I mean war is not great, but if it’s going to happen then a coalition of regional democracies working with the intent to restore a democratically elected leader is about the most justifiable case...
I mean war is not great, but if it’s going to happen then a coalition of regional democracies working with the intent to restore a democratically elected leader is about the most justifiable case imaginable. I hope they do well, and that they get at least some support from the west.
The fact of the matter is that none of these countries seem to have the military or economic ability, much less the stability, to launch an invasion across the Sahel. The fact that they have an...
The fact of the matter is that none of these countries seem to have the military or economic ability, much less the stability, to launch an invasion across the Sahel. The fact that they have an undisclosed D-Day makes me think there isn't one.
I mean if I've learned anything from the war in Ukraine its that in 2023 the normal thing to do is heavily telegraph your offensives in advance, and then just do them anyway. I mean look at the...
I mean if I've learned anything from the war in Ukraine its that in 2023 the normal thing to do is heavily telegraph your offensives in advance, and then just do them anyway. I mean look at the attack on Kherson, everyone knew that was coming for months, and then it happened anyway and it worked. This summer offensive isn't going as well so far, but again it was heavily telegraphed in advance.
Obviously part of this is probably ECOWAS hoping they can pressure the coup leaders to surrender, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of invasion just because they telegraphed it.
Nigeria also has almost an order of magnitude more active soldiers than Niger does, and while western nations probably want to avoid sending in direct support to avoid accusations of colonialism, they'll almost certainly be willing to provide logistics support and intelligence.
The way I understand it is that in this day and age, you can’t really sneak attack another country. There’s too many people, smart phones, cameras, drones, satellites, etc that give away large...
The way I understand it is that in this day and age, you can’t really sneak attack another country. There’s too many people, smart phones, cameras, drones, satellites, etc that give away large mobilization and concentration of military forces. So, there isn’t much point in hiding it. The other consideration is that the threat of invasion may be all that is needed to bring someone to the negotiating table. In which case, you want to telegraph your moves because you’re looking to intimidate.
That is certainly part of it. As long as a war doesn't escalate to the point that both sides are shooting down every hostile satellite in orbit they can find, wars are going to look incredibly...
The way I understand it is that in this day and age, you can’t really sneak attack another country. There’s too many people, smart phones, cameras, drones, satellites, etc that give away large mobilization and concentration of military forces.
That is certainly part of it. As long as a war doesn't escalate to the point that both sides are shooting down every hostile satellite in orbit they can find, wars are going to look incredibly different. I mean right now random civilians are capable of requesting satellite photography of Russian arms stockpiles to track how fast they are using up their artillery and armor reserves. Or you can use NASA's satellites meant for tracking wildfires and air pollution to track artillery fires and Russian industrial production (less air pollution around factories = less production).
And that's just the publicly available information.
Militaries are some of the last people to realize this. They still teach WWI-style trench raiding and camouflage tactics in some places, conveniently forgetting that since then, things like...
Militaries are some of the last people to realize this. They still teach WWI-style trench raiding and camouflage tactics in some places, conveniently forgetting that since then, things like satellite surveillance and light-amplification/infrared systems exist. There's really no point hiding it.
Slightly off topic, but I would dispute that, and that's certainly not ISW's assessment. It's going slower than expected, and we already expected it to go slowly. We weren't expecting Kharkiv. But...
This summer offensive isn't going as well so far, but again it was heavily telegraphed in advance.
Slightly off topic, but I would dispute that, and that's certainly not ISW's assessment. It's going slower than expected, and we already expected it to go slowly. We weren't expecting Kharkiv. But they've been making tactical advances the entire time, particularly these last two weeks.
The west dithered like it always does, and now AFU has to attack into defensive lines prepared for half a year. Our cowardice will cost more Ukranian lives (and our own money) than it should've, but the counteroffensive is in line with expectations so far.
Nobody, including ISW, Perun, Nielsen, Zelensky, or anyone else who's informed about the war has said that the Ukrainian summer offensive has gone according to plan. Well I mean I'm sure some...
Nobody, including ISW, Perun, Nielsen, Zelensky, or anyone else who's informed about the war has said that the Ukrainian summer offensive has gone according to plan. Well I mean I'm sure some people have, but nobody credible.
The most obvious evidence would be the heavy losses of modern armor in the first few days of the counteroffensive, followed by a much slower pace of offensive action and several public statements from various Ukrainian officials (including Zelensky) about the offensive not going as well as it was supposed to.
That doesn't mean it is a complete failure, but in theory it was supposed to be going much faster than this. Plans not surviving contact with the enemy should be expected, but to say the plan is going well is still incorrect.
I’ve been following the conflict closely, and from what I gather the Ukrainian counter offensive is going better than is being reported on the big news outlets. For example, they have have three...
I’ve been following the conflict closely, and from what I gather the Ukrainian counter offensive is going better than is being reported on the big news outlets. For example, they have have three lines of ongoing attack in the south and are taking ground on an almost daily basis. Yes, it’s a few kilometers here and there but that’s how war is fought against a well entrenched foe. Also, let’s not forget that Ukraine has no real Air Force to speak of. During these daily clashes Ukraine has been losing significantly fewer hardware than Russia, which is unexpected (attacking side should lose more equipment all things being equal). There’s also been systematic targeting of Russian artillery, ammo dumps, hqs, and other logistic targets. They’ve hit the Kerch bridge and a few road / railway bottlenecks coming from Crimea. All of this is shaping the battlefield and keeping tension across the frontline. That is very much “the plan”. Zelenskyy himself has said multiple times that this “isn’t a movie”. The media loves the big battles, big explosions, lots of territory being taken over, etc . This isn’t that. Sure, it’d be wonderful if the Russian front just collapsed tomorrow, but it’ll probably grind on for several more months.
That said, if/when Ukraine attains fire control over the main highway in Zaporizhzhia it’ll be game over for this part of the war. Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts will be fully liberated and Ukraine will have access to the Sea of Azov. Crimea will be under siege and would be next to fall. If Crimea falls, the war ends.
That's just not correct at all. Considering the West supplies the tools needed to wage the war, it absolutely is dictating both strategy and timing. There's been numerous delays in equipment and...
That's just not correct at all. Considering the West supplies the tools needed to wage the war, it absolutely is dictating both strategy and timing. There's been numerous delays in equipment and constantly shifting as to what equipment will even be sent. It's hard to plan for an engagement when you can't guarantee even half of the expected gear will be there on time. As such, they have to instead wait for everything to come in or make due with what they've got.
The west 100% dictates Ukrainian strategy and timing by what military aid they chose to provide. The counter offensive was waiting for the bulk of heavy armor to arrive - without it they couldn’t...
The west 100% dictates Ukrainian strategy and timing by what military aid they chose to provide. The counter offensive was waiting for the bulk of heavy armor to arrive - without it they couldn’t go on the offensive.
There have been noticeable delays in military assistance to Ukraine, in what appears to be a systematic and purposeful incrementalism. The excuse has always been the concern that giving too much, too fast would further escalate the conflict, cause Russia to go nuclear and/or draw nato into the war.
We’ve seen the process several times, Ukraine requests X, USA/WEST says No, time passes, UK, Poland or USA change their mind, a “coalition” forms and they agree to provide X to Ukraine. The problem is that months pass to make the obviously decision and even more time will be need for training and setting up logistics. This happened with storm shadows, tanks and now F16s.
I'm not saying the telegraphing means that it's not happening. I'm saying that the vague telegraphing is in line with these countries not having the resources to move invading forces across their...
I'm not saying the telegraphing means that it's not happening. I'm saying that the vague telegraphing is in line with these countries not having the resources to move invading forces across their own territory, much less that of another country that is even more difficult to traverse.
I think ECOWAS’ ace up its sleeve is the likely support provided by the U.S. and (maybe) France. I wouldn’t be surprised if the U.S. would providing close air support, intelligence-gathering, and...
I think ECOWAS’ ace up its sleeve is the likely support provided by the U.S. and (maybe) France. I wouldn’t be surprised if the U.S. would providing close air support, intelligence-gathering, and special operations forces. Ultimately, you don’t need to occupy the entire territory to depose the putschists, you just need to control a few key areas (border crossings, critical infrastructure, the capital Niamey). All of those falling denies them legitimacy and would serve to encourage uprisings. And that more limited goal could be achieved using various SOF assets that are almost certainly on (highly classified) deployments in West Africa. Use ECOWAS forces for the visible presence and “lighter duty” military work.
Possible, but the tree of democracy and all that. Better outcome than military dictatorship, and I suspect even the elected leader would agree with that despite the risk he carries.
Possible, but the tree of democracy and all that. Better outcome than military dictatorship, and I suspect even the elected leader would agree with that despite the risk he carries.
I mean war is not great, but if it’s going to happen then a coalition of regional democracies working with the intent to restore a democratically elected leader is about the most justifiable case imaginable. I hope they do well, and that they get at least some support from the west.
The fact of the matter is that none of these countries seem to have the military or economic ability, much less the stability, to launch an invasion across the Sahel. The fact that they have an undisclosed D-Day makes me think there isn't one.
I mean if I've learned anything from the war in Ukraine its that in 2023 the normal thing to do is heavily telegraph your offensives in advance, and then just do them anyway. I mean look at the attack on Kherson, everyone knew that was coming for months, and then it happened anyway and it worked. This summer offensive isn't going as well so far, but again it was heavily telegraphed in advance.
Obviously part of this is probably ECOWAS hoping they can pressure the coup leaders to surrender, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility of invasion just because they telegraphed it.
Nigeria also has almost an order of magnitude more active soldiers than Niger does, and while western nations probably want to avoid sending in direct support to avoid accusations of colonialism, they'll almost certainly be willing to provide logistics support and intelligence.
The way I understand it is that in this day and age, you can’t really sneak attack another country. There’s too many people, smart phones, cameras, drones, satellites, etc that give away large mobilization and concentration of military forces. So, there isn’t much point in hiding it. The other consideration is that the threat of invasion may be all that is needed to bring someone to the negotiating table. In which case, you want to telegraph your moves because you’re looking to intimidate.
That is certainly part of it. As long as a war doesn't escalate to the point that both sides are shooting down every hostile satellite in orbit they can find, wars are going to look incredibly different. I mean right now random civilians are capable of requesting satellite photography of Russian arms stockpiles to track how fast they are using up their artillery and armor reserves. Or you can use NASA's satellites meant for tracking wildfires and air pollution to track artillery fires and Russian industrial production (less air pollution around factories = less production).
And that's just the publicly available information.
Militaries are some of the last people to realize this. They still teach WWI-style trench raiding and camouflage tactics in some places, conveniently forgetting that since then, things like satellite surveillance and light-amplification/infrared systems exist. There's really no point hiding it.
Slightly off topic, but I would dispute that, and that's certainly not ISW's assessment. It's going slower than expected, and we already expected it to go slowly. We weren't expecting Kharkiv. But they've been making tactical advances the entire time, particularly these last two weeks.
The west dithered like it always does, and now AFU has to attack into defensive lines prepared for half a year. Our cowardice will cost more Ukranian lives (and our own money) than it should've, but the counteroffensive is in line with expectations so far.
Nobody, including ISW, Perun, Nielsen, Zelensky, or anyone else who's informed about the war has said that the Ukrainian summer offensive has gone according to plan. Well I mean I'm sure some people have, but nobody credible.
The most obvious evidence would be the heavy losses of modern armor in the first few days of the counteroffensive, followed by a much slower pace of offensive action and several public statements from various Ukrainian officials (including Zelensky) about the offensive not going as well as it was supposed to.
That doesn't mean it is a complete failure, but in theory it was supposed to be going much faster than this. Plans not surviving contact with the enemy should be expected, but to say the plan is going well is still incorrect.
I’ve been following the conflict closely, and from what I gather the Ukrainian counter offensive is going better than is being reported on the big news outlets. For example, they have have three lines of ongoing attack in the south and are taking ground on an almost daily basis. Yes, it’s a few kilometers here and there but that’s how war is fought against a well entrenched foe. Also, let’s not forget that Ukraine has no real Air Force to speak of. During these daily clashes Ukraine has been losing significantly fewer hardware than Russia, which is unexpected (attacking side should lose more equipment all things being equal). There’s also been systematic targeting of Russian artillery, ammo dumps, hqs, and other logistic targets. They’ve hit the Kerch bridge and a few road / railway bottlenecks coming from Crimea. All of this is shaping the battlefield and keeping tension across the frontline. That is very much “the plan”. Zelenskyy himself has said multiple times that this “isn’t a movie”. The media loves the big battles, big explosions, lots of territory being taken over, etc . This isn’t that. Sure, it’d be wonderful if the Russian front just collapsed tomorrow, but it’ll probably grind on for several more months.
That said, if/when Ukraine attains fire control over the main highway in Zaporizhzhia it’ll be game over for this part of the war. Kherson and Zaporizhzhia oblasts will be fully liberated and Ukraine will have access to the Sea of Azov. Crimea will be under siege and would be next to fall. If Crimea falls, the war ends.
What makes you put the delay on the west? The west dictates neither Ukrainian strategy nor their timing.
That's just not correct at all. Considering the West supplies the tools needed to wage the war, it absolutely is dictating both strategy and timing. There's been numerous delays in equipment and constantly shifting as to what equipment will even be sent. It's hard to plan for an engagement when you can't guarantee even half of the expected gear will be there on time. As such, they have to instead wait for everything to come in or make due with what they've got.
The west 100% dictates Ukrainian strategy and timing by what military aid they chose to provide. The counter offensive was waiting for the bulk of heavy armor to arrive - without it they couldn’t go on the offensive.
There have been noticeable delays in military assistance to Ukraine, in what appears to be a systematic and purposeful incrementalism. The excuse has always been the concern that giving too much, too fast would further escalate the conflict, cause Russia to go nuclear and/or draw nato into the war.
We’ve seen the process several times, Ukraine requests X, USA/WEST says No, time passes, UK, Poland or USA change their mind, a “coalition” forms and they agree to provide X to Ukraine. The problem is that months pass to make the obviously decision and even more time will be need for training and setting up logistics. This happened with storm shadows, tanks and now F16s.
I'm not saying the telegraphing means that it's not happening. I'm saying that the vague telegraphing is in line with these countries not having the resources to move invading forces across their own territory, much less that of another country that is even more difficult to traverse.
I think ECOWAS’ ace up its sleeve is the likely support provided by the U.S. and (maybe) France. I wouldn’t be surprised if the U.S. would providing close air support, intelligence-gathering, and special operations forces. Ultimately, you don’t need to occupy the entire territory to depose the putschists, you just need to control a few key areas (border crossings, critical infrastructure, the capital Niamey). All of those falling denies them legitimacy and would serve to encourage uprisings. And that more limited goal could be achieved using various SOF assets that are almost certainly on (highly classified) deployments in West Africa. Use ECOWAS forces for the visible presence and “lighter duty” military work.
The democratically elected leader is held hostage by the junta and will be toast if there's a military response.
Possible, but the tree of democracy and all that. Better outcome than military dictatorship, and I suspect even the elected leader would agree with that despite the risk he carries.
It would be sad if they assassinated him, but better to let the people choose successor than for them to lose all control entirely.
Niger coup leader Gen Tchiani promises to handover power in three years
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-66562765