Maciej Zwolinski

This has "RF provocation" written all over it. It looks like mini-Bieslan scenario, tailor made to make Russian public go crazy.

I am not sure why "still". You noticed that the incident in question occurred on the first day of the invasion, right? I would say "already" working, after the confusion of the initial RUS strikes

At least we can be sure he was not hanged by the neck

Yep. After watching too many advertisements for kids I call it the "My little pony princess mermaid" approach. Too much of a good thing rolled into one.

The circumstances differ though. While the UKR were extremely keen on protecting civilian life and property in Kherson (too keen I think; failing to engage RUS withdrawing beyond the Dnieper had very bad consequences down the line in purely military terms) there are very few friendlies remaining in the Crimea. As long as the targets can be justified as legal, I think the Ukrainians would attack

African state...port run by a Russian company...very corrupt. Yes, I imagine it would be.

Actually, given that Wagner's favourite Sturmtrupp tactic is a raid by 4-8 man groups attacking from different directions under cover of equally small fire support elements armed with RPOs, AGS and machine guns, it stands to reason they will not have a robust AT armament with them. They cannot be simultaneously optimised for everything.

Anybody know what the rant is about? https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1630248548674736128?s=20

And what could that be?

There are many Ukrainian opinions, which are critical of this mix and think that the Soviet legacy drags the ZSU down. They cite lack of flexibility, overreliance on artillery, clinging to defensive positions instead of more mobilie defence, etc.. They certainly may be wrong in this, but the UKR themselves would like to be more Western than they currently are, which includes more MC command style. Of course UKR cannot imitate NATO in reliance on airpower and aversion to casualties, but I would not necessarily call it Soviet legacy, just the obvious adaptation to the conditions of this war. Soviet legacy shows itself in having tons of military equipment and a very capable GBAD, and I am sure UKR are thankful for that. Not so much for the intellectual legacy. I think this is not only the propaganda of US military in the 1980s, but one has to take into account some general cultural traits, which in my opinion make Ukrainans and Mission Command a perfect match. I know this is controversial as it resembles the perennial debate about national characteristics, which usually mean Germans get a +3 to everything. However, I do not think it makes sense to close your eyes to some really apparent stuff. Ukrainians are an incredibly bottom-up society with huge amounts of individual and small-group initiative in civilian life. Admittedly, this is based on my personal pre-war experience, but I cannot think of a better confirmation than the tractor brigades which spontaneously organised to nick Russian tanks or those myriad volunteer organisations. It stands to reason that this tendency will show in how they fight in a war. Not to mention that the figure of UKR soldier in popular imagination is a guerrilla from the forest or equally irregular Cossack. If anything, I think they would have more of a problem with sticking to the Direct Command style, where lower echelons have to follow orders they do not understand or agree with. By the way, I have also seen critiques of US army emphasis on maneuver warfare and mission command in the late 80's as more of superficial fashion while the culture of that army is attritional, its traditions are shaped by French methodical artillery tactics and it won WW 2 by moving artillery observes ever closer to Berlin rather than Patton's occasional armoured dashes.

I think it is more of the reverse. The Germans in the last days of WW2 were convinced they were the master race and by fighting to the end, they were defending their self-image of superior beings (also, were trying to defend civilians against revenge from Soviets and were subject to draconian discipline with a lot of people executed for desertion, rightly or wrongly in the chaos of disintegrating front). On the other hand, Russian soldiers who go to the front in the Ukraine seem already halfway convinced they will die because of the stupidity of their commanders, lack of supplies, defective weapons, etc. which they consider a fact of life with which they are not particularly bothered.

I have a couple of comments. 1. Maybe at this stage it would be helpful to specify what is meant by MC/DC at the particular command level under discussion to avoid talking about different things. Twitter discussion sparked by a post of Tatarigami_UA mentioned the problem of "senior officers" micromanaging deployment at platoon, company and battalion level. UKR do not fight in divisions, so he may have been talking about a brigade commander or brigade chief of staff telling a company commander where to place his platoons and company support weapons. Referring to that example specifcally - how likely is it that the brigade staff will have a better picture of the action at the appropriate level to do this better than the company commander? I think it is quite unlikely, even with the modern communications. Even if e.g. the brigade commander has some information from drones etc. it is still more likely to work better if he shares this with the lieutenant on the ground rather than take the decisions himself. So I think MC should be preferrable at this level of fighting, unless junior commanders are known to be incompetent. 2. Ukrainian commentators themselves seem to be complaining about too little MC and too much DC. Although they may be wrong, I would give them the benefit of the doubt. 3. An interesting example pertinent to the DC/MC debate came to light a couple of months ago when discussing Wagner tactics. It was related to the the lowest tactical level, showing individual fire team leaders of Wagner's penal battalions being directed by way of drones flying over their heads to move literally a few metres in this or that direction. They had movement routes planned on a tablet with an overhead map looking like a video game screen (so maybe this was not "Mission Command" but "Combat Mission Command"). Paradoxically, I think that at such a low level a directive style of command has a lot more sense than brigade command moving individual platoons/companies on the battlefield. Here, a junior officer or NCO looking at the battle from an overhead drone indeed has much more information than a fire team leader and is not distracted by the enemy fire.

Each Russian vehicle is a smoke machine - once.

That explains why Biden's visits to Istanbul have always been less successful in comparison. He felt too much on a hook there.

Apparently yesterday successful counterattacks were carried out by the UKR south of Bachmut.

If that was the point, it was a bad point. It referenced Eastern Europe, i.e. countries leaving the Communist regime in 1990s. I know the Polish situation firsthand, but I will go out on the limb and assume that in other countries from behind the Iron Curtain the sentiment was similar as the conditions were substantially similar. Namely, we were fed Soviet propaganda about Germany being always thinking about invasion, German tanks being always ready near the border etc. and we assumed there was some truth in this - and most of the people loved the idea. Most people in the late 80's I knew were happy at the prospect of the mighty Bundeswehr in their Balkankreuze-marked Leopards, funded with US imperialist money, driving over the borders and crushing Soviet peace-loving workers and peasants under the tracks. If there were any countries which wanted Germany "weak, divided and confused" that is probably the attitude of Western neighbours of FRG in the 1950s or 1960s. Not to mention the fact, that Eastern European attitudes had exactly zero influence over how Germany developed, as opposed to e.g. what the US, UK and France did in their occupation zones. But given Aragorn2002's long displayed prejudices against Eastern Europe, facts are irrelevant vs the thesis, that it is always our fault.

In the year 2000 an ex-chief of the Central Customs Office in Poland was deemed to have committed suicide by shooting himself three times in the stomach. Investigation was very short and the verdict of suicide was accepted.

How do you define capitalism? I define it as economy in which there is relative preponderance of free trade, i.e. most economic decisions are taken by private actors. The opposite of that, let us call it "socialism" is an economy where there is a relative preponderance of politics over free trade, i.e. relatively many economic decisions are taken by political bodies. If that is the case, I am quite sure that capitalism is, if not absolutely necessary, then very helpful towards having ordinary peoples' needs cared for. Whenever politicians are the ones driving economy, then consumers' needs usually take the back seat to achieving various statistical metrics. In countries which have most socialism (as defined above) in their economy, it regresses further to something a medieval state or a despot would have: military and vanity infrastructure projects (ref. Soviet Union: Red Army, heavy industry to support Red Army, turning back rivers, putting dog & later man in space, etc.)

This was disingenuous on Lenin's part. At one time he declared that (together with the promise of land for the peasants who worked on them) just to undermine the Whites, but the Bolsheviks fully intended to get all those countries (and more) back in a short time during world revolution (which did not pan out, however the subjugation of former Tzarist colonies did)

Thanks! The flecktarn cover confused me:)

MG 08/22?

It is the same phenomenon. The same things which make Putin a confusing enemy for the, let's say "contrarian populist right" make him the perfect villiain for the "liberal left". Militarist, homophobic,macho*, proponent of traditional values**, White, Christian***. He can be hated from the bottom of all the bleeding hearts without any remorse. For all supporters of the Ukraine, it looks like this time the tendency of the US to treat international politics as extension of its internal culture wars has worked for the good. *Obviously in those shirtless photos he does not actually look macho. But it is the intent which counts. **In propaganda only. In fact Russia has extremely high abortion and divorce rates. ***See above. Russian Orthodox Church looks like another branch of FSB.

I do not even know that there is a feud (is there? Maybe future material for CMBC - Combat Mission Berber Confrontation). I just admire the fighting words

That's the spirit! Molon labe!

That I addressed in my previous post. Nevermind, we can go in circles like that for ages. Let's leave the subject.