capt. Garrett I. Campbell (writer of the piece) directed the U.S Navy’s Staff OPNAV N5 Russia Strategy, Policy, and Engagement Branch, and served as a federal executive fellow at the Brookings Institution."

"Eight months into Russia’s invasion, Vladimir Putin remains committed to the territorial conquest and destruction of Ukraine. Ukrainians have had successes, such as the recent counteroffensive around Kharkiv and now Russia’s ordered pullout from Kherson. Still, the future is uncertain, with winter approaching and the outcome of Putin’s mobilization in play. The West must stop “shooting behind the duck” regarding its military aid to Ukraine."

(It's not about Ukraine, its territorial conquest or its destruction, it's about NATO, the EU and the "collective west" and their destruction. "Winter approaching", everybody seems to think the next Russian offensive will be in the spring, I think it will be in the middle of the winter, just because everybody seems to think it will be in the spring, if you can follow that bouncing ball.)

"Ukraine has shown it can defeat Russian forces and deter future Russian aggression, but it requires Western leaders to recognize what Russia is doing militarily and what is needed to defeat it. It’s time for the West to send a strong message to Putin and his generals that come spring, their military will meet a worse fate if they renew the offensive."

(We've always been behind the 8 ball w this conflict, "requires Western leaders to recognize what Russia is doing militarily" we were slow to do that and have been playing catch up ever since. Theres another article w Fionna Hill that Ive been meaning to do a piece on, that was published when hostilities first broke out that where she says largely the same thing. It's a war against NATO, EU the West etc, sending food and energy shocks through the world and us being slow to recognize that has put us behind. were playing somebody elses game folks and this isnt Iraq or Afganistan. "A strong message to Putin and his generals that come spring"...What if it's not spring but say, Dec 24th? 25th? 31st? Jan 1st? Then where is our strong message to him and his generals?)

"Russia’s strategic approach to the war is neither haphazard nor representative of a military power grasping at straws. Russia is pursuing a war-of-attrition strategy meant to slowly wear down the Ukrainian military while relentlessly destroying civilian infrastructure. Putin is playing the long game and, predictably, has fallen back on traditional Russian military strategy and doctrine."

(Well glory hallelujah, somebody finally said it. Whose that sound like? Who has been saying that since day 3 or 4?)

"After its defeat in the initial phase of the war and the battle for Kyiv, Russia shifted its military strategy to seizing the Donbas. The shift represented a definitive return to Russia’s traditional doctrinal approach of attrition warfare. It quickly became evident that Ukraine needed weapons to offset Russian firepower advantages, more than simply Javelins and Stingers. Withholding heavier weapons contributed to the destruction of Ukrainian cities such as Mariupol, Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk."

(This is where I disaree, Russia has never shifted it's military strategy "after its defeat in the initial phase of the war and the battle for Kyiv." It was part of the game plan all along Taking Kyiv in three or four days like they could have would have sent the shock waves through the worlds food and energy markets? Would have the EU, NATO and the US pouring Billions into Ukraine? Money they dont have? With all the above mentioned economies on verge of recession/depression? That would have served Putin's goals of destroying the "Collective West", the EU and NATO? Or a prolonged struggle would better accomplish his aims? You decide. "Russia’s traditional doctrinal approach of attrition warfare", its been in play since the get go.)

"Wars of attrition go both ways, however, and the Russian strategy of attrition effectively exhausted their own army."

(Baloney, its not the regular Russian army that has been employed, and Ive said this over and over again, it's militias in the eastern providences of Ukraine, it's volunteers, It's prisoners, It's Chechens, It's mercenary groups, elements from The Wagner group etc.)

"With the momentum again swinging in favor of Ukraine, the Russian military responded by shifting their strategy — again in line with Russian military doctrine. The shift to an air and missile campaign with the aim of decimating Ukraine’s civil and military infrastructure is central to attrition warfare. However, the West once more found itself shooting behind the duck and scrambling to bolster Ukraine’s air defenses."

(Again, it's not "a shift" it has been part of the plan all along. And "the West once more found itself shooting behind the duck and scrambling to bolster Ukraine’s air defenses." 100% agree with that statement. He knows what he is going to do, he has known all along and we have been playing catch up from the start.)

"While rightfully characterized as a “terror campaign” against Ukrainian civilians, we are witnessing the execution of well-known elements of Russian military doctrine — strategic aerospace operations against critical infrastructure meant to disorganize and undermine an adversary’s war effort. It’s a rough version of Russian strategic aerospace operations (SAO) and strategic operations to destroy critical infrastructure targets (SODCIT), two of the four Russian military strategic operations developed for war with NATO."  

(Given Capt Campbell's previous position and experience, I would say he knows what he is talking about here in regards to the "Russian military strategic operations developed for war with NATO". My point is this: to the Russians THIS IS THEIR WAR WITH NATO! That is why they are employing the "strategic operations" that they are.)

"The recognizable shifts in Russian military strategy provide Western leaders with a guide for future security assistance efforts that might deter and defeat Russian forces. With this in mind, it is likely the aerospace campaign will be followed by a return to major ground offensives. Now is the time to stop shooting behind the duck and proactively provide the Ukrainians what they need to continue to alter the course of the war."

(Shifts in strategy or not, the effect is the same and Capt. Campbells assertation that; "shifts in Russian military strategy provide Western leaders with a guide for future security assistance efforts that might deter and defeat Russian forces." is 100% spot on.  As is his thinking that, "With this in mind, it is likely the aerospace campaign will be followed by a return to major ground offensives." But why would you wait till spring to return to "major ground offensives" if you are currently conducting the aerospace campaign?

.)

"Now is the time to stop shooting behind the duck and proactively provide the Ukrainians what they need to continue to alter the course of the war."

(Again, I 100% agree, but the fact of the matter is we simply can not afford to do what we need to do in Ukraine and take on China in the pacific at the same time. So it's going to be one or the other and the fact that the US has made overtures to Zelenskyy that he should try and reach a settlement with Russia tells you exactly which way that wind is blowing.)

"Of course, this will require more of the same weapons that have forced the Russian military to change its strategy — artillery, HIMARS, Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (GMLRS), and armored vehicles — as well as new ones that we have been reluctant to provide. Some will require training that can be undertaken during the winter; others can be transferred now to ensure the Ukrainians can both keep the Russian military on its heels and remain ready come spring."

(Everybody just keeps talking like we got till springtime to do what we need to do. We might wanna reconsider that.)

"The arrival of NATO air defense systems is welcomed, but it is time to revisit the strike-fighter debate and provide modern aircraft. Russia’s response to the West’s earlier self-deterrence regarding the transfer of MiG-29 aircraft has been continuous escalation using air and missile attacks on Ukraine’s cities. In addition to drones, Iran reportedly now may provide Russia with advanced missile systems to replace its depleted inventory. This cannot go unanswered. We should no longer deny the Ukrainians armed combat drones such as the MQ-1 Predator/Gray Eagle and MQ-9 Reaper. 

(Okay, great, "provide modern aircraft" and who exactly is gonna fly em? "Russia’s response to the West’s earlier self-deterrence regarding the transfer of MiG-29 aircraft has been continuous escalation using air and missile attacks on Ukraine’s cities." It most certainly has been. One side is all in, one side hopes things dont go the direction they seem headed toward and it isn't very hard to figure out who is who in that scenario.)

"The attack on the Black Sea Fleet on Oct. 29 should be just the beginning. The West should continue to provide such systems, as the strategic implications of Russia’s ability to wage unrestricted drone and missile strikes on NATO’s Black Sea periphery and project maritime power from southern Russia are obvious.

(This is a very good point, "Russia’s ability to wage unrestricted drone and missile strikes on NATO’s Black Sea periphery and project maritime power from southern Russia are obvious." That is a capability we most certainly do not want them to possess.)

"There are also short-term answers to meet the next shift in Russian strategy, likely to springtime ground offensives. Ukraine needs Army Tactical Advanced Missile Systems (ATACMS) with greater ranges to destroy Russian logistics and C2 nodes and drone bases. GMLRS and 155mm cluster munitions, specifically the Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional Munitions (DPICM), are needed. These munitions are compatible with current systems, bring efficiencies, and can be provided immediately. The Ukrainians understand the risks associated with these weapons and we should honor that. For naysayers who rebuke the idea of transferring cluster munitions because the United States has a moratorium on providing them, or for fear of escalation, we have failed to get out in front of the Russian military strategy to date and, as a result, the Ukrainians have been unable to set conditions for negotiated conflict termination.

(I just think It's a mistake to just assume the next offensives will be in the springtime, as consequential as this conflict is expecting the unexpected would seem to be a more prudent course of action.

In regards to the types of  munitions that need to be supplied? See my earlier note about we wont be able to do so 1) Because were broke, 2) Because were already running short on 155 shells according to various sources and we need our own stocks to be kept up (perhaps were not short the specific ones Capt Campbell mentions but others), this is indeed Putin's long game, the war of attrition etc) 3) We are more concerned about being able to take on China in the pacific. "as a result, the Ukrainians have been unable to set conditions for negotiated conflict termination." There's not ever going to be any "negotiated conflict termination, they are all in, all or nothing, put the west, NATO and the EU in their collective graves etc or they never would have started this conflict in the first place. Get that out of your head, worse comes to worse? Tactical nukes will be employed. There will never be a negotiation so vying for that angle? Pointless.)

"This is no ordinary time. The West has acknowledged the stakes that Putin’s war presents to the European security environment and international order. If we continue to shoot behind the duck, allowing the Russians to reconstitute their forces and launch springtime offensives, we will be confronted with these same decisions again, after more Ukrainian lives and territory have been lost."

("This is no ordinary time" 

Matthew 24:21

2For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

"The West has acknowledged the stakes that Putin’s war presents to the European security environment and international order."

Took us long enough, some of us saw it right away.

"...allowing the Russians to reconstitute their forces and launch springtime offensives."

It's a mistake to make that assumption.)

"Putin has responded to Western self-deterrence with escalation, reinforcing his belief that he is winning and the West is weak and strategically inept. Shifts in Russia’s strategy aligned with their military doctrine provide us with clues to where they are going. These trends may be imperfect, but they are still evident — and the West must send a strong message by providing weapons for not only today’s fight, but also tomorrow’s. That could irreversibly alter Putin’s strategic calculus and level of risk, and thus the course of this war."

("Putin has responded to Western self-deterrence with escalation, reinforcing his belief that he is winning and the West is weak and strategically inept." 

I said at the onset, the longer this goes on the more it benefits Russia, so why on earth take Kiev in four days? How does that benefit what Russia's stated goals are? 

"...his belief that he is winning." 

Unfortunately? He is, and the longer it goes on the more he will be. 

"his belief...the West is weak and strategically inept."

Again, correct. If we weren't "strategically inept"? we would have seen his long game right up front, we didnt and we have been playing catch up like capt Campbell is saying.

"the West must send a strong message by providing weapons for not only today’s fight, but also tomorrow’s. That could irreversibly alter Putin’s strategic calculus and level of risk, and thus the course of this war.

Unfortunately, doing so lands us right square in the trap of his war of attrition and then here comes the Chinese in the pacific. I agree 100% with what Capt. Campbell says we should do, unfortunately, we are just not going to be able to do so, or if we do? We wont be able to face China in the manner we should, either situation is bad, and there are no good options. 

Christ alone is your exit strategy."

Anybody else notice something that wasn't mentioned in this article?

HYPERSONICS

They are playing a bigger role in our leaders decision making processes than we are being told.

Discernment yo.

God speed everybody.

I love you honey.