BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
Wasting your time chaps
Thoughts on the Russo-Ukranian War?
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
The problem is that I see failure to correctly plan, equip and prosecute a war as incompetence.
The Russian misconception of how Russia was going to be seen by Ukrainians and the response of the west also indicate incompetence and failure at the highest levels.
Even if the Russian military had carried out the plan to the best of their ability it was still a bad plan.
I struggle to understand how anyone can see it as anything else.
The Russian misconception of how Russia was going to be seen by Ukrainians and the response of the west also indicate incompetence and failure at the highest levels.
Even if the Russian military had carried out the plan to the best of their ability it was still a bad plan.
I struggle to understand how anyone can see it as anything else.
Last edited:
As there was no better plan available,possible, one can not say that the existing plan was bad .
The Russians did not fail because of the plan they used,they would have failed with another plan : they failed because of the Ukrainian resistance ,not because of Western AT weapons :if the Ukrainians had given up, the Western AT weapons would have been useless .
The comparison with Barbarossa is striking : the Germans did not fail because their plan was bad or by US Lend Lease, but because the Soviet population decided not to capitulate .
The Germans would have also have failed if they had another plan .
The Russian misconception of how they were going to be seen by the Ukrainians had no influence on the outcome of the war . An other conception would have the same results .
The outcome of the war was decided by the Ukrainians,not by the Russians or by the West .
I challenge everyone to produce a realistic plan that would have given Russia victory .
A plan that resulted in failure ( NOT : caused failure ) is not a bad plan .
To talk about a bad Russian plan,is to deny the Ukrainians the merit of their victory .
The Russians did not lose:the Ukrainians won .
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
All true but all irrelevant.
What Russia thought was going to happen and how they were going to be seen came from some one doing some research and the outcome of that research was going to determine what preparations needed to be made or even whether the invasion was going to happen or not.
If the outcome of the invasion has been due to that reporting then the department who generated the reports failed dismally, if the reporting was correct but the planners came up with this plan then they failed dismally and if the whole lot was ignored by Putin then he failed dismally, My guess is that they all failed dismally.
Now here is the rub, systematic or institutionalised failure is generally defined by incompetence.
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
All wars are different, but all symmetric wars share similarities. However, the Russian did the same mistake as they did in Chechnya and in Georgia. They apparently didn't learn anything from these two wars. The coordination between different branches didn't work in Chechnya and Georgia, and yet it still doesn't work. Why? The Russians must know about it so why don't they have better and secure communication equipment? If the funding for getting it ends up somewhere else because of corruption. The Russian military training. It is the same here, conducting exercises cost money and require fuel, but if the fuel is sold to the civilians, they don't get the proper training.
A military unit has a logistic tail, without it nothing works. Usually the unit can supply itself in about four-five days after that they begin to run out of what they have with them. The Russians got logistical problems after day two.
The intelligence failed badly and there is two reasons for it. The Russian intelligence service is incompetent or they reported what their political leader wanted to hear instead of what is true.
The Russian command structure is centralized, which mean lower ranked commanders cannot respond to a changing situation without permission to do so. It slows down the response.
The Ukrainians know how the Russians operate because they were trained in the same way as the Russians. If you know yourself and if you know your enemy.....Ukrainians received training after 2014 and implemented the decentralized command structure which is more flexible than what the Russians are doing.
The only way for the Ukrainians to win the war is to make the war unsustainable for the Russians, the cost gets too high
All wars are different, but those who defend their country, their homes, and their families tend to be more motivated than those attacking it. It is difficult to measure this motivation, but it is present in most wars. The Ukrainian political leadership was also good at motivating the Ukrainians.
A military unit has a logistic tail, without it nothing works. Usually the unit can supply itself in about four-five days after that they begin to run out of what they have with them. The Russians got logistical problems after day two.
The intelligence failed badly and there is two reasons for it. The Russian intelligence service is incompetent or they reported what their political leader wanted to hear instead of what is true.
The Russian command structure is centralized, which mean lower ranked commanders cannot respond to a changing situation without permission to do so. It slows down the response.
The Ukrainians know how the Russians operate because they were trained in the same way as the Russians. If you know yourself and if you know your enemy.....Ukrainians received training after 2014 and implemented the decentralized command structure which is more flexible than what the Russians are doing.
The only way for the Ukrainians to win the war is to make the war unsustainable for the Russians, the cost gets too high
All wars are different, but those who defend their country, their homes, and their families tend to be more motivated than those attacking it. It is difficult to measure this motivation, but it is present in most wars. The Ukrainian political leadership was also good at motivating the Ukrainians.
I disagree with the conclusions that
1 The Russians were incompetent,because something ''better '' was not possible . The Russians knew that they could only succeed if the Ukrainians collapsed in the two first weeks .Thus they concluded that the Ukrainians would collaps in the first two weeks .This is wishful -thinking ,but this does not make the plan bad .It was the same for Market-Garden, the success of which was based on the possibility that the Germans would give up immediately .The fact that this did not happen,does not make the plan wrong . An other plan would also have failed .
2 the Russian misconception was the reason of the failure : the reason of the failure had nothing to do with the Russian misconception .The failure was caused by the Ukrainians .If the Ukrainians had collapsed, what would be the reason of the Russian success ? Not the plan or the Russian conception , but the Ukrainian collaps .
To say that it was the fault of the Russians that they failed,is to deny the role of the Ukrainians .
Besides : an other plan that would give Russia success,was impossible .
It is not because a plan failed that the plan is bad .You can win with a ''bad '' plan and lose with a ''good '' plan .
The Germans lost in August 1914, not because the Schlieffen Plan was bad ,and they did not win in 1940 because the '' Manstein '' plan was good .
And it is not because a plan succeeded,that the plan is good .
BritinBritain
Per Ardua Ad Astra
:bang:Its like watching paint dry
1 CIA said what Bush wanted to hear as a justification to attack Iraq .
2 There is no relation between decentralised command/centralised command and victory/defeat :the Germans had a decentralised command in August 1914 and failed, their command was centralised in May 1940 and they won .
3 There is no proof that logistical problems were the reason of the Russian failure .
4 There is also no proof that the Russians failed because they were less trained than the Ukrainians .
5 The same for corruption : there is also corruption on Ukrainian side .
Frankly, I don't know why you are looking on the Russian side for their defeat and why you are refusing to give the Ukrainians the merit for their success .
There is no proof that Russia could have succeeded with better information, a decentralised command ,better logistics, more training ,less corruption .
The Russians had the same problems in 2014 but still were successful .
The Russians were more realistic than the US in Afghanistan, Vietnam and Iraq : US is convinced that its culture is better and that thus everyone in Vietnam,Iraq and Afghanistan would welcome them and that these people wanted to become cultural Americans . We know that this did not happen.
The Russians knew the Ukrainians and knew that the longer the war lasted and the more Ukrainians were killed,the bigger the hostility would be of the Ukrainians ;they knew that the only way to win this war was a short and fast war without big Ukrainian losses .They knew also that only such a war would give then a victorious peace .
They knew their big shortcomings, they knew also that better information,training, etc would not help them .
The reality is that a Russian victory depended only on the Ukrainians and thus, instead of repeating the ( post) Cold War propaganda about the stupid Russians, one should look at the points that gave Ukraine its victory .
The Wallies won against the Germans not because the Germans made mistakes,but because the Wallies were stronger .
It is the same for the Soviets .
It is the same for the Ukrainians .
Russia attacked a country of 600000 km and 40 million hostile inhabitants with a small army of 200000. Except for a miracle, they were doomed to fail .
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
What the US did back in 2003 has very little to do what the Russians are doing now.
No, nobody had decentralized command structure during the dual world wars, especially not during the Great War. Because they didn't have the communication equipment for it. Take a closer look at the Israeli wars, the first Gulf War, Falklands, and the beginning of the second Gulf War which were all symmetric wars. You haven't yet learned the difference between asymmetric wars and symmetric wars. If you had been in the military you should have known the difference, but you have never been to the military so you don't know these things. The Ukrainians got training and education, changed their command structure while the Russians are repeating the mistakes they did in Chechnya and Georgia. They are paying dearly for it. Military training and exercises are vital to get military units to do what they are supposed to do in a real war. Ukrainians received training, NATO units were there for exercises after 2014 up to the end of 2020
The war has during this winter turned into a war of attrition and that is a war Ukraine cannot win
I would advise you not to say in Ukraine that the Ukrainians got education ,because they would consider this as an insult,that they were non educated people .
And :yes : there was decentralised command structure in 1914,because the communication means were primitive and some one as Moltke had to send a delegate to the Western front ,with full powers , colonel Hentsch and meanwhile Kluck and Bülow were acting independently .It was the same in the East : 8th army was retreating, without asking the consent of Berlin .
Centralised command means that central command knows what the regional and local commanders are doing,and this was not so in 1914 .
And : the Russians did not fail in Georgia and Chechnya .
Last point : Ukraine must not ''win '' ,Russia must'' win '' . And Russia never can .Russia never can defeat,occupy and pacify Ukraine ,even if Ukraine was not ''educated '' by NATO .
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
I work with Ukrainians here and they are well educated. Their military personnel get educated at our defense schools and civilian universities.
And yet you don't understand the difference between centralized and decentralized command structures. What you described is a centralized command structure
You still do not understand how insulting this is for the Ukrainians .
Why should Ukrainian military need your defense schools and your civilian (!) universities ?
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I think we are lost in translation again, I don't think anyone is suggesting the west taught Ukrainians how to count with out needing their shoes off or that they needed to be taught how, My guess is that he is talking about the integration of Ukrainian forces into NATO so they are being taught to be interoperable with NATO.
This would probably be because Ukraine signed up for NATO's Comprehensive Assistance Package for Ukraine (CAPU) in July 2016 and they did this because Russia was meddling inside their borders at least as far back as 2013.
Centralized Command is maintaining authority over a group while providing direction or giving orders on how to operate or function .
In September 1914 Moltke had lost all authority over the commanders of the 5 armies in the West,he also was unable to provide direction or to give orders on how to operate or function .
The main reason was that he did not know what happened and could thus not give direction or give orders .
The only thing he could do was to send a colonel (!) who had no authority over the army commanders and who had no written orders from Moltke and was thus the ideal scapegoat ,the only thing Hentsch could do was to give suggestions ,who would be and were be disregarded by the army commanders who were 20 years older and 4 ranks higher .
All this means that there was no centralized command in September 1914 ,the principal reason was that the OHL had no information of what was happening .If you don't know what happens, you can't give orders .
Do you imagine that in May 1940 the new CIGS (Dill ) would send a colonel without clear orders,to tell Gort what he had to do ?
In September 1914 Moltke had lost all authority over the commanders of the 5 armies in the West,he also was unable to provide direction or to give orders on how to operate or function .
The main reason was that he did not know what happened and could thus not give direction or give orders .
The only thing he could do was to send a colonel (!) who had no authority over the army commanders and who had no written orders from Moltke and was thus the ideal scapegoat ,the only thing Hentsch could do was to give suggestions ,who would be and were be disregarded by the army commanders who were 20 years older and 4 ranks higher .
All this means that there was no centralized command in September 1914 ,the principal reason was that the OHL had no information of what was happening .If you don't know what happens, you can't give orders .
Do you imagine that in May 1940 the new CIGS (Dill ) would send a colonel without clear orders,to tell Gort what he had to do ?
And why should Ukrainian forces be integrated into NATO and not the opposite ? And :were NATO forces integrated before the war in Ukraine ?
NATO has never fought against the Russians, it has ever never fought a conventional war and it is now saying to Ukraine that is fighting against Russia,how to do this ?
NATO can learn Ukraine how to use NATO weapons, but it can not tell Ukraine how to use these weapons against the Russians .
Russia has more influence on the strategy and tactics of Ukraine ,than NATO.
Why should NATO officers who have no war experience,tell the Ukrainians how to fight against Russia ?
What is more important :NATO doctrine or Ukrainian doctrine ?
CAPU means NATO military aid to Ukraine ,but this does not mean that NATO can tell Ukraine how it should use NATO weapons against the Russians .
Didn't work well for Ukrainians when the Russians grabed the Crimea. They then sought out western (NATO) ways of doing things.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I certainly think that was the point where they realised that without capitulation they could not coexist with Russia as a neighbour and their best chance of survival was with NATO and the west.
NATO never fought against Russia, thus it is not on NATO to tell Ukraine how to fight against Russia .
And Ukraine was not seeking out western ( NATO ) ways of doing things, but only western weapons .
Ukraine knows how to fight against Russia, NATO does not know it .
Ukraine could and has even stopped the Russians without western aid .
In 1940 Churchill said about LL : give us the tools and we will do the job ,he did not say :learn us how to do the job .
It is the same for Ukraine .
If their best chance of survival was with NATO and the West (which it was not ), why are they not members of NATO ?
They had more than 8 years to ask to join NATO,but they didn't it .
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Not really in the mood for these cyclic arguments so moving on...
I am struggling to buy the story that Ukraine sent a couple of small low yield drones to the Kremlin at 2am to kill Putin, even had they hit nearby it is doubtful they would have done much damage.
My guess is Russia is planning either an internal crackdown on dissent (as the drones were too small to have flown from Ukraine and most likely were launched nearby) or looking to justify attacks on Ukrainian civilian centres.
https://www.pressherald.com/2023/05...t/?utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral
I am struggling to buy the story that Ukraine sent a couple of small low yield drones to the Kremlin at 2am to kill Putin, even had they hit nearby it is doubtful they would have done much damage.
My guess is Russia is planning either an internal crackdown on dissent (as the drones were too small to have flown from Ukraine and most likely were launched nearby) or looking to justify attacks on Ukrainian civilian centres.
https://www.pressherald.com/2023/05...t/?utm_source=ground.news&utm_medium=referral