As previously, I’ll be using Clint Ehrlich’s work. It has the advantage that it concentrates on the big picture of the conflict—there’s no possible way that I can sort out all the trees in the forest. Generally speaking what we’re seeing is the Russian forces progressively attaining their objectives while seeking to avoid civilian casualties and destruction—in that regard, a one day cease fire was declared at Mariupol, on the Sea of Azov, to try to extricate civilians who may be being held hostage by Neo-Nazi forces. Also, as we noted last night with regard to the second nuclear plant captured by the Russians, anti-Russian fabricated “news” is also being progressively debunked.
With regard to the negotiations between Russia and Ukraine in Belarus, it’s important to be clear that Putin made his minimum terms absolutely clear back in December. Those terms will only get steeper as time goes on. There are no secrets here—this is not some sort of give and take, except in the sense of achieving and implementing those goals. Yesterday Putin reiterated those terms:
Different options for implementing demilitarization—but demilitarization is not negotiable.
Another important point is that Putin knows he’s not actually negotiating with Zelenskiy—Zelenskiy has to clear everything with DC. And that’s hardly a surprise:
The most recent video from Fox with Col. Macgregor also makes the same point: Zelenskiy is a puppet. In addition, Macgregor sizes up the overall situation. He believes the conflict will be over in about 10 days. Neutralization of Ukraine is the bottom line—once that is established “the borders can be adjusted.” Zelenskiy’s attempts to drag the conflict out—at the behest of his masters—will only prolong the pointless suffering:
With that, Clint Ehrlich’s longer version of the SitRep. Note that Ehrlich isn’t afraid to provide links to threads that argue against his views. The problem with most of those arguments, as I see them, is that they’re extrapolated from extremely small sample sizes. As Ehrlich argues, the fact that the Russians appear to be achieving their goals in timely fashion strongly suggests that those extrapolations are based on wishful thinking. Of particular interest is Ehrlich’s assessment of what is/may be happening with regard to Kiev:
SITREP Day 10: Many analysts are predicting an imminent defeat of the Russian military.
In reality, Russia is on the verge of annihilating the bulk of the Ukrainian army.
The people denying this are gaslighting you.
No, I'm not exaggerating.
This viral thread from a prominent "expert" claims the Russian military is days away from collapsing and suffering the worst defeat in history.
Yet the Russians didn't even have to resort to that.
In the open, the Ukrainians are so vulnerable to attack by Russian helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft that they chose to remain in their fortified positions within cities around Kramatorsk.
They didn't even try to escape.
As a result, the cauldron is now in place. Encirclement is complete.
Russia is creating humanitarian corridors to clear civilians from the area.
It will soon have a free hand to use heavy weapons against the trapped UA defenders.
Specifically, Russian conventional and rocket artillery will inflict massive losses.
They will be augmented with heavy bombing.
The Ukrainians will attempt to hide in requisitioned civilian buildings – and those buildings will be utterly destroyed.
Whatever the casualty ratio is now in the conflict, it's about to swing far into Russia's favor.
The bombardment that we will see plays to the strengths of the RU forces.
It will allow them to remain at standoff distances and inflict devastating losses via superior firepower.
So let's return to the narratives we were debunking.
If Russia's maintenance is so bad that its vehicles cannot even operate in Ukrainian mud, how did Russia outmaneuver such a huge chunk of the Ukrainian military?
It would be impossible.
To believe that Russia is on the verge of defeat, you have to engage in "bottom up" analysis of the war.
That is, looking at some photos and videos and trying to construct grand narratives.
I prefer a "top down" approach.
That is, I look at maps and objectives.
I infer the side that is winning the war from who is achieving their goals + executing their grand strategy.
The advantage of this approach is objectivity: it's harder to be misled by out-of-context/non-representative details.
Using my approach, the biggest question mark is why the Russians have not made more progress towards Kiev.
It's not entirely clear; fierce Ukrainian resistance from their special forces certainly has something to do with it.
But there are other potential explanations.
The most plausible is that Russia wants to maximize the ratio of attackers to defenders when it takes Kiev.
In order to do that, it will need to complete the defeat of the Ukrainian forces in the East, so that its full array of Battalion Tactical Groups is available.
Specifically, Russian forces advancing North towards Kiev may delay their approach until they are joined by the BTGs currently in the South and East of the country.
A "triple pincer" formation would then advance on the Ukrainian capital, with a massive numerical advantage.
The alternative explanations –
that the pluckiness of the Ukrainian defenders has taken Russia by surprise,
that Russia's logistics are so broken it can't even operate –
fail to account for Russia's success in the East of the country.
In medical terms, what I'm making is a *differential diagnosis.*
Yes, Russia's failure to advance on Kiev could mean its forces are simply overmatched.
But when combined with the other evidence, that isn't the most likely hypothesis. So don't get your hopes up.
Most Ukrainian claims are debunked within 24-48 hours.
Note how the Ukrainian Advisors have a background in media, they understand audience manipulation. They are trying so hard to get Nato intervention by creating possible casus belli.
Last night Tucker substitute had an excellent opening that mentioned the lies. What a difference in tone from Hannity’s war crimes accusation.
I follow Ehrlich's twitter feed too. Spot on as usual Mark. This won't end pretty but Z's dog whistle to the US, UK, EU is getting old. Time to wrap this up now.
Great point in Col McGregors interview:
Most Ukrainian claims are debunked within 24-48 hours.
Note how the Ukrainian Advisors have a background in media, they understand audience manipulation. They are trying so hard to get Nato intervention by creating possible casus belli.
Last night Tucker substitute had an excellent opening that mentioned the lies. What a difference in tone from Hannity’s war crimes accusation.
https://video.foxnews.com/v/6299695448001
I follow Ehrlich's twitter feed too. Spot on as usual Mark. This won't end pretty but Z's dog whistle to the US, UK, EU is getting old. Time to wrap this up now.