The_Capt

The other big problem is that power hungry leaders on both extremes are creating a doctrine of absolutism. There can be no middle ground when one’s identity is tied to uncompromising rigid belief systems that must stand even in the face of directly contradictory facts - simply choose to believe “alternative facts”. To the players this is just a game to push support into their camps, but it is so dangerous. Once you polarize enough and demonize the other side(s) to the point that there is no compromise…well that is how democracies die. We see it here. We get drive bys by posters who are completely unsupported by facts and have constructed frameworks of how the world works to simply shore up the position that they are “better than them”. Ignore an illegal war that is murdering thousands…they other guys are supporting it, it must be wrong. And frankly the odd trolls that spin through here are pretty tame if one starts looking around. Now I have to believe these are nothing more that vocal minorities; however, I am not entirely sure. I am not sure where the middle went. The moderates and compromise. I am sure it is still there but some days it feels like it has already left the process.

Well pot smoking is on the menu now, at least for some of us.

Now, now this gentleman has presented a very coherent strategy on how to decisively lose the next Cold War/strategic competition. This will guarantee a US hard power contraction, which means soft power will be right behind it - I mean why invest in the US on many levels if they refuse to actually “get involved”? What value is US diplomacy if security means America only? This is right up the alley of a certain political figure that it could be ripped from one of his speeches. And into these vacuums other powers are going to quickly pivot - they already have. With their increased influence investment in the US will start to dry up - deals will be cut to ensure it, as will supply chains and consumption. In a few years the US dollar will no longer be the global reserve currency. This will pretty much set up the West for fracture as Europe will figure out pretty quick that it has been largely abandoned to its own devices. A whole lotta nations in the Indo-Pac are going to also bail. I mean the logical extension of Step 1 is China can invade Taiwan, North Korea into South Korea, India and Pakistan can totally blow up. Screw Ukraine. Russia can pretty much do whatever it wants. US out of NATO - because that entire thing rides on allied intervention, so Europe is on its own. 5 EYES is gone. Forget global cooperation on trans-regional crime and terrorism because unless it happens in the US - “not our problem”. In fact this is so monumentally stupid that of course people who are looking for easy answers in a very complex and frightening world are gravitating towards it. I mean the entire deal that keeps the US on top is built in global stability backed not only by the US dollar but also carrier groups - so it is entirely logical that if you pull those groups back and let them float only 200 miles off the US coastline that US global influence will remain extant. The US can probably drastically reduce defence spending and focus on building walls though. Here is a crazy idea: if the US does not step up and in to keep some sort of order on this planet, someone else will. The US does not get to withdraw into fortress North America (while choking out immigration with a declining birth rate) and remain a global economic superpower. Hard power backs soft- that US dollar as much as whatever the US is selling (or more importantly, buying). At least 3 generations of Americans had that one figured out, but now for some reason people have totally forgotten. Regardless, thankfully these complete amateurs are not running the show, yet.

Short answer to a very good question - nothing viable. To shorten this war dramatically - like in a month, NATO would need to establish air supremacy (and sea control of the Black Sea but let’s stay focused). If the Ukrainian had that then I believe that land power mass would work again. This would include an epic history making SEAD campaign linked to a C-ISR campaign, again of historic scope and scale. It would include strikes into Russia at air and C4ISR infrastructure, followed by massive strikes on Russian logistics and strategic capacity. Without that, this war will continue to unfold at its current speed…until it can go fast. And we all know that is not going to happen unless there is a major strategic shift. The West could supply the UA with 1000 tanks but they would need a lot of logistical support and literally years to train up crews/units/formations at that scale. Essentially I strongly suspect that we are pumping about as much into Ukraine as they can realistically absorb and support. We could definitely up the scales in some areas like deep strike but I suspect there is a logic for that one too. People do not want to believe just how hard and how long it takes to build a fighting formation that can do a deliberate assault. This is near the high water mark of land warfare - maybe only amphib or heavy airborne is a higher bar. So the penny packets we are seeing being pushed in are not like there are 500 trained crews waiting for western tanks and we are only sending 100. There are likely only enough crews for the tanks we are sending and the force generation pipeline is only so wide. So this is going to take time and a lot of effort, and sacrifice. No shortcuts, no magic US bullets (we have spent a lot of these already). But my money is still on a UA breakthrough and breakout in the spring/summer. There will likely be another Russian operational collapse, or two. And then we will have to see what Phase VI brings. I get everyone being edgy but I cannot stress how much of warfare is exactly this, sitting around waiting while listening to artillery. You gotta breathe through it and be patient cause it will get exciting enough, soon enough.

Man that really highlights the issue at play here. The US is more than a nation of 360-odd million. It is an idea. An idea that despite it flaws, contradictions and even occasional hypocrisy that the western world signed up for because it resonated. We all took the idea and made it our own. It was bigger than a political system. It spoke to themes of liberty, representation, security, justice and equality. We built a global order to oppose Communism around this big idea. That is what this war is really about - the defence of that idea. Supporting Ukraine is simply the right thing to do. It is about pushing back a genocidal bully and declaring to any and all that would think about trying this “Hey, this is our idea and we are going to defend it. You are not attacking Ukraine, you are attacking our idea”.

I think a lot of this springs from a sort of ignorant entitlement mentality. The world is just supposed to keep the US on top because it is the US. This completely misses the sacrifices and decades of work it took to position it on top - and frankly everyone in the western world should be happy it worked out that way. But no, the US should be able to simply “Let it be” and somehow the world will keep spinning the way it has - this is beyond ignorant and is heading to dumb. Here is a crazy thought for all the Russian apologists, isolationist, Cro-Magnon-adventists who try and frame this war as anything than it is: Some wars are worth fighting, and this is one of them. ”Oh if we had only…[insert upside down theory]”. Well we did not. Russia invaded a nation that was minding its own business and is killing innocent people in a naked power grab. I do not care if Russia wigged out because NATO - so freakin what? We use our words not poorly aimed cruise missiles. This entire war is not the result of anyone’s foreign policy other than Russia and Putin. Every nation that joined NATO did so of its own free will - you know, the thing we are supposed to be protecting? Anyone who suggests that we should live in a world where we let regional dictators pull of nonsense like this war - “to avoid war” is deluded. Or, as I suspect is in this case, is that kid in the class who is just clever enough to be contrary and get attention but has no real solutions to offer.

Ok to summarize: - Ukrainian economy - Russian Support kicking in (namely from China) - Western support running out - materially, and glancing off of will. Ergo - west is not providing enough support, should accelerate/double down in order to end this war before Ukraine runs out of time. I think I got it all but jump in if I missed something. Well first off it fails to recognize Russian trajectories, which are not pretty either militarily or economically. Ukraine is not seeing shipments of M60s and Leo 1s, but Russia is shipping T62s. This is evidence that as it relates to material Russia is running out of runway while there is no evidence the Western cupboard is bare. We do know there are production concerns as western inventories of forward edge munitions are starting to strain. However, let’s keep a level head here on this. I had a chance to virtually attend a RUSI conference last week on air power and let me say that military industry has seen the wind and is really leaning into it. It is in their interests to accentuate production shortfalls and issues as in this environment they will equate directly to deep long term investment in their industry. So the “truth” is likely somewhere in between. We are seeing shortfalls in some areas because we were set up for short wars, but we also have some pretty deep war stocks. I have seen no evidence that we are really anywhere near the bottom of the barrel, we will need to accept risk but welcome to warfare. Ukrainian economy - well by this logic (ie saving the Ukrainian economy) then Ukraine should have likely sued for peace last Nov. The economic return on the land they take back from here is not likely to pay for the costs of taking it back at this point. Frankly if the West does not follow up this war with the largest reconstruction effort since the Second World War then we may as well pull out now - and the grown ups know this. So listing this one as a forcing function doesn’t really line up because we are talking decades of investment if this thing ended today regardless. So we are really down to western Will on one side. Russian Will and Material on the other. Russian Material is a significant problem for them. China would have to seriously invest, likely more than the entire western effort for Ukraine right now, to stop the current RA trajectory. Will China go that far? We do not know, but we are not seeing evidence that China is preparing to jump into this thing with both feet. It is a single powerful nation with a lot of regional defence and security bills to pay, hemorrhaging that into Russia is a questionable strategy but we will see. Russian Will appears startlingly robust, at least on the surface the signs of strain are there. But I am betting it is also not infinite. Time = Western Will, there is your forcing function.

Another weird thing is that whole vehicle park/bivouac on the bottom. Pretty administrative for being in a warzone. This picture must be well back from the front. If that were a logistics node it is a prime target.

Some oddities there. My guess is they are only about half built. The white bundles everywhere are likely field defence stores, so the trenches have been dug but not revetted or sandbagged. That takes a lot of manpower. Weird stuff going on with sighting. The long stretch facing the lake looks like they are worried about an amphib. Then there are this small sections, looks like they are incomplete but also a bit strange. No sign of minefields or obstacles. The lack of vehicle tracks suggests that these are not manned yet. Biggest thing, and a problem for a defender, is just how visible these are.

You doing that thing again where you dance on the edge of the argument that this war was somehow a discretionary strategic diversion that we could have avoided. Further glancing off the idea that this war is also somehow the West/US fault because it got involved in containing an obvious genocidal dictator. It is the part where you conflate isolationist foreign policy advocates with the whole US, as though support of US involvement in the broader planet - one which is largely engineered the global order thereof - and pays for their lifestyles, is itself "Anti-American".

That first one is the rub for Russia. The troop density they need to sustain for a defence in depth is far too low for the frontage they have bitten off. The UA has done it through ISR coverage backed up by fires and likely rapidly mobile counter move forces. The RA has not demonstrated any of this capability, in fact the capability they had has demonstrated erosion, not growth, so they can only offset with manpower…which is also a shrinking pool thanks to baffling wastages in the Winter offensives. So Russia has a really big frontage to try and freeze the conflict while the UA only has to find the weak spots to exploit - and keep exploiting. As to mobilization, I am not sold that the west is at the bottom of the barrel yet. In fact I know we are not even close. Now political will is the one thing that may start to run low but materially we have a long way to go before we are totally Winchester. Now dipping into stocks will make us uncomfortable but those stocks are there. For example Canada still has about 70 Leo 2 (and we all love those guys - The Capt said sarcastically) we could ship another dozen or more with parts etc. Would we be happy, nope. Would we be in trouble if China invades Taiwan?…trust me 12-24 Canadian Leo2s are not going to make a difference in Taiwan. But could we do it if we had too, yes. And there are a lot of nations in NATO with war stocks etc with a lot of depth. So again, Russia is not on the winning end of that calculus either. What we do not need is a Ukrainian military disaster which would result in a lot of western political testicular retreats into abdomens.

The anti-US/NATO types should be coming out shortly to tell us how this is all our fault and just another example for Russian provocation. I mean Russia was simply minding its own business after all…

So I really do not have a dog in this whole EU fight but what I am seeing on both sides of the discussion are classic symptoms of information operations. Russia has not simply been “troll farming”, evidence points to a re-emergence of subversive warfare doctrines re-tooled for the 21st century. This is basically a lot of effort aimed at finding and exploiting the fractures and divisions in a society, leveraging that to either create negative decision (undeciding things, like EU membership), null decision (paralysis by rendering something undecidable) or positive decision (reflexive control type stuff where decisions are made that are in the interest of the sponsor, not the targeted state). The things to watch out for just unfolded in these last two pages. Polarized information spheres - Cpl S is clearly in one where the narrative is the EU is ruling the UK like a monarch to the detriment of the “working man”. While others are being given evidence the EU was beneficial etc. in reality there is enough truth in both to sustain the spheres and keep them accelerating away from each other - we saw the exact same thing with NAFTA here in NA. The actual truth is almost immaterial, and is usually pretty mundane - something which some have glanced off of. And then there is the agency reflex - “well I was not influenced”. Well you probably were, how much and how far it influenced your decisions is variable and likely linked to how much you cared (although there is plenty of evidence of apathy reinforcement). The reality is that if you were involved in a decisive issue you likely have been influenced to a degree. Now how successful Russia has been is a major problem. If they have not been the reflex will be to ignore and continue, which is good for the sponsor of the campaign. Or if it is over subscribed it hijacks heathy discourse and makes a boogeyman where none exists, also good for the sponsor. We have seen the results right here - sides yell at each other pretty much abandoning any and all facts. Someone leaves in a huff, which is pretty much what subversive sponsors want because meaningful discourse and compromise do nothing for their effort. Agency reflex/active denial and actual facts getting lost in the noise. Finally, the other place to watch for these sorts of things is on issues that are not only highly divisive but hang in a fine balance. Subversion rarely works in creating massive landslides, they are not designed to and the costs are too high. On tight races where a few thousand votes can swing things (or conversely in an autocratic society, a few key decision making nodes) this is where subversive warfare really kicks in. Now as to how well Russia influenced Brexit? Who really knows. We do know they were involved and put some effort as it is in their interests to split up the EU. How successfully they pulled that off would take a lot of effort to figure out. But in reality the fact that people are still divided and yelling past each other is a pretty good sign they are still getting something out of the whole affair.

From experience, it is the best way to do these things. Plenty of time for emotion when it is all over.

Well then like a lot of other times, those ten days were when history was hanging in the balance. I am still not sure more infantry would have made a difference. Unless we are talking 1-2 million but the Russian military was not setup for a campaign of those sizes even back before when it lost 10k vehicles. They may have created security corridors for molotovs and shotguns but most reports show that artillery did most of the killing with next-gen ATGMs likely coming in next. Then other tanks/AFVs with direct fire. The Russian Air Force was blunted a few days in by a much smaller force and hella denial effort. So unless infantry could catch artillery, establish air superiority or turn off the UA ISR, again I am not sure how more of them would yield success. Regardless, we are where we are and I do not see “more infantry” actually solving much for Russia at this point. Of course at the rate they are burning through vehicles and platforms it might be all the RA has left.

We aren’t the only ones wondering “whither goest Crimea” https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/ukrainian-official-offers-plan-for-a-crimea-without-russia-1.6339284

I am still on the fence on the infantry note. We have definitely seen a re-emergence (or perhaps just a re confirmation) of the role and value of light fast moving infantry on the UA side, particularly in the defence. However for the RA we were thinking that “if only the BTGs had more infantry…silly Russians”. However, in this last phase (phase IV) Russia definitely had the infantry advantage in the areas of its assaults, and it did not lead them to success. In that (and I am sure it will be famous after the war) “battle for the T” the RA had significant infantry advantage and were still at a loss. The infantry could not do its primary job of “taking and holding ground via closing with and destroying the enemy” despite numerical advantages. This leads to an immediate question - if the amount of infantry the Russians threw at Bakhmut was not enough, how much infantry do you really need now? While the UA with smaller forces have continually been successful despite having less infantry. Back to Phase I and II, based on what we have seen in Bakhmut I am not convinced that more infantry or that even better combined arms coordination would have made that much of a difference when the main enemy of mass - artillery- still has information dominance. From what we have seen, more empowered infantry is definitely a lesson learned; however, it is the nature of that empowerment that has been deterministic in this war.

The only difference is in the file naming. If you use the one without brackets file saves can get weird as then system will start numbering saves as 1982, 1983, 1984 etc. The campaigns should be the same, the differences are between ‘79 and ‘82 where the equipment for both sides reflects the 3 year shift.

Following up. Now something like this has a lot more promise: https://www.srcinc.com/products/ew-spectrum-operations/silent-impact-munition-launched-ew-system.html Wont do as much against fully autonomous systems but could play merry hell in the backfield in making a lot of noise we can’t do much about. They are temporary but are cheaper so can be employed for local superiority/C2 backbones.

Well it sounds like an EW swarm, and a lot of possible points of failure. Of course if one can get 2-3 unmanned systems on a single enemy platform, why bother with EW? Just kill the thing. I mean with the amount of effort we are talking about to blunt one system it will likely be easier to simply hammer it. Even if it is another UAS, if you can have three other UAS in an array to corrupt its signal (and if it is fully autonomous it is really the ISR data feed) then it would likely be easier just take out the enemy UAS outright as you have 1) found and fixed it, 2) can track with multiple targets so you do not lose it in trees or terrain and 3) are already projecting low level energy at the thing. Why not just use one of the array UAS to directly engage? The advantage of high energy systems is they deny really wide areas. But they also are highly visible. I think you are describing an area network of EW, all low level energy and very precise - I can see applications in SOF work for specific jobs, however in conventional warfare c-UAS swarms would probably be a better (and easier) way to go. Now if it is a conventional platform like GSR or C2, again easier to simply guide in PGM than try to speaker/microphone the thing in what sounds like a pretty complicated plan. Finally, if your opponent mounts it comms network on a mobile dynamic UAS mesh net, you are going to need 2-3 times the UAS to blind it using this approach, that does not sound very practical when one takes into account terrain. We have not even started on UGS or got into higher altitude systems. And the we got space to worry about.

I think I would need to see an example of this fielded. As I read this we are talking low energy precise signal jamming. It has to defeat anti-jamming (eg frequency hopping) and somehow remain undetected or be mounted on a light unmanned platform. This would mean basically jamming at an individual level - so one jammer per system being attacked, as opposed to the broad area jamming now. I would like to see what that looks like. And then there is direct LOS systems - https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44037/the-air-force-wants-laser-communication-pods-to-securely-link-fighter-aircraft-with-satellites I mean I like the idea but I see a lot of counter moves and hurdles.

This is interesting but I am really not sure how it would work. For example, I have an ISR platform out there sniffing around. I can jam the link between platform and ISR architecture, the link between operator and platform or the link between operator and architecture. The aim here is to effectively stop the information flow be it platform guidance or intel feedback. So spoofing is feeding false signals within that triangle. But every modern military operates with encrypted systems. So you can either insert enough noise into the signal (high energy) to jam or break the encryption and insert a false signal (low energy). I get the point on low energy being more precise and that would be very cool on a unmanned platform but I do not understand how a low energy EW system could spoof or confuse unless it had access to the encryption. It would simply be filtered out as low level noise. “Looking like the real thing” would mean breaking an opponents encryption completely. This would basically mean hacking the signals of an opponent, which is also a cool idea but these are hardened self-contained military grade systems so that is easier said than done. Beyond that is basically massive EM surges (which I am not even sure are EW) but these can also be shielded against. GPS is also an odd example. Open GPS, sure but militaries also all have encryption backbones. So if you are posing as a false GPS signal trying to throw off a guidance system, you need to be pinging as a positive encrypted device. Now of one had Quantum decryption in play (and everyone is chasing that) then it is a different game, but we are not there yet. And of course they are working on the next bound - too much at stake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-quantum_cryptography Or is there a third way I am missing here? [edit. Thought of one, cyber infiltration and exploitation operations in support could break encryption and then hand off to EM. Of course cyber has to actually be able to pull it off. And frankly if one can get that deep into a system one could hijack platforms without bothering with all the EW stuff in the first place.]

You are very much welcome. FYI the scenario I did up for the tourney is on a Pete W creation for CMCW BAOR - a bit of a teaser. The scenario planned for it is very different (first off there will be Canadians on it) but we thought putting one out there for the tourney would be kinda cool.

I actually do not know what that looks like. We have seen lasers and guns being sold as point defence, but they fall into the same trap as EW - blazing away at bird sized UAS is going to get one lit up pretty fast. Further UAS are going to go more autonomous so zapping them will not get so far. My sense is that the best defence against a drone swarm will be another drone swarm. Then when UGV show up we are going to have the same problem against small kamikaze ground systems that jump out of bushes and strike - a highly mobile and autonomous mine. Then add the systems with a Javelin mounted and denial ranges get out to some crazy distances. There is a crowd that are pushing C-unmanned and APS as a way to somehow reset things back to the way they were, the whole “we have been here before with ATGMs” cynicism. Problem is first, we never really saw the full expression of ATGMs outside of some very early Arab-Israeli wars. We did not fight the Cold War (outside CM) and really have no reference point for just how much those older systems would have impacted warfare, let alone next gen fire and forget. (Hence why this war it being watched with so much interest) Second, one has to protect the entire system which for heavy formations can extend back 10s of kms. Slapping APS and EW dazzlers on all ones tanks is useless if the fuel trucks are naked. So the bill to shield the entire system drives the costs up dramatically. To the point that I am not sure it will be viable. We will end up spending more to protect a tank/AFV/whatever than the platform is worth itself.

Problem with current EW is it projects a lot of energy into the environment. This basically is the equivalent of the old IR spotlights, so EW, like direct energy weapons essentially become c-fire magnets. Further as unmanned goes fully autonomous what E are we W-ing? We can already harden military IT systems from EMP so an autonomous drone that ignores big beams of EM pointed at them is going to happen. While one can see the EW emitter from space. EW has become this magic wizards wand in gaming but in reality it has a lot of weaknesses especially in denying large areas. The RA has been able to establish narrow regions of EW superiority, but how much that cost them is a key question in this war.