Jake Steckler’s Post

Here’s my latest on the Ukraine war. Ukraine's Victory Remains in Reach: Implementing Critical Policy Changes in the Third Year of War The negative news coverage of the Ukraine-Russia conflict has unleashed a flood of dire predictions. However, doomsayers’ forecasts are overly grim and the outcome can be much more favorable for Ukraine with the right support and proper adjustment of both the United States’ and Ukraine’s strategy. The single most important factor outside of Ukraine’s control determining outcomes in the third year of war will be Western - and specifically American - military support. No single country or combination of countries can match the United States’ security assistance. Currently, American security aid is frozen in a political battle over congressionally appropriated funds… https://lnkd.in/gWPUCXXX

Ukraine’s New Hope. How an aid package from the U.S. could affect the war. "American funds will help Ukraine restock two things that have played pivotal roles in the war: artillery shells and antiaircraft munitions." According to the NYT's German Lopez "If all goes well, Ukraine could launch an offensive campaign in 2025, perhaps to retake territory in the country’s east and southeast. One important goal: to drive a wedge between Russia’s holdings in the eastern region of the Donbas and the southern peninsula of Crimea." https://lnkd.in/gnw77Z7n Over the past two years, Russia has fortified its positions, controlling roughly 20% of Ukrainian territory, with a larger population supporting the war effort and a resilient war economy. The mainstream analysis overlooks how Russia will respond to new aid. Will it be enough to push Russia out of the 20% territory? This piece operates on several assumptions: that Ukraine could retain 'most of its territory' and integrate economically and strategically with Europe, which is preferable to outright defeat. One assumption is that this conflict is solely about territorial control. Another is that recent aid funding will significantly change the current trajectory of the battle. However, the author fails to address a crucial aspect of wars of attrition: war economy and manpower. How will this be addressed? As the war persists, the level of destruction will escalate. Shouldn't the focus be on swiftly saving much of Ukraine rather than prolonging the conflict?

Ukraine’s New Hope. How an aid package from the U.S. could affect the war. "American funds will help Ukraine restock two things that have played pivotal roles in the war: artillery shells and antiaircraft munitions." According to the NYT's German Lopez "If all goes well, Ukraine could launch an offensive campaign in 2025, perhaps to retake territory in the country’s east and southeast. One important goal: to drive a wedge between Russia’s holdings in the eastern region of the Donbas and the southern peninsula of Crimea." https://lnkd.in/gAGmfK3t Over the past two years, Russia has fortified its positions, controlling roughly 20% of Ukrainian territory, with a larger population supporting the war effort and a resilient war economy. The mainstream analysis overlooks how Russia will respond to new aid. Will it be enough to push Russia out of the 20% territory? This piece operates on several assumptions: that Ukraine could retain 'most of its territory' and integrate economically and strategically with Europe, which is preferable to outright defeat. One assumption is that this conflict is solely about territorial control. Another is that recent aid funding will significantly change the current trajectory of the battle. However, the author fails to address a crucial aspect of wars of attrition: war economy and manpower. How will this be addressed? As the war persists, the level of destruction will escalate. Shouldn't the focus be on swiftly saving much of Ukraine rather than prolonging the conflict?

Ukraine’s New Hope. How an aid package from the U.S. could affect the war. "American funds will help Ukraine restock two things that have played pivotal roles in the war: artillery shells and antiaircraft munitions." According to the NYT's German Lopez "If all goes well, Ukraine could launch an offensive campaign in 2025, perhaps to retake territory in the country’s east and southeast. One important goal: to drive a wedge between Russia’s holdings in the eastern region of the Donbas and the southern peninsula of Crimea." https://lnkd.in/gAGmfK3t Over the past two years, Russia has fortified its positions, controlling roughly 20% of Ukrainian territory, with a larger population supporting the war effort and a resilient war economy. The mainstream analysis overlooks how Russia will respond to new aid. Will it be enough to push Russia out of the 20% territory? This piece operates on several assumptions: that Ukraine could retain 'most of its territory' and integrate economically and strategically with Europe, which is preferable to outright defeat. One assumption is that this conflict is solely about territorial control. Another is that recent aid funding will significantly change the current trajectory of the battle. However, the author fails to address a crucial aspect of wars of attrition: war economy and manpower. How will this be addressed? As the war persists, the level of destruction will escalate. Shouldn't the focus be on swiftly saving much of Ukraine rather than prolonging the conflict?

Ukraine’s New Hope. How an aid package from the U.S. could affect the war. "American funds will help Ukraine restock two things that have played pivotal roles in the war: artillery shells and antiaircraft munitions." According to the NYT's German Lopez "If all goes well, Ukraine could launch an offensive campaign in 2025, perhaps to retake territory in the country’s east and southeast. One important goal: to drive a wedge between Russia’s holdings in the eastern region of the Donbas and the southern peninsula of Crimea." https://lnkd.in/gAGmfK3t Over the past two years, Russia has fortified its positions, controlling roughly 20% of Ukrainian territory, with a larger population supporting the war effort and a resilient war economy. The mainstream analysis overlooks how Russia will respond to new aid. Will it be enough to push Russia out of the 20% territory? This piece operates on several assumptions: that Ukraine could retain 'most of its territory' and integrate economically and strategically with Europe, which is preferable to outright defeat. One assumption is that this conflict is solely about territorial control. Another is that recent aid funding will significantly change the current trajectory of the battle. However, the author fails to address a crucial aspect of wars of attrition: war economy and manpower. How will this be addressed? As the war persists, the level of destruction will escalate. Shouldn't the focus be on swiftly saving much of Ukraine rather than prolonging the conflict?

Ukraine’s New Hope. How an aid package from the U.S. could affect the war. "American funds will help Ukraine restock two things that have played pivotal roles in the war: artillery shells and antiaircraft munitions." According to the NYT's German Lopez "If all goes well, Ukraine could launch an offensive campaign in 2025, perhaps to retake territory in the country’s east and southeast. One important goal: to drive a wedge between Russia’s holdings in the eastern region of the Donbas and the southern peninsula of Crimea." https://lnkd.in/gnw77Z7n Over the past two years, Russia has fortified its positions, controlling roughly 20% of Ukrainian territory, with a larger population supporting the war effort and a resilient war economy. The mainstream analysis overlooks how Russia will respond to new aid. Will it be enough to push Russia out of the 20% territory? This piece operates on several assumptions: that Ukraine could retain 'most of its territory' and integrate economically and strategically with Europe, which is preferable to outright defeat. One assumption is that this conflict is solely about territorial control. Another is that recent aid funding will significantly change the current trajectory of the battle. However, the author fails to address a crucial aspect of wars of attrition: war economy and manpower. How will this be addressed? As the war persists, the level of destruction will escalate. Shouldn't the focus be on swiftly saving much of Ukraine rather than prolonging the conflict?

Ukraine’s New Hope. How an aid package from the U.S. could affect the war. "American funds will help Ukraine restock two things that have played pivotal roles in the war: artillery shells and antiaircraft munitions." According to the NYT's German Lopez "If all goes well, Ukraine could launch an offensive campaign in 2025, perhaps to retake territory in the country’s east and southeast. One important goal: to drive a wedge between Russia’s holdings in the eastern region of the Donbas and the southern peninsula of Crimea." https://lnkd.in/gnw77Z7n Over the past two years, Russia has fortified its positions, controlling roughly 20% of Ukrainian territory, with a larger population supporting the war effort and a resilient war economy. The mainstream analysis overlooks how Russia will respond to new aid. Will it be enough to push Russia out of the 20% territory? This piece operates on several assumptions: that Ukraine could retain 'most of its territory' and integrate economically and strategically with Europe, which is preferable to outright defeat. One assumption is that this conflict is solely about territorial control. Another is that recent aid funding will significantly change the current trajectory of the battle. However, the author fails to address a crucial aspect of wars of attrition: war economy and manpower. How will this be addressed? As the war persists, the level of destruction will escalate. Shouldn't the focus be on swiftly saving much of Ukraine rather than prolonging the conflict?

”Without an end in mind, leaders in Kyiv, Washington, and Brussels are making key decisions on an incremental and ultimately incoherent basis. Ukraine may achieve local successes, but not a comprehensive defeat of the enemy; for their part, Kyiv’s Western partners tend to think only about the next tranche of supplies. And without a strategic picture, it will be difficult to sustain morale and the will to fight in Ukraine and beyond. Coming up with a theory of victory will be much harder today than it would have been in 2022, when Russia launched its full-scale invasion. Since then, Russia has militarized its economy, prepared for a long war, managed to recruit hordes of soldiers, and produced large stockpiles of equipment. But despite these successes, Moscow’s land-war doctrine is still unsophisticated. It centers on using small infantry groups with the support of a few armored vehicles to attack various spots on a frontline that stretches for over 1,000 miles. These tactics have allowed Moscow to make limited territorial gains—but only after losing enormous amounts of troops and weapons. ”

Ukraine’s New Hope. How an aid package from the U.S. could affect the war. "American funds will help Ukraine restock two things that have played pivotal roles in the war: artillery shells and antiaircraft munitions." According to the NYT's German Lopez "If all goes well, Ukraine could launch an offensive campaign in 2025, perhaps to retake territory in the country’s east and southeast. One important goal: to drive a wedge between Russia’s holdings in the eastern region of the Donbas and the southern peninsula of Crimea." https://lnkd.in/gnw77Z7n Over the past two years, Russia has fortified its positions, controlling roughly 20% of Ukrainian territory, with a larger population supporting the war effort and a resilient war economy. The mainstream analysis overlooks how Russia will respond to new aid. Will it be enough to push Russia out of the 20% territory? This piece operates on several assumptions: that Ukraine could retain 'most of its territory' and integrate economically and strategically with Europe, which is preferable to outright defeat. One assumption is that this conflict is solely about territorial control. Another is that recent aid funding will significantly change the current trajectory of the battle. However, the author fails to address a crucial aspect of wars of attrition: war economy and manpower. How will this be addressed? As the war persists, the level of destruction will escalate. Shouldn't the focus be on swiftly saving much of Ukraine rather than prolonging the conflict?

Ukraine’s New Hope. How an aid package from the U.S. could affect the war. "American funds will help Ukraine restock two things that have played pivotal roles in the war: artillery shells and antiaircraft munitions." According to the NYT's German Lopez "If all goes well, Ukraine could launch an offensive campaign in 2025, perhaps to retake territory in the country’s east and southeast. One important goal: to drive a wedge between Russia’s holdings in the eastern region of the Donbas and the southern peninsula of Crimea." https://lnkd.in/gAGmfK3t Over the past two years, Russia has fortified its positions, controlling roughly 20% of Ukrainian territory, with a larger population supporting the war effort and a resilient war economy. The mainstream analysis overlooks how Russia will respond to new aid. Will it be enough to push Russia out of the 20% territory? This piece operates on several assumptions: that Ukraine could retain 'most of its territory' and integrate economically and strategically with Europe, which is preferable to outright defeat. One assumption is that this conflict is solely about territorial control. Another is that recent aid funding will significantly change the current trajectory of the battle. However, the author fails to address a crucial aspect of wars of attrition: war economy and manpower. How will this be addressed? As the war persists, the level of destruction will escalate. Shouldn't the focus be on swiftly saving much of Ukraine rather than prolonging the conflict?