More Ukrainians would fight if @poroshenko and co implemented real lustrations. Reluctant to fight for more of the same. #Ukraineconflict

More Ukrainians would fight if @poroshenko and co implemented real lustrations. Reluctant to fight for more of the same. #Ukraineconflict

6 Comments

  1. elmer

    Roman, you might be interested in this discussion at the Streetwise Professor blog:

    http://streetwiseprofessor.com/?p=9119#comments

    The Ukrainian army has performed well against Russian proxies. It has performed acceptably even against Russian regulars when in decent position. What happened in August was that Poroshenko took a major risk, and lost. Poroshenko launched an offensive against the proxies. It was going quite well, and it looked like the proxies were on the verge of a crushing defeat. But one look at the operational map made it plain that the Ukrainians exposed their rear and flanks to the Russian border. Poroshenko was betting the Russians would not come in. He was wrong, and lost big time. Putin had the motive to strike (to save his proxies) and the golden opportunity to do so (because of the way the Ukrainians were exposed to an attack from Russia). Consequently, Ukrainian forces were attacked by superior numbers from directions that they were not deployed to defend, and many Ukrainians were slaughtered.

    Not to say that Ukraine would prevail even if properly deployed. But they could extract a heavy price from the Russians, and the price would be even heavier if they were armed. This despite the fact that the army was gutted over the last 25 years.

    I fear that Poroshenko is committing another error by holding onto a pocket at Debaltseve. That position is not tenable, and I do not see what can possibly be gained by attempting to hold it. The Ukrainians need to conserve their forces and only risk combat when circumstances are relatively favorable. Holding the Debaltseve pocket fails on both counts.
    – See more at: http://streetwiseprofessor.com/?p=9119#comments

    The Ukrainian Army has also not performed nearly as well as Hezbullah in 2006, and not from any lack of weapons.

    The Ukrainian soldier has proven brave, but his commanders have proven incompetent in strategy and operational art, and the objectives his government assigns him in support of political considerations are assigned without due consideration of what he is capable of accomplishing against the enemy he faces. For instance, President Poroshenko wanted a victory parade down the streets of Donetsk on Ukrainian Independence Day. There was a parade of Ukrainian soldiers then and there, but it wasn’t quite what President Poroshinko had in mind. Now, political considerations are important in war, indeed, the very point of it, but governments fail their troops when they assign them objectives they cannot accomplish. Your point about the lack of flank protection and the pocket around Debaltseve reinforces this point.

    There is no indication that the present Ukrainian government has learned anything from past defeats, which means that defeats will continue, regardless of what weapons the Ukrainian Army has. And draft age Ukrainian males are beginning to wonder whether allowing their determined but clueless government to squander more of their lives is a wise thing to do. US weapons won’t help this, and indeed may allow the Ukrainian government to indulge in even greater delusions about what the troops they command are capable of.
    – See more at: http://streetwiseprofessor.com/?p=9119#comments

    Reply
  2. Beauregard

    Elmer, congratulations on great posting. Who is Pauli?

    And Roman needs to tell us how his readership is faring.
    You know hits. How many are coming from St. Petersburg
    Troll House.

    And his readership might increase if you posted more often, yes?

    Reply

Leave a Reply