Kinophile

To clarify, we are in agreement to some degree, where I'm not saying Western is superior, militarily (or technically even that Democracy is) but that the combination of a military system built on fundamentally different principles of construction and sustainment by an autocracy is a bad match to a democratic government.  I certainly agree that democracies can do long term, large scale attrition (hello, WW1+).
I'm not convinced here:
Is it not simpler to argue they built such a large, intense and in-depth military system because Russia is geographically huge, the Soviets had a lot of enemies and modern war is highly destructive? These points would also apply to NATO, but with democracies as the source political systems and cultures the patterns of their militaries angled in a different direction from the Soviets. 
To further expand:
With Ukraine firmly in the democracy camp retaining a legacy Soviet military system can only grate and grind against the political and civil structures. We've seen that friction occur many times on the Ukrainian side; sometime sthe modern mindset wins out, sometimes the Soviet. Where reform/reformatting has not happened the Ukrainian military appears weakest. By contrast where the Soviet system is weakest is where Ukraine has its greatest successes.
This isn't simply Bashing the Soviet Legacy, its highlighting that when the Ukrainian military is allowed to operate in ways compatible with its current social construct is when its at it's most effective. Where it is hidebound by Soviet influence it fails far more often than succeeds. 
As I've said before, the greatest favour  RUS did to Ukraine was destroying its Navy. Here we see the Soviet naval legacy literally wiped away, an almost clean slate, and what does Ukraine proceed to do? Retake Snake Island, sink the Moskva +15% of the BSF, destroy the BSF command HQ, re-open the grain corridor, etc. 
Almost all through Western weapons and methodologies combined with Ukrainian initiative, technical ability and without the dead hand of Soviet material. It had to rethink its naval war from the waves up.
By contrast, the Ukrainian Army is very much built from and composed of Soviet machines and methods. Where they get Western tech and training to the right degree they succeed far more than when they have plenty of Soviet gear. I;m not saying Soviet gear/tech fails (it patently doesn't) but that Western gear/tech/mindset provides far more opportunities and avenues for Ukraine to succeed.
I'm not clear how you come to this conclusion.
Its well documented and also noted many times here that the UA has not been given the sufficient time and gear to fully transition into a Ukrainian/Western hybrid. Its currently a Ukrainian/Western/Soviet Frankenstein's monster. When its tried the 'true' Western approach in offensives it has not had enough training and not enough gear. When its combined the Western/Soviet its had decent success and when its gone the trad Soviet approach its had nothing but failures (almost all tactical). 
When the UA is fully supplied with modern Western gear and training it has a compounding effect with Ukrainian innovation and determination. The Soviet systems of doing things get in the way of the UA being all it could be. The UA is constantly testing and adapting the Western approach, but tailored to the realities of the front.
The Western approach works, just not in the classic, expected way of the West. If it didn't work the UA would rapidly abandon it. The Soviet way does not work for Ukraine, now, and especially not with the democratic society it is currently nailed onto.
My contention is we will see this removal of the Soviet legacy accelerate under both Syrskyi's leadership intentions, the attrition of the war itself and the modern expectations/demands of the civilian populace. I don't view the Soviet legacy as blameable for everything, more that it hass held back Ukraine from achieving even more than it has.
It certainly had its uses and can still deliver tangible effects, but those are no longer good enough, at large enough scale or as replicable as they need to be. They are certainly not as inventive and original as this war demands and by now are in deep & growing conflict with Ukrainian civil society's values and expectations.

To clarify, we are in agreement to some degree, where I'm not saying Western is superior, militarily (or technically even that Democracy is) but that the combination of a military system built on fundamentally different principles of construction and sustainment by an autocracy is a bad match to a democratic government.  I certainly agree that democracies can do long term, large scale attrition (hello, WW1+).
I'm not convinced here:
Is it not simpler to argue they built such a large, intense and in-depth military system because Russia is geographically huge, the Soviets had a lot of enemies and modern war is highly destructive? These points would also apply to NATO, but with democracies as the source political systems and cultures the patterns of their militaries angled in a different direction from the Soviets. 
To further expand:
With Ukraine firmly in the democracy camp retaining a legacy Soviet military system can only grate and grind against the political and civil structures. We've seen that friction occur many times on the Ukrainian side; sometime sthe modern mindset wins out, sometimes the Soviet. Where reform/reformatting has not happened the Ukrainian military appears weakest. By contrast where the Soviet system is weakest is where Ukraine has its greatest successes.
This isn't simply Bashing the Soviet Legacy, its highlighting that when the Ukrainian military is allowed to operate in ways compatible with its current social construct is when its at it's most effective. Where it is hidebound by Soviet influence it fails far more often than succeeds. 
As I've said before, the greatest favour  RUS did to Ukraine was destroying its Navy. Here we see the Soviet naval legacy literally wiped away, an almost clean slate, and what does Ukraine proceed to do? Retake Snake Island, sink the Moskva +15% of the BSF, destroy the BSF command HQ, re-open the grain corridor, etc. 
Almost all through Western weapons and methodologies combined with Ukrainian initiative, technical ability and without the dead hand of Soviet material. It had to rethink its naval war from the waves up.
By contrast, the Ukrainian Army is very much built from and composed of Soviet machines and methods. Where they get Western tech and training to the right degree they succeed far more than when they have plenty of Soviet gear. I;m not saying Soviet gear/tech fails (it patently doesn't) but that Western gear/tech/mindset provides far more opportunities and avenues for Ukraine to succeed.
I'm not clear how you come to this conclusion.
Its well documented and also noted many times here that the UA has not been given the sufficient time and gear to fully transition into a Ukrainian/Western hybrid. Its currently a Ukrainian/Western/Soviet Frankenstein's monster. When its tried the 'true' Western approach in offensives it has not had enough training and not enough gear. When its combined the Western/Soviet its had decent success and when its gone the trad Soviet approach its had nothing but failures (almost all tactical). 
When the UA is fully supplied with modern Western gear and training it has a compounding effect with Ukrainian innovation and determination. The Soviet systems of doing things get in the way of the UA being all it could be. The UA is constantly testing and adapting the Western approach, but tailored to the realities of the front.
The Western approach works, just not in the classic, expected way of the West. If it didn't work the UA would rapidly abandon it. The Soviet way does not work for Ukraine, now, and especially not with the democratic society it is currently nailed onto.
My contention is we will see this removal of the Soviet legacy accelerate under both Syrskyi's leadership intentions, the attrition of the war itself and the modern expectations/demands of the civilian populace. I don't view the Soviet legacy as blameable for everything, more that it hass held back Ukraine from achieving even more than it has.
It certainly had its uses and can still deliver tangible effects, but those are no longer good enough, at large enough scale or as replicable as they need to be. They are certainly not as inventive and original as this war demands and by now are in deep & growing conflict with Ukrainian civil society's values and expectations.

To clarify, we are in agreement to some degree, where I'm not saying Western is superior, militarily (or technically even that Democracy is) but that the combination of a military system built on fundamentally different principles of construction and sustainment by an autocracy is a bad match to a democratic government.  I certainly agree that democracies can do long term, large scale attrition (hello, WW1+).
I'm not convinced here:
Is it not simpler to argue they built such a large, intense and in-depth military system because Russia is geographically huge, the Soviets had a lot of enemies and modern war is highly destructive? These points would also apply to NATO, but with democracies as the source political systems and cultures the patterns of their militaries angled in a different direction from the Soviets. 
To further expand:
With Ukraine firmly in the democracy camp retaining a legacy Soviet military system can only grate and grind against the political and civil structures. We've seen that friction occur many times on the Ukrainian side; sometime sthe modern mindset wins out, sometimes the Soviet. Where reform/reformatting has not happened the Ukrainian military appears weakest. By contrast where the Soviet system is weakest is where Ukraine has its greatest successes.
This isn't simply Bashing the Soviet Legacy, its highlighting that when the Ukrainian military is allowed to operate in ways compatible with its current social construct is when its at it's most effective. Where it is hidebound by Soviet influence it fails far more often than succeeds. 
As I've said before, the greatest favour  RUS did to Ukraine was destroying its Navy. Here we see the Soviet naval legacy literally wiped away, an almost clean slate, and what does Ukraine proceed to do? Retake Snake Island, sink the Moskva +15% of the BSF, destroy the BSF command HQ, re-open the grain corridor, etc. 
Almost all through Western weapons and methodologies combined with Ukrainian initiative, technical ability and without the dead hand of Soviet material. It had to rethink its naval war from the waves up.
By contrast, the Ukrainian Army is very much built from and composed of Soviet machines and methods. Where they get Western tech and training to the right degree they succeed far more than when they have plenty of Soviet gear. I;m not saying Soviet gear/tech fails (it patently doesn't) but that Western gear/tech/mindset provides far more opportunities and avenues for Ukraine to succeed.
I'm not clear how you come to this conclusion.
Its well documented and also noted many times here that the UA has not been given the sufficient time and gear to fully transition into a Ukrainian/Western hybrid. Its currently a Ukrainian/Western/Soviet Frankenstein's monster. When its tried the 'true' Western approach in offensives it has not had enough training and not enough gear. When its combined the Western/Soviet its had decent success and when its gone the trad Soviet approach its had nothing but failures (almost all tactical). 
When the UA is fully supplied with modern Western gear and training it has a compounding effect with Ukrainian innovation and determination. The Soviet systems of doing things get in the way of the UA being all it could be. The UA is constantly testing and adapting the Western approach, but tailored to the realities of the front.
The Western approach works, just not in the classic, expected way of the West. If it didn't work the UA would rapidly abandon it. The Soviet way does not work for Ukraine, now, and especially not with the democratic society it is currently nailed onto.
My contention is we will see this removal of the Soviet legacy accelerate under both Syrskyi's leadership intentions, the attrition of the war itself and the modern expectations/demands of the civilian populace. I don't view the Soviet legacy as blameable for everything, more that it hass held back Ukraine from achieving even more than it has.
It certainly had its uses and can still deliver tangible effects, but those are no longer good enough, at large enough scale or as replicable as they need to be. They are certainly not as inventive and original as this war demands and by now are in deep & growing conflict with Ukrainian civil society's values and expectations.

Macron with the right idea. After months and months of Russia not de-escalating, its time for the West to up the ante. Clearly Russia has decided to opt for rhetoric of "existential" for Ukraine to fall, it is past time for Europe to recognize that should Ukraine fall, the door is opened to a age of conflict threatening the rest of Europe, and better to slam the door closed in Ukraine then in the Baltics. 
Shut it down in Ukraine or in the next 20 years we will have a renewed Russian Empire chomping at the rest of Eastern Europe. 
 
 

I think you are mixing a lot of themes here to the detriment of objective analysis.  The Soviet system was designed to create as much mass as possible and project it at an opponent.  It may appear "cruel and uncaring" but in reality it was built on the brutal lessons of the Eastern Front and how a quick violent short war was far better than a drawn out one.
We vie for the same aspiration of short wars, we simply lean on technology instead of human capital.  And frankly we have no real proof either system is truly superior.
The Soviet system is a poorer fit for modern democracies; however, before we sit too high on that horse, lets not forget democracies fought in WW1 too, and were very able to throw human capital at a problem at great loss.
The reality is that there is nothing inherently "wrong" or "evil" about the Soviet military system - talking political ideology out of the equation - so long as one asks that system to do what it was designed to do.  The exact same thing goes for the Western military system.  In this war, both sides have tried the western approach...and it did not work.  Now they are in a grinding war of attrition for which the western systems is also a very bad fit.
Nor is there proof that democracies can't do attrition either.  We have proven that we are very capable at spending a lot of lives to win.  What I oppose is this reoccurring narrative that somehow all the problems all sides are having are "Soviet legacy" and any successes are somehow western modernization; this is simply not proven by what we have seen.
Russia has fallen back onto a more Soviet-like approach to force generation and employment...and clearly it is working for them.  They are able to hold ground and even conduct tactical advances even with appalling losses.  The UA is moving much farther to the western doctrine, and frankly some of it is working for them too.  They are able to hold, strike deep and have very high precision.  
The weaknesses of either system are also on display for all to see as well.  For the Soviet system it is rigidity and logistical weight, which is untenable on the modern battlefield.  For the Western system it is the serious lack of depth and capacity.
I suspect that each side is evolving to some sort of hybrid, or at least trying to.  Either way, it does us little good to point at every problem and go "difficulty upscaling due to Soviet legacy"  which frankly does not even make sense based on what Soviet legacy really was.
As to that last part I highlighted - well yes and no.  The Mongols created smart fast mass and took over half the planet, so not entire a new idea.  The Soviet system could generate modern mech and armor forces like no one else.  Their operational art was very advanced on how to employ that mass.  In many ways they really are a defining school of modern warfare, the counter-point to the western schools.  We have no actual war to try and decide which system was better to worse to be honest.  The Gulf War was the closest but it really was a poor analogue.  This war has shadows of the Soviet system but overlapped with other schools.

Hmm...not very reliable source, but Ukrainians clearly like to spread some panic before Putin will crown himself again.
 

From a certain level up. 
I wonder if Zaluzhny was pushing for mobilization but Zelensky was feeling that the current system of training, and command and support was too Legacy Soviet? It would only waste the extra people, while also putting enormous strain on civilian support.
Not just in the actual mobilization but once casualties piled up would the current system be able to handle it? Ukraine is an actual democracy and could fail under the strain of a military medical system designed by an autocracy. 
If 'all'  Syrsky does this year is drastically reform his military, root & branch, then hecwill have set Ukraine up for true victory - the final destruction of its Soviet military legacy. 

It would take years to make these carcasses fly, let alone function. 
 

This guy (RB&PG) has been continuously maddened by the lack of a Ukrainian campaign against RUS electrical and gas infrastructure. He has a good point. 
 

This guy (RB&PG) has been continuously maddened by the lack of a Ukrainian campaign against RUS electrical and gas infrastructure. He has a good point. 
 

It would take years to make these carcasses fly, let alone function. 
 

Ryzan