Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : World Outlook -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Les H who wrote (43289)	8/15/2024 2:12:27 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 51338

Symposium: What does Ukraine's incursion into Russia really mean? Ten experts gauge the short and long term effects of Kyiv’s bold invasion on the war Jasen J. Castillo, Co-Director, Albritton Center for Grand Strategy, George H.W. Bush School of Government, Texas A&M University Once again, Ukraine's armed forces have demonstrated their tremendous will to fight, something Russia discounted when they invaded in 2022. Nevertheless, the military objective of this offensive remains unclear. In the short term, this is a public relations boost for Ukraine and a morale blow to Russia. The Kursk gamble might also reduce pressure on Ukraine's defenses as Russia moves forces to stop the incursion. My worry is that in the longer term, Ukraine, which is facing dangerous shortfalls in manpower and equipment, will deplete elite units that would have been needed elsewhere. In a war of attrition, manpower and equipment are essential. Ukraine's attack reminds me of Germany's audacious Western offensive in 1944 that surprised the Allies, made gains, and ended with a defeat at the Battle of the Bulge, which then wasted manpower and equipment it needed months later on the Eastern Front. John Mearsheimer, R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, and non-resident fellow at the Quincy Institute Ukraine’s invasion (of Kursk) was a major strategic blunder, which will accelerate its defeat. The key determinant of success in a war of attrition is the casualty-exchange ratio, not capturing territory, which Western commentators obsess over. The casualty-exchange ratio in the Kursk offensive decisively favors Russia for two reasons. First, it has caused relatively few Russian casualties because Ukraine’s army effectively overran undefended territory. Second, once alerted to the attack, Moscow quickly brought massive airpower to bear against the advancing Ukrainian troops, who were in the open and easy to strike. Unsurprisingly, the attacking forces lost many soldiers and a huge proportion of their equipment. To make matters worse, Kyiv removed top-notch combat units from the front lines in eastern Ukraine — where they are desperately needed — and made them part of the Kursk strike force. This move is tilting the already lopsided casualty-exchange ratio on that critically important front further in Russia’s favor. It is no wonder — given what a foolish idea the Kursk incursion is — that the Russians were caught by surprise. responsiblestatecraft.org Looks like MI6, CIA, and Ukraine is weighing the expected loss of territory in Eastern Ukraine that were part of the announced Special Military Operation and decided to try to compensate with a desperate attempt to take the Kursk NPP for nuclear blackmail. It remains to be seen whether Russia will stop at the four oblasts in the SMO given the escalations by the US/NATO/Ukraine to try to overextend Russian forces.