Canada Guy

You probably will before Russia does, in every sense.

Thanks for this, and to several other people who responded as well. I'm trying to follow along with the ongoing discussion by @The_Capt, @Battlefront.com and others about the lessons to be learned from the first part of this war (and trying to keep in mind that the value of those lessons for us as spectators is not worth the price that Ukrainians are paying). "Mass" has been a key concept in this, and I think I'm correct in understanding that to be the concentration of force in time and space, but I wasn't sure if the "weight" of the units was meant to be part of that. Now I know it isn't, except that AFVs give heavy mechanized infantry the firepower and mobility to create their own local mass, and the ability to get their mass to the right place at the right time as part of larger unit maneuvers.
I'm trying to understand what you all think is new or different about the role of light infantry in this war. I think you've been saying it, but some of the terminology is new to me, so thanks for your patience as I rewind and try to re-state some basic things in this long post. I don't think anybody is surprised that light infantry can eat away at heavier forces on strategic timeframes. And I don't think we've seen light infantry become immune to combined arms attacks on the tactical level. It looks like the difference is that improvements in some key technologies have passed a tipping point that dramatically increases the importance of dismounted infantry in the balance of combined arms operations.
The improvements in technology mean that capabilities in reconnaissance, communications, and accurate long range fire power can be pushed down to much smaller light infantry units. On the defense this allows infantry to focus long range fire power against concerted attacks while remaining dispersed and concealed. Direct armor attack remains possible, but at a steep exchange rate. Artillery attack or suppression is possible, but it takes a lot of tubes and a lot of shells to cover all the possible hiding places, and it's expensive in supplies if not losses. Ditto air attack. But bypassing well equipped light infantry is also dangerous because even after being suppressed or pushed back a little they can retain the capability to find and attack the enemy lines of communication, either independently, or in coordination with neighboring units or higher command. As someone here said, the attacker would basically need to clear and protect a 10km wide corridor along their supply line, which looks more like an occupation than a breakthrough, takes resources away from the advance, and slows everything way down.
Mechanized infantry can't play the front line defensive role because more of their capabilities are built into vehicles that can only maneuver well in terrain where they are easy to spot by satellite or drone, and hit with artillery or aircraft. Plus they need gas every day and if they are cut off they quickly run out of options. Lower tech or more cheaply equipped light infantry couldn't do this because they wouldn't have the quality or quantity of portable AT weapons, or enough situational awareness to make good decisions on a rapidly developing battlefield. Units without permission, training, inclination, or morale to take their own initiative can't do it either. Insurgents can't do it to such good effect because the occupying force isn't trying to fight a conventional battle at the same time. But Ukrainian foot infantry with phones, drones, mortars, and loads of AT weapons have shown they can take a beating on day one of an enemy attack, and still have the ability to re-organize, re-orient, and mount their own counter attacks or ambushes for days. Trying to bypass or cut off forces like these turns into a "I'm not locked in here with you, you're locked in here with me" situation. That has been a capability of elite units in the past, but it looks like the new technologies bring it in the reach of far more units with less training.
Looking at the bigger defensive picture, the light infantry don't have to be decisive, they just have to do their part as part of a larger defensive operation to add "friction" to whatever part of the enemy's advance is still within marching distance. Mechanized units move to block the head of the attack, armored units go for its throat, the infantry keep throwing kidney punches, and artillery, air, and strategic assets strike as far back along the tail as they can reach. Even accounting for Russian incompetence, I looks like one of the big surprises or lessons so far has been how important of a contribution light infantry make to that bigger picture. 
There has been less discussion here of the role of light infantry on the offense, except for the idea that while the enemy's long range recon and fires prevent your heavier forces from assembling in the rear, infantry can still infiltrate forward despite drone surveillance with some pretty effective weapons. Maybe we will know more soon. There has been a lot more discussion about air power, autonomous systems, is this the end of the tank etc., but I think this is sort of where the consensus is at least for infantry in the defense. Am I getting it sort of right? What I am I missing? Am I using the words right?
 

Still, he got elected to the senate even as a presidential candidate one time. The next step of a democracy is to descend into anarchy. We will see some of it I am afraid. Last presidential election had the alarm bells up all over the world. Ukraine would be Russia today if it had gone the other way. 

I won't delve into the tank part of the question but the other two are pretty easy.  One of the main bits of kit in the flamethrower platoon is the RPO-A
RPO-A Shmel - Wikipedia
As to its composition - not sure, in regular ground forces these elements sometimes get bundled under the title of 'assault engineers' or similar and at higher echelons are where you find the TOS rocket launcher.
TOS-1 - Wikipedia
Traditionally in the orbat, this equipment/capability sat under the chemical protection element at each level for reasons which always escaped me.
The ZU-23/2 on top of the BMD discussion has been thrown around a few times with some claiming that it had left service but it has definitely been seen in Ukraine.  I can't recall the origins of the idea of nailing a ZU-23/2 on top of a BMD - it could possibly have been back in Afghanistan to add high angle firepower to zap Mujahids on mountains.  However, it makes sense to have an air defence capable weapon system which is mechanised if the rest of your force is mechanised.  They probably are part of an air defence element bundled with a few MANPADS at the BTG level - nothing too sinister or worthy of overthinking here.

China has not been left leaning since the 1980s. There is a story of Chinese farmers coming to Canada to view Canadian farms in the 1990s to see how to improve Chinese farms. The Chinese ended up lecturing the Canadian farmers on how to make more money through diversification. 
They have become yet another hyper-capitalist right wing regime looking to make money and hold on to power. They have learned though that running a kleptocracy will lead to worse outcomes for all and so factions play lip service to leftist ideals while still running a highly stratified society. Gini is 0.481 - highly inequal. But like Russia, the military is a way for the poor to escape poverty. Those units in Tiananmen Square were not locals.

LongLF, yes always with the 'perfidy'. The Zhurnal papers were good (also through translation) and you always had to pay lip service to your ideology.
The paper on the Afghan war was very well done and if actually followed through, could have made a difference. Tactically the Soviets were better by 1983-4, still sucked operationally, but internal politics got in the way and Brezhnev being on his deathbed ground everything to a halt.
Mensa is one of those groups that if they allowed me as a member, I wouldn't want to join. 

Yes, and there's no doubt of the Russian intellectual-analytical tradition. In uni, I remember reading the Voenno-Istoricheskii Zhurnal papers (in translation), with all the detailed eyestrain inducing maps, with "the circles an' the arrers' an' a paragraph on the back of each one" dissecting all the key 'Liberation' operations of 1942 - 1945.
But each monograph was also prefaced with the obligatory paternoster: "The fascist attack on the USSR in 1941 was an act of perfidy".  Plus an approving reference to "the primary importance of Party political work among the troops prior to and during the operations."
So, as I have learned in my working life since then, it's a lot like doing business with the French (and believe me, I know): the theoretical underpinning and the analytical reasoning are first rate, but only the very top guy can actually make a decision, and you'd literally rather lose a war than interrupt his holiday....
Or, per the punchline for one of my favourite Dilbert cartoons....

 

So  I don't claim to be an expert in these matters but I did get the impression from alternate readings of American History that things were not so cut and dry as you describe   ( ie A Peoples History  , by Howard Zinn )  . I don't think there was quite as much money to be made in either of Australia or New Zealand back in the foundation of both those places to warrant the  locals getting  feisty  about paying taxes to the home land - No  defenses to be paid for against the Rampaging French for instance . ( Edit -  And I think the problems in South Africa were much much more significant than   your brief dismissal alludes to  - The Zulu Wars , The Boer War  - were all major events .  The Maori Wars  in NZ concluded in a manner which did not quite equate to the ethnic cleansing seen in Australia  or  America/Canada - making it less of a land of opportunity then one might imagine  . So the rest of us in the Commonwealth had our own set of issues to deal with - none of which lead directly to any sort of civil revolt against English authority  - but not because the Americans had taught the British a Lesson . ) 

Back in the mid-late 80s I was in Berlin working for a branch of our govt that I cannot name performing duties I cannot discuss (not as exciting as it sounds).

At the time I had the opportunity to visit many of the Soviet/East German memorials and I was always impressed with the effort that was put into representing a mythical recounting of history.  Now this is nothing new in how we stylize our desired perceptions of our particular cultures, but I distinctly recall thinking that these works were probably the grandest form of social/cultural masturbation I had ever encountered.

But there's quite a difference between cemetery and monument, don't you think? The example of Hitler statues is actually great here, you wouldn't allow it to stand anywehere, no way, right? Tearing down monuments of your (perceived) opressors is only natural and healthy.

My take on why Putin waited is that maybe he wasn't quite ready, but thought he had lots of time, because Trump was undermining NATO unity, restricted aid to Ukraine, had aid to Ukraine stripped from the party platform, and Putin assumed Trump would be reelected so there was time.
Once that didn't happen, every day that passed made Ukraine more capable, and Biden repairing NATO links. Time suddenly was not on his side.
My take anyway, FWIW. Could be simpler. He just got a wild hair one day and told them to attack. 🙂
Dave

Come now, I hate to wade into this, but Trump literally requested Zelensky to give him political dirt or threatened future cooperation with the United States, he stated many times NATO isn't useful and the U.S should withdraw from NATO.
I strongly fail to see how Putin would react to Trump vs Biden concerning Ukraine in any difference concerning the recent invasion.
Are you saying Putin would have been warned away from invading Ukraine? By what, pray tell would have Trump done differently than Biden?
 
Anyway, I'm sure Imperial Russia looks great to Russia but to Ukrainians, maybe not?
 

Some of the conversation over the few pages have referenced the former Yugoslavia.  Which brings back... well, not so good memories.
I was a Canadian peacekeeper in Bosnia in latter half of '93.   During the Croatian offensive in the Medak in Sept of '93, I was with the 2 PPCLI when we went into the sh*tstorm to try to stop the ethnic cleansing going on.  The Croatian army attacked our unit during that operation, a thing that the Croatian government denies to this very day.  Despite us photographing the Croatian dead after the battle and collecting their ID, etc.    We had god damn evidence and to this day, the Croatian government position is that they never attacked us.
Part of our job, beside trying to keep the warring factions apart, was to document evidence of ethnic cleansing and I was in charge (I was an officer) of a evidence collection team.  So, literally thousands of photos, videos.  Transcripts of interviews with witnesses and victims.  Six months exposed to that living hell, day after f*n day....
So I had the evidence, because sometimes our official recording devices ran out film or tape and we used our personal recording devices to finish up at a site.
After I got out the military, I found myself sometimes on various military forms about games, such as this one.  Arma forums, military wargame forums... that sort of thing.  And as it happened, I ran into forum members from Croatia and Bosnia Serbs and we would get into it.
Universally, every Croatian or Bosnian Serb forum poster denied what happened there.  And I was called a liar on many occasions for telling them them the truth of that war as I was there and they weren't.  And I have evidence to back up my claims.  No one believed me and if I offered visual proof, they didn't want to see it or they disclaimed it as fake.
I remember a particular Bosnian Serb who was not in the war but we got deep into the weeds discussing what happened during that war.  Deny, deny, deny.  It never happened.  Until videos that the Bosnian Serbs took of them killing civilians and dumping them in mass graves what was recorded by the very soldiers who committed the atrocities surfaced and made it onto their local media and they couldn't deny it any longer.  Those videos were part of the process besides sanctions that resulted in some notable Bosnia Serb / Serbian leaders being turned over to the ICC for prosecution for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.  After the revelation came out, this individual on that forum who I had spent hours engaging with about the culpability of Serbs in the atrocities simply ignored me from that point onwards.  I will never know why.... was it that he discovered that I was right all a long and he was wrong and he was ashamed (as he would have been) or he simply wanted to hang onto his delusion of what narrative he wanted to believe was true and he knew that I would keep chipping away.   
Denial is a powerful thing.   I don't understand why it has such power but it does.  People can dismiss an outright objective reality because to accept the truth is to undermine what they think reality is or should be.   I don't get it and is beyond madding to see the denials in the face of objective reality happen over and over.
Sigh.   I don't know why the hell I rambled on with this.  Maybe it was a story I need to tell to remain sane in light of the same brutality I witnessed back in Bosnia happening in Ukraine now.  Or maybe I still am the greater fool for believing my experiences in Bosnia can be an object lesson to others about holding onto a narrative that is personally comfortable but runs counter to all the real evidence to the contrary.   DMS, I am looking at you....
The truth will come out after all this is over.  At least, I hope it does.  The truth of this war needs to be told and codified so generations that follow can know what really happend.
Now at the end of this and reviewing it, I feel that I should have deleted this or apologize for it.  
I am hitting post. It is my truth.  Let people accept it and learn something from it or ignore it.  I needed to say this for a long time.   
 
 

A couple points: 
1. Russia has to take it first and isn't showing the ability to get to Sloviansk much less the Donets/Dnipr.
2. I would strongly suggest following what folks at Brookings/German Marshall Fund/SAIS/etc are saying. They reflect official opinion in Brussels/DC pretty well and the explicit word is that only Ukraine decide when to quit. Russia has taken such an extreme and incompetent course that there's simply no alternative but to castrate their military power now or plan on having to do it again three years from now.
3. Ah, Luttvak. Let's just say a guy who wrote a book called "The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire" and another called "The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire" wherein his theses are completely unsupported by any archaeological, textual or historical evidence is not the guy you should be putting much trust in. He's a clever dilettante and not much more.

China and South China Sea. Combat Mission South China Sea. Start with Taiwan, USMC, and China. Then for modules add US Army, US Airborne, Vietnam, Philippines, Brits, Japanese, etc. The base campaign is a fight for Taiwan directly, other campaigns could be fights over some of the island chains or a border war between Vietnam and China. 
Alternative, if BFC is a little gun shy now about the 'ripped from the headlines' invasion, CM Korea. US Army, SK, NK, China in the base game. Modern rerun of the 1950s invasion ala Red Phoenix. Add on modules could be USMC, Brits, Cannucks, Japanese, Russians. BUT! Because BFC probably cant support two Korea games, a module pack could add 1st Korean war vintage hardware and period uniforms. Basically it should just be US vs. USSR equipment from the later era WWII games, with a little extra thrown in. Plus battlepacks could include other hypothetical conflicts and skirmishes. A China/NK/Russia red-on-red campaign for Vladivostok, or the China-Russia border wars, or a red&blue-on-red 'what if NK imploded' campaign. Lots of possibilities for future development. I would buy it.  

Perhaps a day when we're discussing housing bubbles on the 'Ukraine thread' is not such a bad day 😉?

What about authorizing some 'privateers' - your young, smart, and willing to hack from your mothers basement, - western govts can say 'no worries, if you hack anything in Russia, we will totally ignore it' we don't authorize it but good luck to you. I think Russia has condoned hacking from its shores for years without fear of repercussions as long as it was against the west so why not just give every 4th year comp sci grad a new summer project. 

A few thoughts
- the Russian forces are used to having quantity as the determining factor, as quantity has a quality all of its own. They used this method in WWII and in almost every other war they have fought (e.g. Georgia, Afghan). Once they could not afford to field an army in the millions, the doctrine of weight lost its ability to fight a near peer. 
- the Russians do have the ability to adapt, but it takes years as the system is resistant to change and there has to be some big setbacks to force change (all militaries tend to be change resistant but this goes above and beyond as corruption is the lifeblood of this leadership,  changing the system takes away big money). It took a few years in Afghan but at a tactical level is did become more proficient against a disorganized and fractured foe - air-mobile troops funneling jihadis into kill zones. They were still crap but they became  better than their opponent. Not a chance here as both time and the proficiency of the UA is working against them. 
- The Soviet/Russian system is plan oriented and not goal oriented (Look at Egypt in the Arab-Israeli wars).  You work towards the written plan, not the goal. But this is the better choice in a system with top down leadership. Authoritarian systems cannot allow a flexible structure as it may lead to an independent officer corp which creates greater problems.
- as with an independent officer corp, you also cannot allow your citizens to see the dynamism in a flexible near state. Russia cannot allow an independent Ukraine, China cannot allow a democratic Taiwan nor a democratic North Korea.
- How does a country with GDP smaller than Canada cause so much trouble? I can only imagine the power Russia would have had if it would have turned its focus onto enhancing its own society. A successful Russia with 4 x the GDP (just to be on par with Canada let alone the USA) would have actually created a counter-point to America and could have joined/directed the EU as Germany does today. It could have had respect, power, a rich and stable society. But perhaps it is better to reign in hell than to serve in heavan.

A few thoughts
- the Russian forces are used to having quantity as the determining factor, as quantity has a quality all of its own. They used this method in WWII and in almost every other war they have fought (e.g. Georgia, Afghan). Once they could not afford to field an army in the millions, the doctrine of weight lost its ability to fight a near peer. 
- the Russians do have the ability to adapt, but it takes years as the system is resistant to change and there has to be some big setbacks to force change (all militaries tend to be change resistant but this goes above and beyond as corruption is the lifeblood of this leadership,  changing the system takes away big money). It took a few years in Afghan but at a tactical level is did become more proficient against a disorganized and fractured foe - air-mobile troops funneling jihadis into kill zones. They were still crap but they became  better than their opponent. Not a chance here as both time and the proficiency of the UA is working against them. 
- The Soviet/Russian system is plan oriented and not goal oriented (Look at Egypt in the Arab-Israeli wars).  You work towards the written plan, not the goal. But this is the better choice in a system with top down leadership. Authoritarian systems cannot allow a flexible structure as it may lead to an independent officer corp which creates greater problems.
- as with an independent officer corp, you also cannot allow your citizens to see the dynamism in a flexible near state. Russia cannot allow an independent Ukraine, China cannot allow a democratic Taiwan nor a democratic North Korea.
- How does a country with GDP smaller than Canada cause so much trouble? I can only imagine the power Russia would have had if it would have turned its focus onto enhancing its own society. A successful Russia with 4 x the GDP (just to be on par with Canada let alone the USA) would have actually created a counter-point to America and could have joined/directed the EU as Germany does today. It could have had respect, power, a rich and stable society. But perhaps it is better to reign in hell than to serve in heavan.

A few thoughts
- the Russian forces are used to having quantity as the determining factor, as quantity has a quality all of its own. They used this method in WWII and in almost every other war they have fought (e.g. Georgia, Afghan). Once they could not afford to field an army in the millions, the doctrine of weight lost its ability to fight a near peer. 
- the Russians do have the ability to adapt, but it takes years as the system is resistant to change and there has to be some big setbacks to force change (all militaries tend to be change resistant but this goes above and beyond as corruption is the lifeblood of this leadership,  changing the system takes away big money). It took a few years in Afghan but at a tactical level is did become more proficient against a disorganized and fractured foe - air-mobile troops funneling jihadis into kill zones. They were still crap but they became  better than their opponent. Not a chance here as both time and the proficiency of the UA is working against them. 
- The Soviet/Russian system is plan oriented and not goal oriented (Look at Egypt in the Arab-Israeli wars).  You work towards the written plan, not the goal. But this is the better choice in a system with top down leadership. Authoritarian systems cannot allow a flexible structure as it may lead to an independent officer corp which creates greater problems.
- as with an independent officer corp, you also cannot allow your citizens to see the dynamism in a flexible near state. Russia cannot allow an independent Ukraine, China cannot allow a democratic Taiwan nor a democratic North Korea.
- How does a country with GDP smaller than Canada cause so much trouble? I can only imagine the power Russia would have had if it would have turned its focus onto enhancing its own society. A successful Russia with 4 x the GDP (just to be on par with Canada let alone the USA) would have actually created a counter-point to America and could have joined/directed the EU as Germany does today. It could have had respect, power, a rich and stable society. But perhaps it is better to reign in hell than to serve in heavan.

I find this a very good interview. We shouldn't see Russia as a water down version of the Soviet Union. It is a country with 150 million inhabitants and an unhealthy one. 
 

So this is called a Black Elephant and we have danced around it margins a lot on this forum for obvious reasons.  I am Canadian and try not to weigh in on any one nations politics - we have got enough silliness of our own and do not intend  open up this can of worms but maybe we can look at the can.
The road to this war extends across the aisle, the world does not "happen" in the 4-8 year US administration cycles. If US readers of this walk away with one thing, let it be that.  The US has enormous influence but in a highly complex system such as "war" the causes are rarely determined in a few short years of a presidential term.  More succinctly "it is not all about you", and this applies to my own country as the political noise is trying to play this one as well.  
Putin has been in power for over 20 years and the western failures leading to today are long and winding on both sides of the aisle.  No one US president is responsible, they all are - kinda comes with the job.  
As to the particular former administration, I will lean in slightly: listen to the advisors and spokes-people before this war and it gives a hint at what the actual policy might have been.  I point to Col Macgregor as one of my favorites, a former military advisor to the White House and someone I take particular issue with, not only because he has consistently been wrong but also because he has sold out on a core principle of objective military advice.  Look up and listen to his analysis and assessment on YouTube for those looking for a window at what advice would have been provided in this crisis...and I will leave it at that.  

I'll second the book recommendation. Great read.  No way was it other than a planned hammer-blow with great hopes on its success.

Read this. It is worth it:
"Mars cost the Soviets an estimated 335,000 dead, missing, and wounded men and over 1,600 tanks. But in Russian history books, it was a battle that never happened—a historical debacle sacrificed to Stalin's postwar censorship."
Amazon.com: Zhukov's Greatest Defeat: The Red Army's Epic Disaster in Operation Mars, 1942 (Modern War Studies): 9780700614172: Glantz, David M.: Bücher

Same. I helped a little by donating half a grand USD to the Ukrainian military.
If any member of this forum or lurker wants to donate, here is the link to the special account that the National Bank of Ukraine opened to support the Ukrainian military.
https://bank.gov.ua/en/news/all/natsionalniy-bank-vidkriv-spetsrahunok-dlya-zboru-koshtiv-na-potrebi-armiyi