OBJ

Anybody read Mick Ryan, retired Australian two star? https://www.amazon.com/Books-Mick-Ryan/s?rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3AMick+Ryan 1st two. He talks a lot about future tactical (Company level) units fully integrating UAVs, UGVs, humans and AFVs.

Actually, in Alison's defense, still within recent memory, large scale conventional warfare, there was France 1940, Barbarossa Jun-Jul, more recently and much more limited, Nagorno-Karabakh. So conflict between 'peers' does offer examples of overwhelming defeat of one side by the other. I have also hard time thinking of Ukraine and Russia as peers. ...and I'm with @alison on this one, "I am really tired of the idea that there is a mysterious cabal of crypto hawks who somehow have the power to influence defense decisions in dozens of countries around the world and are dedicated to ensuring the war in Ukraine never ends." Sorry @Bulletpoint just my opinion, which comes as standard issue to all of us, I can't see this happening, "The average Russian has to be made well and truly sick of this war, and responsibility has to be eventually placed on Putin. I think that's the actual US (and therefore Nato) plan." I think you were closer to the mark with, "I think that the reason we see so slow drip-feeing of assistance is that the primary Western goal is to avoid escalation, and not only on the battlefield, but also to avoid a chaotic collapse of Russia."

OK, As someone else said, this community is made up of military professionals and well informed non-military professionals. As someone else said, learning how to think is much more important than learning what to think. So, consensus now: Fact, Russia has not used tactical nuclear weapons We see, at present, the only scenario Russian tac nuke use is in defense, Russia faced with some existential threat We see, at present, continuation of conventional defense primacy/continuing stalemate in Ukraine along current front We have conflicting inputs on the likely near future (24-25) from many credible sources

Swedish defense, military chief, war warning. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-67935464

ok, appreciate everyone's responses, and patience. Understand, I am seeking to understand, and ranting, both at the same time . We've spent time discussing how to restore and sustain militarily meaningful battlefield mobility. We also have tried to peer into 2024 to see how the military situation in Ukraine could evolve. We have touched on global geopolitics. So, synthesis so far on Russian use of tac nukes to breach Ukrainian defenses: 1. Use of multiple tac nukes in a row to make a breach might initially be successful 2. Likely any Russian breakthrough could not be sustained, me adding now, with caveat assumed no further use of tac nukes to maintain the Russian military advantage 3. Russian use of tac nukes results in rapid and overwhelming Western economic and diplomatic response, crippling Russian state, likely military ejection or diplomatically imposed withdrawal from some or all of Ukraine. Again, adding here, assuming no follow on use of tac nukes resulting in decisive Russian military advantage, Ukrainian capitulation 4. Only one of the three scenarios Steve has consolidated for us posits Putin seeing things the way we do, and us seeing things the way Putin might (second one, 2.). 1. Putin ceases to be a "rational actor" and (this is important) there is absolutely nobody opposing his instructions. 2. Russia is facing a cataclysmic military situation where Ukrainian forces are driving to Moscow or Sevastopol with only a couple of TikTok Warriors™ standing in the way. 3. Russian leadership is so desperate to take more territory that it has concluded that tactical nukes offer a solution *and* it is willing to risk the response to its use. This may be misguided and stupid, but it is rational. The thing is, from my limited understanding, Dictators, and dictatorships, think differently than liberal democracies about the use of force, exhibit A Russia's invasion of Ukraine. It's my understanding the war in Ukraine is being pitched in Russia as Russia standing up to the west, all of the west. How they remain in power and go backwards, peacefully co-exist with the west, seems problematic? I think a cease fire now, with Russian forces left in place in Ukraine, will only result in a resumption of hostilities later. Also, from the little I know, Putin is a 'double down' kind of guy, and not big on consensus unless everyone agrees with him.

I agree @Tux Russian use of Tac Nukes would definitely get the West's attention. I am not sure what the timing or nature of a battlefield meaningful response would be. I think your ideas on the biggest problem for a Russian attacker using tac nukes to make a breach is to maintain the breach and support the breakthrough force is spot on. Like you, I would think the Ukrainians could 'flow back in' ISR drones and supporting artillery on the shoulders to interdict support. I don't have a feel for what kind of reserves the Ukrainians have. Presumably, but maybe not, the Russians would be smart enough to 'shape the battlefield' before striking.

I do think this is a possibility, "maybe he's paid or instructed by someone to play scaremonger in order to put pressure on the Western public and politicians to provide more aid to Ukraine," based on what others have found of his past offerings, @cesmonkey most recently I am however, still interested in this group's assessment of the viability of using tac nukes to create a breakthrough and Russia's ability to exploit it to strategic advantage. Respect @Bulletpoint you came down on the side of 'No.'

Hey, I resemble that remark, "a Cold War fossil who is unable to realize that the world has changed since he was in the army in the 1980s" well, maybe not the part about not realizing the world has changed... Appreciate the perspective, assume others will be along soon.

To be very clear, I hope nothing goes nuclear. I don't want anything to go nuclear. My service conditioned me to abhor that possibility, but also not to discount its use by the Russians, and to be prepared in the event the Russians exercised the option. If the author of the article is credible, and based on research by folks here, he seems to be, his opinion is internal pressure on Putin to order a 'decisive offensive' based on perceived waning western will and window of opportunity created by the distraction western elections cause, could drive use of tac nukes to break the stalemate, create the breakthrough, exploited by conventional mechanized forces. We here have spent a fair amount of time on how to break the stalemate and it seems reasonable to: 1. assume this is only a Russian option 2. make our own assessment of how feasible a Russian breakthrough is with this method and Russia's ability to exploit any breakthrough So, for the sake of discussion, 1. Do we here believe Russian conventional forces attrition has been significant enough they could not muster conventional exploitation forces or can not build up such a force by May 2024? 2. If we believe the Russians can build up such forces what do we believe we know about Ukraine's reserves to blunt and contain a breakthrough? 3. What do we believe the nature and timing would be of any Western response directly impacting either or both the Russian breakthrough and Ukrainian attempts to contain the breakthrough? Thanks to @The_Capt @billbindc @sburke @dan/california @Bulletpoint @Butschi and now @cesmonkey for chiming in so far. ...and yes, I agree, at CM level, a tac nuke supported breakthrough would make for a very boring wargame, assuming no further nuke use, exploitation and containment maybe less so. Reference: Putin may be about to launch an apocalyptic assault (msn.com) "There are now rumblings in Moscow that a decisive offensive to turn the tides of the war squarely in Russia’s favour may soon be underway." The problem is that according to the Institute for the Study of War, a US-based think tank, the Russian military is likely unable to “conduct an operation to seize significant territory in Kharkiv Oblast in the near term” This does not mean that such an assault is impossible. It simply means that it would require weapons on the battlefield we have yet to see. In my opinion, the only weapons that Russia has which could achieve this in this time frame would be a tactical nuclear weapon or some sort of chemical or biological attack. Given the infamous failure of Obama’s “red line” in Syria, and the reluctance of the West to fully commit to defending Ukraine, Putin might think this is a gamble worth taking." "The drift towards militarization of the Russian state and the surging calls for a greater offensive must serve as a warning that the West needs to wake up before he acts. We must fully support and arm Ukraine. If we don’t, as predicted by the Polish Chief of Security, NATO will be at war with Moscow within a few years."

@The_Capt and @billbindc thank you both, all of us looking at the apparent deadlock, I was more thinking if there was a nation to use tac nukes to blow open an offensive corridor(s) intent on decisively restoring battlefield mobility, it would be Russia. I am not sure the West has prepared to effectively counter were this to occur. Like you, I doubt the western response would be escalation to total nuclear war. Thanks also @sburke @dan/california @Bulletpoint and @Butschi for perspective on the author and 'The Telegraph.' If the author of The Telegraph article I read/cited is the Colonel Hamish Stephen de Bretton-Gordon OBE, he may have changed his tune since last May on the likelihood of RA use of tac nukes in the offensive. The article I cited was just posted. "There are now rumblings in Moscow that a decisive offensive to turn the tides of the war squarely in Russia’s favour may soon be underway." The problem is that according to the Institute for the Study of War, a US-based think tank, the Russian military is likely unable to “conduct an operation to seize significant territory in Kharkiv Oblast in the near term” This does not mean that such an assault is impossible. It simply means that it would require weapons on the battlefield we have yet to see. In my opinion, the only weapons that Russia has which could achieve this in this time frame would be a tactical nuclear weapon or some sort of chemical or biological attack.

In the short term, until the West, hopefully, figures out how to break the stalemate/restore mobility to the battle field, I hope so. Below is proof if you look on the internet you will find, well, anything you look for This find was serendipitous, would welcome our UK brethren's opinion on 'The Telegraph's' credibility. I get they are conservative, but are they balanced and realistic conservative, or Chicken Little conservative? Putin may be about to launch an apocalyptic assault (msn.com) "In my opinion, the only weapons that Russia has which could achieve this in this time frame would be a tactical nuclear weapon or some sort of chemical or biological attack. Given the infamous failure of Obama’s “red line” in Syria, and the reluctance of the West to fully commit to defending Ukraine, Putin might think this is a gamble worth taking." "The drift towards militarization of the Russian state and the surging calls for a greater offensive must serve as a warning that the West needs to wake up before he acts. We must fully support and arm Ukraine. If we don’t, as predicted by the Polish Chief of Security, NATO will be at war with Moscow within a few years."

Thanks 2. Drone solution I think puts us back to #1. 3. Tac Nuke, yeah, consensus now seems use would be to prevent RA route. Other hand, lots of Russian doctrine on Tac Nukes use in CW breakthrough operations. EMP effect on drones needs accounting for, especially when RA knows it's coming and protects theirs just prior to strike, sudden clearing/absence of RA drones definitely a UA CCIR. My emphasis added in extract below. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep12088.9?seq=8 "The bad news is that, as the BASIC Trident Commission report made clear, the Russian government sees TNWs as playing a major role in conflict management and de- escalation under certain circumstances. At the same time, it seems to believe that, in the absence of effec- tive conventional forces, low-yield nuclear weapons with special effects can be used to disrupt precision- strike attacks and de-escalate a local war before it can become a general war leading to the use of strategic nuclear forces.

So, three, widely divergent, thoughts 1. If drone swarm = WMD = kill anything and everything in a 20km deep box = breach in enemy defenses, the breach still has to be exploited to be meaningful. Not sure we have worked out what a sustainable exploitation looks like yet. 2. Do the Ukrainians have any strategic maneuver options that would preclude the need for a frontal assault to breach in depth and exploit? 3. What happens when the Ukrainians are successful and do have the Russians falling back on themselves, and Putin escalates to tac nukes to restore the situation? https://mwi.westpoint.edu/catastrophic-success-what-if-the-ukrainian-counteroffensive-achieves-more-than-expected/ to quote LLF 'and discuss'

Can't thank you enough for this @Paper Tiger People like you are the reason I have been playing CM since 2000.

I should be careful, I am expert at very little, and China is very much outside my circle of expertise, but I do have an opinion like everyone else and don't mind sharing it if it triggers debate that further informs me and others. My sense, just my two sense, we are at the start of the de-coupling, with much still to discover about how that will go. Xi came to San Francisco, Biden didn't go to Shanghai. To me that is Xi buying time to deal with China's economic issues, issues that make it vulnerable economically in the current world order, especially so if there were open conflict. Xi gets that China is still the 2nd most powerful economy in the world. To me India is the country to watch. There seems less and less room for fence sitting in the new cold war. https://carnegieendowment.org/2023/11/06/india-in-emerging-world-order-pub-90928

I'll pile on. My sense is the West made China over the last 20 years, the West can unmake (de-couple from) China over the next 20. Thank God for President Xi. If it weren't for him revealing the true face of China under the CCP, the West might have sleep walked into a 2040 Chinese world order. We should all thank Xi for the brutal crackdown in Hong Kong, the brutal forced assimilation of the uyghurs, zero COVID policy supply chain disruptions, crippling Belt and Suspenders loans, ignoring the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague 2016 ruling, building up the Chinese navy, modernizing the PLA, continued South China Sea aggression, constant military harassment of Taiwan, and stifling China's business elites, particularly the tech titans, etc. https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/measuring-us-chinas-conscious-decoupling-2023-11-16/

Ahhh sorry @sburke, guess I should have quoted my source, and plugged the book again. Please see, 'The Origins of Victory: How Disruptive Military Innovation Determines the Fates of Great Powers' By Andrew F. Krepinevich, Jr. - It's some heavy going but for me worth it for the added perspective on current geopolitics Page 140, first sentence, last paragraph, reference, note 202 note 202, page 476, Karl Kristian Steincke, 'Ogsaa en Tilvaerelse,' vol 4, 'Farvel Og Tak: Minder Og Meninger' (Copenhagen: Fremad, 1948), also, 227, https://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/10/20/no=predict (which weblink I could not get to work for me) My apologies, @The_Capt Yogi Berra is indeed, apparently among many others including well known Danish physicist Niels Bohr, a user if not proven originator of the phrase. 'However, the website Quote Investigator discovered that this is a phrase with many parents and whose origins are much earlier, but hopelessly obscure.'

No, that was, 'It's just like Déjà vu, all over again'

You know, it's very hard to tell how a large, complex, very dynamic situation is going to end, until it ends. I have to keep reminding myself of Danish politician Karl Kristian Steinke advice, 'It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future' I, as I believe others here, have an affinity for the history of conflict in the last century. I suggest if you'd asked the man on the street, any street, how they thought democracy was doing in 1931, 1936, 1937, 1939, 1940, 1941, pretty much through the middle to end of 1942, I imagine the response would have been, 'not very well.' The death, destruction and abject misery continued for quite a while after that before things got better for even just some people.

You beat me to it @Kinophile 'Viva La Resistance!' or however you say that in Ukrainian. What caught my attention, and will cause me to dig a little more, were: 1. Description of resistance operations in Crimea 2. The assertion Russians are a majority in Crimea 3. The ethnic aspect, Crimean Tartars as resistors 4. The synergy between Atesh and Ukrainian SOF operations

Agree I try hard not to assume I know more about a country and it's politics than the people that live there.

@Anthony P. I think you are right about US commander's force preservation sensitivities in the modern era (post Vietnam). I would guess the same is true for other 'western' countries with all volunteer professional militaries. We might disagree, for the US at least, on the era before Vietnam. Even up to and through Korea American society was very different, as was the US military.

What a wonderful way to start the New Year. Thanks Steve.

Fair, agree, 'pursuit by fire' is a thing

Agree, I think we have some scenarios in which a significant portion of the defender's points come from exiting units, no?