Money quote: "U.S. analysts have been struck by the “risk-averse behavior” of such a large force"
History rhyming. This has always been Russia's problem. They don't treat their citizens like citizens and so the citizens don't fight like citizens. It is widely believed that Russia could have won WWI in days, instead of losing in years had they had a competent and committed fighting force, given their superior numbers and positions relative to Germany's eastern flank. But they faced the same problem then that they do now: unreliable equipment, commanders who bought their positions, lack of reliable supply chains, and above all a fighting force that is there because they'd be shot if they refused.
Frankly, the hot take that shaped the 20th century was "Did the Russians lose the Russo-Japanese war because the Japanese are that good or because the Russians suck that hard?" Turns out that absolutes are vanishingly rare in the wild and a little of column A, a little of column B makes the world go 'round. Something I haven't seen pointed out in many places is the fact that this is not a whole-assed Russian invasion. The whole point is it's a peace-keeping mission with the intent to swiftly and surgically decapitate and replace despotic leadership. Putin wants a "Mission Accomplished" flag on an aircraft carrier by April and if he brought the full brunt of Russian mechanized warfare to bear we'd be looking at a very different situation. As it is, being able to go "oh that? That's just a precise little police action, I don't care about it anyway" has been essential so far to Putin's framing of the invasion.
The 40-mile-long convoy has literally run out of gas. I thought about how this could happen, and realized some genius probably did the fuel efficiency math for each vehicle traveling at near highway speed, maybe 40 to 50 mph, without accounting for the density of vehicles slowing each other down to around 20 to 30 mph, tops, which is obviously much less fuel efficient. Once a few vehicles start to run out of gas, they create further obstructions, and it's like a domino effect. It's also entirely possible that "running out of gas" was 100% intentional. With millions of Russians tuning into the BBC for coverage of Ukraine, it's only going to get harder for Putin from here on out.
This popped up on Twitter yesterday. Speaking as a tire enthusiast, I was astonished what crap a set of Pirelli P-Zero Neros turned into just by sitting on concrete, not moving for three years. Speaking as a military vehicle enthusiast, I have long heard the pitfalls of conscript-maintained vehicles. If you're serving compulsorily your concern for your duties is substantially lower than if you were a volunteer or a professional. I only have everyone else's anecdotes about Russian corruptness. But a bunch of aging Chinese tires that are supposed to be driven around and reflated every month in order to prevent lot rot? Yeahhhh I don't see that happening.
Never have I considered myself a war hawk, but every day I hope more and more for air support, while completely understanding the impracticality of engaging the Russian military directly. I think the consensus view in Washington must be to just let them implode under their own weight. It took 10 years in Afghanistan, but that was the under the best conditions the Soviet army probably was ever in. Maybe it will take a year this time? The realpolitik is heartbreaking, but may lead to less suffering in the long run.
We have learned that it is far, far cheaper from a manpower, political cost and even materiel standpoint to ship a fuckton of MANPADS. Which are coming to Ukraine from the US, the UK, the Netherlands, Poland and Lithuania, just from the first page of Google results. Costs as much as a C-class: Costs as much as an off-shore drilling rig: 
It occurred to me that there's been few discussions of the fact that the Soviets/Russians never really got the hang of good ole American-style asymmetrical warfare. Overwhelming warfare? For sure. Level Aleppo, that's on-brand. Stack patriot bodies for the protection of the Motherland against the Hun? Russian through'n'through. But "I'm going to hang out in an air-conditioned booth outside Vegas while my remote control plane burps contrast-guided missiles at you half a world away?" They've never really gotten a hang of the whole "freedom fighter" thing, either. If the Russians or Soviets are supporting a political faction, they give 'em tanks. They give 'em APCs. They give 'em rifles. They give 'em truck-mounted surface to air missiles. you know, army stuff. This whole "we're going to give you everything man-portable well past the point of plausible deniability" thing just ain't their jam. This has the potential to be Afghanistan, except instead of poverty-stricken factionalized mountain tribalists they're going after the former industrial heartland of the USSR. It'd be as if Viet Cong tactics were adopted by Michigan against an invasion from New Jersey.
Yeah. Enforcing a "no-fly" zone over Ukraine would require shooting down Russian planes. Russia would perhaps rightfully see that as an act of war by the West, and then the nukes would definitely be in play. It's heart-wrenching to do the calculus and conclude that, globally, we're most likely minimalizing suffering by letting only the Ukrainian people suffer. It feels cowardly. And like Fiona Hill says, Ukraine is undoubtedly not enough for Putin. Ugh. And yeah, what is the endgame for Putin? Does he really believe that the Ukrainian people will accept a puppet regime, if he even manages to set one up? The solidarity and resolve of the Ukrainians has massively ballooned over the last week, with no chance of waning this side of many years, I think. Belarusian trolling? If I'm Putin, and I want to maybe launch nukes, I'd want to at least partially blame someone else. I doubt Belarus has the facilities for ICBM launch, but intermediate yield and range nukes capable of menacing eastern Europe are much more portable. I'm not sure Putin will nuke anywhere he intends on eventually controlling, but who knows, and especially if he gets a bead on Zelensky's exact location, he might be willing to make an exception.
Counter-argument: the Americans did not defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan. Instead, we paid and trained the Afghans to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan. The result was an invigorated and seasoned core of insurgents that concluded they could defeat any oppressor. We would have much less difficulty in Afghanistan if we hadn't spent eight years teaching them how to kill us. Giving the Ukrainians the materiel and support to defeat the Russians will, in the long run, preserve more lives than swooping in and defeating the Russians. If Putin/whoever comes after Putin develops the sense that any conflict he chooses to get mired in is likely to be funded and supplied by NATO, his risk assessments will have to take that into account. I've got some tinfoil in my baseball cap these days. If I was a government run by a known traitor? And I had to figure out a way to persist on the off-chance I was able to reclaim it? I might well use the former Vice President's son as a courier for classified info. Especially if he was willing to be called a drug-addled adulterer by the opposition. Dunno. Never met Hunter Biden. But if I were looking for a place to sequester intelligence against a puppet regime hell bent on my destruction, I'd take a long hard look at his laptop.It's heart-wrenching to do the calculus and conclude that, globally, we're most likely minimalizing suffering by letting only the Ukrainian people suffer. It feels cowardly. And like Fiona Hill says, Ukraine is undoubtedly not enough for Putin. Ugh.