The_Capt

Ah, so we want to talk “rational”, which is kinda strange given the whole lead up to this mess but, ok I will bite. There are two types of rationality at work here, objective or high level, and subjective or relative. High level, the rational is that at least as far as anyone can tell the Russian public are not entirely onside with this whole dance. So if one were to bleed Russian forces enough they might buckle, much similar to how Afghanistan in the 80s went but accelerated. The cost will be high but if Russia will collapses (or somebody with real power in the back room “retires” Putin) then the pay off is Ukraine remains free, gets all sorts of reconstruction aid from the west and makes the world record for admission into NATO, while Russians burn their own cities. At a low level, Russians just blew up my home and killed my friends and family, I am not “rational”, I am furious and willing to take as many Russian soldiers with me cause they are likely to kill me anyway [aside: are we really applauding the Russian military for not committing war crimes? Man, that is a low bar]. In the end it is a Ukrainian decision and all we can do is support them as much as possible -in case there was any doubt the west has picked a side here-, and more than we did in the run up to this mess.

So this And this is, victim blaming. An angle oppressors and abusers have used forever: “this is your fault for struggling”. It is the little old lady’s fault for getting shot. I am not sure what the Ukrainian’s should do they are a free people (for now) who are fighting and dying for that freedom. I think Russia should stop because the loss of life is entirely on them right now. I think Russia should pay for the damage it has caused and toss out its current government while it is at it and rejoin the international community. But we are being all realistic and pragmatic. Ok, same answer. Realistically this will devolve into a long running insurgency backed by western powers that will make Iraq and Afghanistan look like a grade school dance - so awkward but adorable. This will likely create destabilizing pressure on Putins regime and instability in Russia itself. So from a Russian point of view Ukraine rolling over and quitting is the only good option at this point. And I for one sincerely hope they find a way to remain a free and democratic nation able to chart their own destiny.

Well if that is true, someone had better tell the US cause they clearly do not see it that way. I am no economics expert but when a nation is moving to become the global currency reserve (just google it) it is going to have that pen, history backs that up. Anyway, we probably should stray too far into the China debate or the den mother is going to come in and take our candles away.

Ya, I am not buying the “eastern sage/western squirrel” argument. I mean there is some truth to the election cycle pendulum but for having “no long term strategic thinking” the west has become the richest and most powerful version of human civilization by any metric (except possibly spiritual). If Putin is looking into that bowl of water, across the sands of time, he will note that the west is pretty messed up coming out of this pandemic and later might have been better. Hell, we had pretty much written off Crimea and he needed only a few member states to reject or derail the entry process into NATO. In short for a “long term strategist” he had a bunch of options he didn’t just leave on the table, he lit them on fire and flushed them down the toilet. He also completely missed the one thing that really matters to the West, the Deal. We all got very rich off the Deal and he just pissed all over it.

Ok, let’s do China for a minute. China’s not in the same league as Russia, I am not sure they are even playing the same sport. China’s trajectory and activities mirror US early days as a rising power in the 19th century, they are in this to win. Win what Capt? Win the pen that gets to write the new set of rules. So What about Ukraine? Well if you are trying for top dog, it does not mean you just have weight to throw around, you must also lead. China has done this in its sphere but globally it has been standing back and waiting. This whole thing is not helping China in my opinion. They are playing a long game and a kinda-partner lit half the board on fire. This is damned awkward for them as they are not ready to take over global leadership, they lack the clout or street cred and the US, while a little bruised up, is no where near ready to toss in the towel. So now Russia starts a ruckus and they are trying desperately to not take a side while looking weak in the process; this does not promote a global leadership image and they cannot break with Russia the next biggest power in the “out club”. And then there is India..like what the hell guys?!

In political and strategic timeframes this is a whiplashing policy shift even for an autocrat. This time last year no one as seriously thinking that beyond the usual sabre rattling and posturing that this was an eventuality, or at least mainstream analysis. They obviously set this in motion a few months ago and again , why? If the calculus was “well been getting away with rear area ass grabbery, now let’s try cruise missiles”, it is a miscalculation of historic proportions. That or, he knows something we don’t and all resolve collapses in a few weeks, at which point we are really in trouble.

You know this is what I can’t get past either. Up until now Putin has been pretty careful and demonstrated nuance and sophistication in his strategies. The list of successes is quite long, all based on careful manipulation of narrative, subversive tactics and a brilliant divide and conquer effort aimed at the west, US specifically. Georgia, Estonia, Crimea, Donbas v1.0, Syria, the Arm-Azer conflict, democratic interference and even in far flung corners like Africa Russia has been pulling off a string of wins by getting inside our calculus and leaving us in the west unable to decide what to do. Then suddenly Putin wakes up one morning and says to himself, “hell let’s see if all out war will work”…? Does not add up. Further, what is the crisis worth risking all this? Some say Ukraine entry into NATO but it was not like they were having the induction ceremony this week. There was plenty of rumbling in the west to slow roll Ukraine entry for this exact reason. So why the sudden need for extreme escalation? From a political and strategic perspective this does not make a lot of sense. The risks are very high, the long term costs also high, so what is the pay off here? It is too easy to say “he is crazy”, but he has not demonstrated this level of irrationality before. It like there has been a glitch in the Matrix. I am sure they will be trying to figure this one out for some time.

If Russia employs tactical nuclear weapons, or even chemical...I am going out back to dig a deep hole.

Indeed. I am afraid that despite the human tragedy my professional curiosity keeps getting the better of me. I think we will be unpacking this for years as conventional peer-on-peer fights are very rare in the wild in the modern era (let's hope they stay that way). Three biggest issues with Soviet doctrine of "military mass on multiple fronts, then reinforce success" was momentum, C2 and logistics. Momentum is in the wind but it looks like not a lot of urban combat so far so the Russians are keeping it moving. As to C2, reports from 2014 demonstrate that Russia appeared to have taken a more western approach to C2 but again we will be unpacking that for some time. Logistics has to be what is keeping the Russian commanders up at night right now. That is a really tough logistical problem with really dynamic lines of communication and very hungry lead sabre elements. That, and not a lot of reports of mass Ukrainian surrenders - I am sure it would be all over the internet if there were, but these are early days - so enveloped units are continuing to fight or de-aggregate into a hybrid warfare model. Neither of those two options are good for long lines of communication. Russia has to be pulling for a short sharp war here, the west is hoping for the opposite and the Ukrainians are caught in between. I am not sure how widespread the arming of civilians is right now but that is a sign the Ukrainians are considering digging in hard.

Well the issue here appears to have become not even about the Ukraine itself but the broader declaration of war on "the system" by Russia. Russia is send a message to the international audience, and international community is sending one back. From a western perspective this need to hurt badly in order to deter further actions by any autocratic nation who is looking to step outside the system. So from that point of view that the west will "fight to the last Ukrainian" is a very real thing. Problem is I am not sure even if Russia fails gloriously and is driven back to it own borders I doubt it will carry. Why? Because those ready to step outside the system have all seen the only consequence one must face is angry rhetoric and "sanctions". This is the endgame of a process that has been happening for at least 20 years, the world forming up into "us and them" spheres. I am not sure what the Ukrainians "should do", that is really up to them and the failure to arm/support them well enough to demonstrate sufficient resistance threat is on us; our deterrence through denial or punishment has fundamentally failed in this case. In this regard Putin has already won a victory. What is clear though is that they are really pissed and this war has become less about policy through other means and has become personal, as they all do. Vietnam in '79 is not a good analogy. It had already defeated the US in a grueling war and "commies killing commies" was hardly an international issue at the height of the Cold War. Ukraine is an independent and recognized sovereign state with a functioning democracy which has just been invaded by a global power on grounds that are so thin as to border on childish...very different.

And this is political warfare in the 21st century.

Ah, now that is using the ol noodle. Play the backfield and i.s.o.l.a.t.e. This is all tricky because the "sum of all fears" here is not some weird WW3 scenario - which is plenty scary but more remote - it is a Russia goes all haywire (again) when someone puts a bullet in Putin and we have a possible collapse of a nuclear power (again). Last thing anyone needs is a nuclear weapon enabled Russian Civil War.

To my mind that is kinda in that political warfare space (every sphere has its own terms). Unless you are talking a cyber WME vs Russia, but I think if they were going to do that they would have already pulled the trigger. I think in the cyber and subversive zones the west has been totally caught flat footed. You want Putin to bleed heavy and maybe even lose? Conduct "non-attributable" cyber attacks on Russian C4ISR while they are in mid-operation (I actually pray to god we do). I have no doubt the west has the capability, it is the will to go there that was missing. The primary fear was one of "escalation" but I think that stinky barge has sailed.

Not sure what "over" looks like here. I mean it could be a partitioned Ukraine with Russians holding Eastern and the capital, of course they then have a very pissed off Western "Free Ukraine" with a steady flow of weapons and fast-tracked application to join NATO. If we are talking full control of the entire state right up to the Polish border, well I am betting that will take a much longer period of time, if ever, so long as the Ukrainians decide to keep on fighting an insurgency. Although, I would be lying if I did not confess to a very high level of professional curiosity at to how this is going to go down on the conventional side. What we know is likely in two weeks: - Russia will be a diplomatic and economic pariah. - NATO will be seriously re-invigorated now that it has a "real" adversary to point at. - Europe will be politically united, or at least as united as it gets. Not sure how long it will last. - US will likely "take the gloves off" in the political warfare arena. So far the west has been pretty much defensive in this space but I am betting some old-school options are going to come back on the table. Any other ideas?

The only angle I can think of right now is that he has somehow managed to penetrate the Ukrainian military and government and has cut a drug deal behind the scenes. However, beyond being insulting to those Ukrainians who are currently dying for their country, this also raise the obvious question of "why do a full scale invasion act?" I mean if he had sway inside the Ukrainian government why not pull that lever and stage a coup from the inside a la Crimea? Cruise missiles and massive rocket bombardments do not demonstrate a sophisticated political warfare approach. So unless Putin has been dozing through the last 30 years of western misadventures or simply has been smoking his own supply and thinks "I will be different" because I ride bears on the weekend, this dance makes no sense. This is the chapter Clausewitz never got to; "war is sometimes just plain dumb".

Not even close. Iraqi Freedom in 2003, had about 310k and couldn't control a country with roughly the same population but 200k sq kms smaller. And Iraq wasn't getting MANPADs and Javelins from outside allies. So the insurgency gets ugly, Russian security forces get bled, and then the inevitable retribution gets broadcast on the internet. Russia cannot bail because its propped up regime likely will not stand without support, it is personal now (sound familiar - Afghanistan). All the while the economic sanctions squeeze. So back to, "how exactly does Putin think this will end?"

I wish that this was all this was. The "winning" international order, established after WW2 and outlasted the Soviet version, was a deal that we all agreed to, for the most part. "The rules" were pretty simple, a community of nations will work to create stability and make money. Sure we still have rogue states and random a##holes, but they were on the margins. All the great powers largely agreed, particularly after the end of the Cold War to a "deal" that they would all behave like grown ups. The problem was that the global pecking order did not sit well with some but we thought we could manage that. And the rules got bent sometimes, we even tried to live with that. This breaks the system at a fundamental level. Russia has opted out, and Russia is not North Korea, or Iran, or Iraq, or Afghanistan. Or more bluntly, a global power with enough nuclear weapons to push us into a civilization re-set, just went rogue and dared the rest of us to do something about it.

Well that is the question isn't it? I find it hard to believe that a man as cagey as he honestly believes: 1. He can have a short sharp war with another state that is now supported by the EU and NATO. 2. Conduct a clean regime change that the Ukrainian people will actually accept. 3. Pull back, re-normalize and go back to selling gas to Europe. So what is the plan here?

Wow, is that a Tsushima reference? Respect.

Funny how all the pro-Russian narrators have suddenly gone silent, but I am sure they will be back. Internet is lighting up now. Here are some cruise missiles from those 17 "tugs and tenders" out in the Black Sea. Whelp, whole new ballgame now folks.

Couple really good papers: https://www.tradoc.army.mil/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/From-Active-Defense-to-AirLand-Battle.pdf https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1083634.pdf And of course there is personal experience. They were still teaching a form of this to us back in the late 80s and early 90s as AirLand Battle and manoeuvre warfare doctrine did not really start to inculcate the Canadian military training system until the mid-90s. We still were doing KZs and defence in depth belts. I can recall one computer ex (thsi thing called JANUS, which probably cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and had the computing power of the old Pentiums) where we did exactly as the video above describes. And then gleefully watch the Soviets charge headlong into the KZ, even the last vehicle who would have seen the burning hulks from miles away, charged directly in like a lemming. Over 30+ years one lesson we still keep learning is that "the enemy is not going to cooperate".

Of course, I must humbly withdraw my concern. You are clearly an expert in maritime warfare, which war college do you teach at?

Not sure if it was intentional. When I built the Soviet Campaign, I pretty much started with the US defence position (in all but mission 4) based on the KZ concept. The fact that there were hidden approaches just sort of happened, but I guess it would be true of any defensive position. What is more telling is that I am watching players go "nope" at the obvious KZs while the entirely of US Active Defence doctrine was for the Russians to "not do that". The Soviet Campaign is hard, by design, but based on US doctrine a that time it should be unwinnable, which it clearly is not. Mission 2 - Eiterfeld was pulled directly- well the map was- from a US Army wargame they had sent around back in 1979 (Bil got a copy): dkreview.pdf Here you can see the obvious KZs in the center of the map (we pulled up the South side a bit but it pretty much matches). However, players as Soviets keep taking Hill 446, which is simply not "the plan". My sense is that Active Defence would work very well if you are fighting a zombie horde but living intelligent human beings, even ones with a centralized and templated doctrine are probably going to go "nope".

Not going to weigh in here on @Free Whisky's tactics I will leave that to the rest of the group. I so want to highlight somethings that jumped out at me though as I watched this excellent AAR. First, CM is really unique, or at least one of very few, in that it is a game about 'managing chaos' or in this case "surviving chaos". Free Whiskey had a plan going in, it met an opposing plan and not a small amount of just random acts of tactical turbulence in that collision. Second, clicks per minute are not going to save you. In CM, it more likely that "re-thinking per minute" or re-strategizing (e.g. 4 Plans) faster and better than an opponent is going to carry the day. Points 1 and 2 are in constant dynamic competitive motion, forcing players to constantly make decisions. These are what makes CM realistic, in many ways beyond its contemporaries; not the vehicles and weapon systems, they are the means to the end. I play other wargames (I can hear the gasps) and in a lot of RTSs it is about clicks and strategy is very attritional (i.e. how fast can I throw more stuff in that direction). This is not to say they are not without merit, and they can get the blood pumping but one does not get the same "combat chess on a ship deck, in a storm" feel. So when I look at what Free Whiskey did right, I see a lot of adaptation of "the plan" and improvisation with limited resources in the face of an opponent under the same conditions. His ability to re-think and adapt with what he had (e.g. Toothless) is the real stuff and frankly what led him to a solid draw. "But how could he have won there Capt?". No idea, in fact in this QB, on that map, maybe there was no way to win. But I do see those skill sets that need to be nurtured and enhanced that will lead to more wins than losses. I also see bottle madness as the red god laughs his ass off, and that is simply outstanding.

I am still waiting for @dbsapp to show up here and tell us it is all "fake news", at this point I am actually hoping he is right...