Thoughts on the Russo-Ukranian War?

I3BrigPvSk said:
The Franco-Prussian war was different from the other wars in the 19th century, but the Modus didn't change much until 1918. However, the Prussians were changing their thoughts about war, the major change occurred after the great war.
Click to expand...

The Franco-Prussian war had more in common with WW1 45 years later than it did with the Crimean war 18 years earlier.
If you look at the current batch of wars I think there has been another change which began with the Armenia-Azerbaijan war.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
And yet you show you don't know the difference between asymmetric and symmetric wars. Wars are political and used as a method to change a political reality, regardless if the war is asymmetric or symmetric. To take out military commanders, especially if they have a centralized command structure has an effect on the performance.

Revolutionary wars are asymmetric especially in the beginning. Even asymmetric warring parties need financial and military support. Ukraine gets support from the West. Soviet Union and China supported Vietnam, the US supported Mujahideen during the war in Afghanistan. The Israeli wars were proxy wars
Click to expand...

You still deny the influence of Spanish and French intervention in the American war of Independence. Today,even some US historians admit that this intervention was decisive .
Asymmetric warfare is a form of irregular warfare and as the battle of Yorktown was a classic battle ....
And : one can not label the start of the Ukrainian war as a symmetric or asymmetric war,as the strength of the Russians and the strength of the Ukrainians was and still is irrelevant : the Russians could have won with less forces and have lost with more forces .
That to take out a military commander has an effect on the performance,is wrong : Rommel was out in NA before Alamein and after Overlord : there is no proof that this had any effect on the performance of the WM . The same for Yamamoto or Koga .
The death of MacArthur in March 1942 would not have any effect on the performance of the US forces, neither did his replacement in Korea by Ridgway .
Ritchie was replaced by Gott who died in an aircraft accident and was replaced by Montgomery :there was no effect on the British performance .
In 2018 general Miller took over as commander in Afghanistan :what was the effect on the US performance ?
 
lljadw said:
You still deny the influence of Spanish and French intervention in the American war of Independence. Today,even some US historians admit that this intervention was decisive .
Asymmetric warfare is a form of irregular warfare and as the battle of Yorktown was a classic battle ....
And : one can not label the start of the Ukrainian war as a symmetric or asymmetric war,as the strength of the Russians and the strength of the Ukrainians was and still is irrelevant : the Russians could have won with less forces and have lost with more forces .
That to take out a military commander has an effect on the performance,is wrong : Rommel was out in NA before Alamein and after Overlord : there is no proof that this had any effect on the performance of the WM . The same for Yamamoto or Koga .
The death of MacArthur in March 1942 would not have any effect on the performance of the US forces, neither did his replacement in Korea by Ridgway .
Ritchie was replaced by Gott who died in an aircraft accident and was replaced by Montgomery :there was no effect on the British performance .
In 2018 general Miller took over as commander in Afghanistan :what was the effect on the US performance ?
Click to expand...

No, I said warring parties have support. A symmetric war isn't about the two sides strength. But you have learned what an asymmetric war is, it took over a year for you to learn it. The command structure has changed a lot since the WWII so using it as a reference doesn't work, There are two major schools within the military, what are they and what are they called?
 
MontyB said:
The Franco-Prussian war had more in common with WW1 45 years later than it did with the Crimean war 18 years earlier.
If you look at the current batch of wars I think there has been another change which began with the Armenia-Azerbaijan war.
Click to expand...

The Armenia-Azerbaijan war was interesting and it is not over yet. Two countries with equal equipment, doctrine, training, but there was one difference. Azerbaijan had drones and was able to severely destroy the Armenian logistics and HQs.

Ukraine gets F16, that was only a question of time. Norway provides with another MLRS system, Ukraine has turned into a huge testing ground. We haven't talked about electronic warfare, Ukraine would benefit to get jamming equipment.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
The Armenia-Azerbaijan war was interesting and it is not over yet. Two countries with equal equipment, doctrine, training, but there was one difference. Azerbaijan had drones and was able to severely destroy the Armenian logistics and HQs.

Ukraine gets F16, that was only a question of time. Norway provides with another MLRS system, Ukraine has turned into a huge testing ground. We haven't talked about electronic warfare, Ukraine would benefit to get jamming equipment.
Click to expand...

Before jubilating about the delivery ( when ? ) of F-16s to Ukraine, it would maybe wiser to wait till also the needed crew,technicians, spare parts,ammunition and fuel have been delivered .
And, I would not compare the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan to the Ukrainian war . For a lot of reasons .
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
No, I said warring parties have support. A symmetric war isn't about the two sides strength. But you have learned what an asymmetric war is, it took over a year for you to learn it. The command structure has changed a lot since the WWII so using it as a reference doesn't work, There are two major schools within the military, what are they and what are they called?
Click to expand...

2018 is not WW2 ,the replacement of Westmorland in 1968 also did not happen in WW2
 
BritinBritain said:
I don't know who the bigger criminal was/is, Stalin or Putin, both caused thousands of deaths of innocent civilian non combatants and POW's.
Click to expand...
Stalin's count is in the millions, if you included his own people he killed in purges & the Gulag, Ukrainian Famine, ect.
 
George said:
Stalin's count is in the millions, if you included his own people he killed in purges & the Gulag, Ukrainian Famine, ect.
Click to expand...

I think I read Mao has the record followed by Stalin, then Hitler for the title most murderous dictators of the 20th century, exact numbers are also an issue as many just vanished.
Ironically King Leopold of Belgium came 4th just behind Hitler.

Many people think Hitler would have been higher but both Mao and Stalin had a lot longer in charge.

Putin is probably starting to register on the list of 21st century dictators now though.
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
I think I read Mao has the record followed by Stalin, then Hitler for the title most murderous dictators of the 20th century, exact numbers are also an issue as many just vanished.
Ironically King Leopold of Belgium came 4th just behind Hitler.

Many people think Hitler would have been higher but both Mao and Stalin had a lot longer in charge.

Putin is probably starting to register on the list of 21st century dictators now though.
Click to expand...

That Leopold was number four just behind Hitler is an American myth .
And the killing fields, the victims of Sudan , the Armenians ,the Maori's, the Incas,...?
And I forget the countless Kurds killed by Saddam with the help of the US .
And, many more people have been killed in this century outside Ukraine than in Ukraine .
 
Last edited:
George said:
Stalin's count is in the millions, if you included his own people he killed in purges & the Gulag, Ukrainian Famine, ect.
Click to expand...

The Ukrainians would disagree with you that the victims of the Ukrainian famine (which did not exist ) were part of Stalin's own people .
Several millions died in the USSR because of communism ,several other millions died but deserved their fate .
 
lljadw said:
Before jubilating about the delivery ( when ? ) of F-16s to Ukraine, it would maybe wiser to wait till also the needed crew,technicians, spare parts,ammunition and fuel have been delivered .
And, I would not compare the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan to the Ukrainian war . For a lot of reasons .
Click to expand...

Nobody is comparing the Azerbaijan-Armenia war with Ukraine. The war between Azerbaijan and Armenia is/was interesting to study.

The training of Ukrainian pilots have been ongoing for awhile, but it had been better to provide Ukraine with more advanced UAVs
 
lljadw said:
2018 is not WW2 ,the replacement of Westmorland in 1968 also did not happen in WW2
Click to expand...

And yet you don't understand what the command structure is. The decentralized command is about delegate the decisions to lower ranked commanders such as company commanders, battalion commanders etc. During a war the decentralized command structure allows lower ranked commanders to adjust to the changing environment of the battlefield without asking for permission to do so. This approach is often linked to one of the military theories the military use to conduct military operations, the mission orientated approach.

The centralized command structure doesn't allow the commanders to adjust without permission. This structure isn't flexible and the army that uses the centralized command structure doesn't adjust fast when the army is facing difficulties. The difference between a good and well trained army and a not a good and well trained army is how they adjust to difficulties.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
A border can be crossed in both ways. The incursion into Russia causes commotion and divert Russian resources, but it cannot achieve much in the long run
Click to expand...

I think it was mainly a bit of a diversion that had the secondary bonus of giving Putin a black eye.

It did worry me that Russia may use it to return into the Kharkiv region and it may tie down Ukrainian forces but I think the Ukrainian advantage in intelligence and surveillance minimises that a bit.
 
I3BrigPvSk said:
And yet you don't understand what the command structure is. The decentralized command is about delegate the decisions to lower ranked commanders such as company commanders, battalion commanders etc. During a war the decentralized command structure allows lower ranked commanders to adjust to the changing environment of the battlefield without asking for permission to do so. This approach is often linked to one of the military theories the military use to conduct military operations, the mission orientated approach.

The centralized command structure doesn't allow the commanders to adjust without permission. This structure isn't flexible and the army that uses the centralized command structure doesn't adjust fast when the army is facing difficulties. The difference between a good and well trained army and a not a good and well trained army is how they adjust to difficulties.
Click to expand...

You still do not answer my reply that the replacement of Westmoreland did not change the effectiveness of the US army in Vietnam .
And :NO :a centralized command does NOT mean that the quality of an army is lower than that of a decentralized command ,as sometimes a centralized command is necessary because of the weather, geographic conditions, the opponent, etc ,discipline is the backbone of all armies and if every commander can do as he likes, there is no discipline, thus no army .
 
lljadw said:
That to take out a military commander has an effect on the performance,is wrong : Rommel was out in NA before Alamein and after Overlord : there is no proof that this had any effect on the performance of the WM . The same for Yamamoto or Koga .
The death of MacArthur in March 1942 would not have any effect on the performance of the US forces, neither did his replacement in Korea by Ridgway .
Ritchie was replaced by Gott who died in an aircraft accident and was replaced by Montgomery :there was no effect on the British performance .
In 2018 general Miller took over as commander in Afghanistan :what was the effect on the US performance ?
Click to expand...
If Napoleon had been killed during the Revolution, Europe would have been more peaceful in the 1790s-1815. Had Gen. Albert Sydney Johnston (considered the best mind in the CS Army) not been killed at Shiloh the whole Civil War in the west would have been different than what happened under the less than brilliant leadership of Braxton Bragg, and if Gen. Joe Johnston hadn't been wounded during the 7 Day's Battles R. E. Lee might never had the chance to show his skills. In some cases the Gen. in charge doesn't make a lot of difference, in others it does.
 
George said:
If Napoleon had been killed during the Revolution, Europe would have been more peaceful in the 1790s-1815. Had Gen. Albert Sydney Johnston (considered the best mind in the CS Army) not been killed at Shiloh the whole Civil War in the west would have been different than what happened under the less than brilliant leadership of Braxton Bragg, and if Gen. Joe Johnston hadn't been wounded during the 7 Day's Battles R. E. Lee might never had the chance to show his skills. In some cases the Gen. in charge doesn't make a lot of difference, in others it does.
Click to expand...

I struggle with his argument because it bases itself on the certainty of "it didn't happen, therefore it couldn't happen" and fails to take into account that even a minute change at the time could have resulted in an entirely different outcome.
Had Jackson not died at Chancellorsville or Buford not engaged Confederate forces at Gettysburg, had the Italians and Romanians put up a better fight at Stalingrad things may have ended differently.

Basically it is the Butterfly Effect, it is impossible to determine its effect but fun to postulate.

Russia fans seem to like pushing the idea that it is Ukrainians who started this yet none of it would have happened had Russia not crossed the border in 2014, they generally get very upset at pushing black and white arguments back at them.

Strangely I enjoy US Civil war discussion even when I don't know much about it as I find it fascinating.
 
George said:
If Napoleon had been killed during the Revolution, Europe would have been more peaceful in the 1790s-1815. Had Gen. Albert Sydney Johnston (considered the best mind in the CS Army) not been killed at Shiloh the whole Civil War in the west would have been different than what happened under the less than brilliant leadership of Braxton Bragg, and if Gen. Joe Johnston hadn't been wounded during the 7 Day's Battles R. E. Lee might never had the chance to show his skills. In some cases the Gen. in charge doesn't make a lot of difference, in others it does.
Click to expand...

NO
Napoleon dead or not :France would still try to dominate Europe and to spread its ideology .
The Civil war outcome was a fact at the start,unless the North would give up to try to conquer the South .
The South had not the intention, neither could it do it, to occupy the North .
The South was faced by a war of attrition and could not win it, Lee or no Lee .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top