And you know this.....how?
He did link to some Soviet era strategic analysis and tactics. And there is good reason to believe that while Russia has shifted to a more modern style, that they are going to draw heavily upon that playbook. The flaw that I find in his analysis comes from the idea that this is somehow a masterful stroke or strategy by Putin, though perhaps I'm misreading that. It is possible that Putin planned from the start to fool Zelensky. It could be that he gave his troops cheap radios to mislead the enemy. Be that to as part of a complicated gambit or simply to sow confusion when possible.
Russia has made a lot of mistakes in this war. And a lot of it comes from years before he actually engaged here. Letting his truck tires get so rotted out that they pop on the road to the target is just a colossal fuck-up and it has complicated their invasion plans. They can't rely on those tires during the spring thaw.
I'm not confusing ot misreading anything, I freely admit I have no idea what's going because I don't have the information, background, or skillset to make a clear judgement of what's happening, and I'm not following events closely precisely because trying to do is a waste of time given that I can't meaningful do anything what whatever information I collect.
What I find questionable is how you, someone that is equally as unqualified and lacking a clear view of what's happening, can possibly be so certain you're right.
He's drawing from these sources, or so it seems.
Yet, if that's the case, Putin hasn't done a splendid job. I think it's more likely that Western intelligence had it right; Putin had planned for a staggered invasion, taking small parts of Ukraine and trying to force Zelensky to negotiate. When that was exposed, he and his generals decided for an all-out-invasion. The fact that Zelensky believed that they weren't actually going to invade is more of a bonus, not I think, the thrust of Putin's strategic thought (as it's a rather foolish thing to bet on).
That said, there is strong reason to believe that Russia is following some more modern version of this combat doctrine, so there probably is a great deal of first and second echelon maneuvers going on. But said pdfs also highlight the difficulty that Russia is about to have; they are heavily reliant on their armor and artillery to support their war effort. They don't need it, obviously, but Moscow doesn't want high civilian causalities, so there's going to be a great deal of restraint that you would otherwise not see.
Of course, it's offset somewhat by the Russian doctrine of taking the initiative and capitalizing on it. I expect that has explained Russia's strong momentum thus far. The UKAF never really had the time to properly mobilize and its struggling under aggressive Russian advances. Those advances though, especially with improper maintenance of gear before the war and untested troops, has led to a number of embarrassing situations that Zelensky and his administration are capitalizing on to try and undermine the image of a powerful Russian Bear. That's a good strategy for Kiev, because Russia's initial hope in the invasion was a quick knock-out punch. That didn't work and there's enough moral for Ukraine to keep fighting, so Russia is going to have to fight hard and dirty.
I don't think a revitalized and expanding NATO, Western nations doing everything they can to inflict economic damage on Russia in response to this, 8ncluding possibly moving away from Russian energy trade to give them space for severe sanctions, and a possible years long Western backed insurgency in Ukraine is cheap. Sure, maybe the immediate term military loses are survivable, but long term.....I don't see how this works out for Russia, particularly because they're not actually gaining anything of value.
And that's if they actually win, which is not certain. Likely, yes, but not certain.
None of this is cheap, so I don't see where that's coming from. However, from the Russian perspective, the loss of Ukraine to NATO is simply unacceptable. Having Ukraine under possible enemy influence allows for daggers to be placed at three key weak points in Russian geography. The first dagger is aimed at the head; Moscow itself is located north of western Ukraine. There are absolutely no geographical barriers shielding Moscow from an attack from the south. The second dagger is aimed at the wheatbelt within Russia,
which Ukraine's west directly leads into. The third is Crimea, where Russian has its warm water port and acts as the buffer between Russia and Turkey (also a NATO ally) and allows Russia to export to the Mediterranean and the wider world.
Now, this isn't necessarily a problem with a healthy Russia, but Russian isn't healthy. It is in fact, a declining world power. Ethnic Russians are dying out. Worse still, the most educated and competent engineers, strategists, and scientists are in their late 50s, early 60s. And most Russian men die in their early to mid 60s. On top of that, the upper echelons of Russia's government has thinned out around Putin. Because the crises Russia is facing in a decade or so is so bad, Putin has had to take more and more power unto himself in order to combat it. Similar to what Xi is doing in China. Putin isn't amassing more power in his twilight years because he's insane or power hungry--he's doing it because he has no choice. None of his predecessors have worked out. The day Putin dies, a vicious and violent civil war is very likely to erupt within the Russian Federation between the major players within Russia.
To recap; Russia's ethnic Russians are dying out (and slowly being overtaken by non-Russian, Muslim minorities), the men that allow Russia's economy, military, and society to function are dying out, and the very leadership itself has no clear succession and various power blocs willing to fight over the scraps of the Russian Federation. And it is all going to happen within the next few decades. Allowing Ukraine to join with NATO and allowing NATO a springboard into three key regions of Russia is simply not something that Moscow can accept. Especially after the US helped dispose of the Egyptian leadership--simply because they could. That was a strategic blunder that drove North Korea to develop nuclear weapons and Russia to consider NATO a threat.
Moscow has no choice but to engage in this war. They couldn't get Ukraine or NATO to agree to keep Ukraine out of NATO. They couldn't pressure Ukraine back into the fold. They couldn't play on internal divisions within Ukraine. Moscow has no choice but to invade Ukraine.
Now, as for NATO being united--that's a strong possibility now, but it's too soon to tell. It was a struggle to get Germany and Italy onboard with sanctions against Russia. And there is still the issue of energy; Europe can't just switch its energy imports overnight. Or within a year or two. This is a multi-year process. And higher gas prices affecting the rest of the world will affect Americans--who really don't care too much about the conflict and will care even less after the invasion is complete. Do you expect that Biden is going to continue to force Americans to suffer high gas prices in 2024? Or that if he does, the Republicans won't promise to ban gas exports to save people at the pump? And if Americans won't share in the pain inflicted by harsh sanctions (that they led, mind you!) then why should Germany? Or France? Or Italy? Or anyone else?
Because all of those European nations know that Russia does not have the strength to threaten all of Europe again. I doubt they have the strength to move halfway through Poland at this point, even if Ukraine fell tomorrow. Not unless the Baltic states were to fall in line under Russia without a fight and grant unconditional support, does Russia have the means of pushing into Poland. So the threat to nations like Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Hungary, Austria, and the UK is small. I don't even think Sweden will feel truly threatened.
NATO appears strong NOW. That does not make this a lasting change. Especially when the conquest of Ukraine is unlikely to last a year and it's going to take Germany years to get off Russian gas. Not to mention the loss of Ukrainian and Russian wheat is going to lead to famine across the planet. There is a good chance that Russia can endure this and simply wait for the harsher sanctions to go away. And if they don't? Well then Europe is going to have a shitload of fun trying to contain all those refugees from the Middle East and Africa.
