These lessons are: 1) prioritizing military goals over political ones; 2) the importance of superior intelligence; 3) insensitivity to public opinion; 4) the need for one’s “deep state” to be fully convinced of the ongoing conflict’s existential nature; and 5) practicing “radical decisiveness”.
Indeed, a brilliant analysis. You are touching a sore spot. Being too kind can be dangerous. On the other hand, it is also true that President Putin knows more than we do. But still...
I always appreciate your precise and balanced analysis, but it seems to me that you are here treating the latest Israel-Lebanon conflict as a conventional war, and I'm not sure this is the correct way of looking at it. Israel is a nuclear state with very advanced weaponry and free access to the resources of the most powerful country in the world, whereas Hezbollah are a non-state actor with very limited resources. Hezbollah's doctrine has always been to wage a long-term asymmetric war against Israel, with resilience as it's defining characteristic. It is neither a strongman's regime nor a cult of personality, but a movement rooted in a strong religious community. While undoubtedly weakened by recent events, I would not apply the term "military defeat", as it is not a conventional war. My question is, in what sense can Israel be said to be winning? Can they achieve the stated goal of "pacifying the northern border" with airstrikes and assassinations alone?
Excellent analysis and observations, Andrew. I can only request that everyone stops thinking Kiev has anything to do with this conflict. It is very clearly the USA. Let's get over this "proxy" BS before it is too late. It took courage for you to make this analysis. You are not alone in thinking this way.
“Even though Russia’s approach led to a lot fewer civilian deaths, it’s still criticized much as Israel is, if not more.” Indeed.
When I read phrases like “Russia’s brutal, unprovoked war of aggression in Ukraine”, or even outright lies such as “Russia’s targeting of civilian infrastructure” in the Western corporate press, I wonder how much is exaggeration for effect, how much is intentional misinformation, and how much is sheer ignorance.
I can't agree with Paula. Your analysis is excellent, as always Andrew, and on the point. Yes, it is arguable but then everything is. IMHO it's always about resources - thus follow the money:
Awesome write up Andrew. Strelkov is right. Kvachkov is right. Russias current allies aren't going to jump ship if Moscow starts fighting for real and the West isn't going to stop claiming Putin is literally Hitler no matter how restrained and passive Russia is. If you are going to do the time you might as well do the crime. If Russia is going to be a pariah state according to the West no matter what than Russia ought to reap the fruits of that status which is freedom from the slavery of Western public opinion and the "international community". Stalin took the USSR from pariah state status to dictating his terms to the whole world.
Unfortunately while much of the Russian elite has expensive property in the West, family living in the West and their children attending Western Universities it is unreasonable to expect any meaningful positive changes. The current Russian elite are Westernophile holdovers from the 90s and many aren't even Russian by ethnicity. That's a problem Israel does not have at all and its the most decisive imo. There is no pro Iranian/Syrian faction welding deceive influence in Tel Aviv and the Israeli elite is 100% Jewish. All else sort of flows from that.
'Yet Zelensky is still here. And Kiev stands as if nothing has happened.' I'm with you halfway here. Kiev still stands because of its importance in Russian history and culture. In many ways the Russia-Ukraine conflict is a civil War. Russians would be horrified were mass damage inflicted on Kiev, or on a number of other cities, such as Odessa. The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and their allies is a most uncivil war. The Israelis don't really care how uncivilized they appear to be. Russians do wish to appear civilized, in contrast to the slander hurled by politicians and media in the US and UK (both responsible for enormous damage to civil infrastructure in Serbia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc.) That might explain why Lviv isn't rubble.
Thanks for this. It needed to be said. Prior to February 2022, I had never heard the phrase "special military operation," and I've read a lot of military history. I hope never to hear it again. You don't commit to a military operation without intending to win a military victory, and you don't put soldiers into the field unless you intend giving them everything they need to win that victory. The latest BBC/Media Zona report puts Russian combat deaths at 70,000. Granted, the source makes that figure dubious. But whether it's 70,000 or 40,000, those soldiers died for Russia's security and future. Russia owes it to them, first and foremost, to win.
So win the damned war and make nice with the Ukrainians after it's over. They're going to need a friend anyway, after the shabby way they've been used by the U.S. and NATO.
If Mr. Putin is still concerned about what Russian people think about the war, then he has enough resources to collect info, and dispatch someone he trusts to evaluate the results. I do suspect it is the "deep state" in Russia who convinced Putin not to mobilize in Moscow and St. Petersberg. If the war of attrition continues (I doubt that) internal resentment would become significant. After all, Russia has lost at least 70K killed. Note that after the end of military operations, there still needs to be 2-3 years of pacification work which tends to produce even higher casualty ratio among infantry. I think it is time to launch Bagration number two.
You're welcome to think that, but I stand by everything that I wrote. Conflicts are waged to be won, not to become "wars of attrition". You can acknowledge why Israel is militarily winning and what Russia can learn from it without endorsing Israel's latest war in Lebanon.
The notion that indefinitely perpetuating this "war of attrition" at the risk of it becoming a "forever war", with all the cascading costs that could entail for Russia's population and economy, is better than a decisive military victory is wrong in my opinion.
I understand the logic of waging a "war of attrition" and have written extensively about it, but I'd personally prefer Russia to decisively end this conflict on its terms through military means instead of continuing to hope for a political solution in vain as we've seen so far.
I'd also like to ask you targeted questions in order to learn more about your views since I didn't appreciate your comment about this piece being "stupid".
Let's start with an easy one: what's so "stupid" about prioritizing the collection of tangible military intelligence over speculative socio-political intelligence?
Unlike you, I'm doing my utmost to respect you and won't insult you like you insulted me. I genuinely want to know your thought process.
When you're done answering that question, please answer this one: why is "radical decisiveness" stupid? Please also share your comment under Dugin's X post too.
I don’t think is about the world’ opinion for Russia. Israel turned its population into blood thirsty heartless monsters, cheering at the deaths of their neighbors children. Israelis sunk to the level of their persecutors- the German Nazis.
Putin is right not to go this road. Killing the heart of the nation is dangerous for the nation.
Russia is intent on ushering in a new global order against powerful entrenched forces that criticize everything they do. The political aspect has been and will remain paramount.
Israel is the favored child that can do no wrong; very Hunter Biden like.
There are few good takeaways here from Israel. In future decades Putin will be held in a far greater light than most of his contemporaries. Bibi, like Z, will be considered a ruthless butcher that hastened the death of his own country.
Actually, you know who will take heed? Israel’s enemies.
Indeed, a brilliant analysis. You are touching a sore spot. Being too kind can be dangerous. On the other hand, it is also true that President Putin knows more than we do. But still...
I always appreciate your precise and balanced analysis, but it seems to me that you are here treating the latest Israel-Lebanon conflict as a conventional war, and I'm not sure this is the correct way of looking at it. Israel is a nuclear state with very advanced weaponry and free access to the resources of the most powerful country in the world, whereas Hezbollah are a non-state actor with very limited resources. Hezbollah's doctrine has always been to wage a long-term asymmetric war against Israel, with resilience as it's defining characteristic. It is neither a strongman's regime nor a cult of personality, but a movement rooted in a strong religious community. While undoubtedly weakened by recent events, I would not apply the term "military defeat", as it is not a conventional war. My question is, in what sense can Israel be said to be winning? Can they achieve the stated goal of "pacifying the northern border" with airstrikes and assassinations alone?
Excellent analysis and observations, Andrew. I can only request that everyone stops thinking Kiev has anything to do with this conflict. It is very clearly the USA. Let's get over this "proxy" BS before it is too late. It took courage for you to make this analysis. You are not alone in thinking this way.
“Even though Russia’s approach led to a lot fewer civilian deaths, it’s still criticized much as Israel is, if not more.” Indeed.
When I read phrases like “Russia’s brutal, unprovoked war of aggression in Ukraine”, or even outright lies such as “Russia’s targeting of civilian infrastructure” in the Western corporate press, I wonder how much is exaggeration for effect, how much is intentional misinformation, and how much is sheer ignorance.
I can't agree with Paula. Your analysis is excellent, as always Andrew, and on the point. Yes, it is arguable but then everything is. IMHO it's always about resources - thus follow the money:
https://austrianpeter.substack.com/p/gaza-israel-war-special-report-end?sd=pf
Awesome write up Andrew. Strelkov is right. Kvachkov is right. Russias current allies aren't going to jump ship if Moscow starts fighting for real and the West isn't going to stop claiming Putin is literally Hitler no matter how restrained and passive Russia is. If you are going to do the time you might as well do the crime. If Russia is going to be a pariah state according to the West no matter what than Russia ought to reap the fruits of that status which is freedom from the slavery of Western public opinion and the "international community". Stalin took the USSR from pariah state status to dictating his terms to the whole world.
Unfortunately while much of the Russian elite has expensive property in the West, family living in the West and their children attending Western Universities it is unreasonable to expect any meaningful positive changes. The current Russian elite are Westernophile holdovers from the 90s and many aren't even Russian by ethnicity. That's a problem Israel does not have at all and its the most decisive imo. There is no pro Iranian/Syrian faction welding deceive influence in Tel Aviv and the Israeli elite is 100% Jewish. All else sort of flows from that.
'Yet Zelensky is still here. And Kiev stands as if nothing has happened.' I'm with you halfway here. Kiev still stands because of its importance in Russian history and culture. In many ways the Russia-Ukraine conflict is a civil War. Russians would be horrified were mass damage inflicted on Kiev, or on a number of other cities, such as Odessa. The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and their allies is a most uncivil war. The Israelis don't really care how uncivilized they appear to be. Russians do wish to appear civilized, in contrast to the slander hurled by politicians and media in the US and UK (both responsible for enormous damage to civil infrastructure in Serbia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, etc.) That might explain why Lviv isn't rubble.
Thanks for this. It needed to be said. Prior to February 2022, I had never heard the phrase "special military operation," and I've read a lot of military history. I hope never to hear it again. You don't commit to a military operation without intending to win a military victory, and you don't put soldiers into the field unless you intend giving them everything they need to win that victory. The latest BBC/Media Zona report puts Russian combat deaths at 70,000. Granted, the source makes that figure dubious. But whether it's 70,000 or 40,000, those soldiers died for Russia's security and future. Russia owes it to them, first and foremost, to win.
So win the damned war and make nice with the Ukrainians after it's over. They're going to need a friend anyway, after the shabby way they've been used by the U.S. and NATO.
If Mr. Putin is still concerned about what Russian people think about the war, then he has enough resources to collect info, and dispatch someone he trusts to evaluate the results. I do suspect it is the "deep state" in Russia who convinced Putin not to mobilize in Moscow and St. Petersberg. If the war of attrition continues (I doubt that) internal resentment would become significant. After all, Russia has lost at least 70K killed. Note that after the end of military operations, there still needs to be 2-3 years of pacification work which tends to produce even higher casualty ratio among infantry. I think it is time to launch Bagration number two.
This is the stupidest thing you've written that I've read so far.
You're welcome to think that, but I stand by everything that I wrote. Conflicts are waged to be won, not to become "wars of attrition". You can acknowledge why Israel is militarily winning and what Russia can learn from it without endorsing Israel's latest war in Lebanon.
The notion that indefinitely perpetuating this "war of attrition" at the risk of it becoming a "forever war", with all the cascading costs that could entail for Russia's population and economy, is better than a decisive military victory is wrong in my opinion.
I understand the logic of waging a "war of attrition" and have written extensively about it, but I'd personally prefer Russia to decisively end this conflict on its terms through military means instead of continuing to hope for a political solution in vain as we've seen so far.
I'd also like to ask you targeted questions in order to learn more about your views since I didn't appreciate your comment about this piece being "stupid".
Let's start with an easy one: what's so "stupid" about prioritizing the collection of tangible military intelligence over speculative socio-political intelligence?
Unlike you, I'm doing my utmost to respect you and won't insult you like you insulted me. I genuinely want to know your thought process.
When you're done answering that question, please answer this one: why is "radical decisiveness" stupid? Please also share your comment under Dugin's X post too.
Not worth your time replying to this "Paula." Probably a Bot anyway.
Of note is how defensive the author is to a little jab. This is very revealing.
Thr author provides numerous specifics. Which exactly do you disagree with and why. Please be specific and concrete.
I don’t think is about the world’ opinion for Russia. Israel turned its population into blood thirsty heartless monsters, cheering at the deaths of their neighbors children. Israelis sunk to the level of their persecutors- the German Nazis.
Putin is right not to go this road. Killing the heart of the nation is dangerous for the nation.
This is something I have been saying long before the Israeli Lebanon War.
I will add a sixth. Israel appears to have learned from its 2006 fiasco and acted accordingly.
Russia is intent on ushering in a new global order against powerful entrenched forces that criticize everything they do. The political aspect has been and will remain paramount.
Israel is the favored child that can do no wrong; very Hunter Biden like.
There are few good takeaways here from Israel. In future decades Putin will be held in a far greater light than most of his contemporaries. Bibi, like Z, will be considered a ruthless butcher that hastened the death of his own country.
Actually, you know who will take heed? Israel’s enemies.