Separatist push/Ukraine shove back

[IMHO]

29 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

But to try and build a case that Ukraine is corrupt

Old news for practically any CIS country  Nope, my (perhaps) too ambitions goal was/is to show how quite real military decisions become the product of internal Ukrainian political and business dynamics. And I honestly believe that might be of interest to the audience. But it's a process that takes multiple steps and I inevitably have to beauty-parade the political part as well - beliefs of different groups of people inside Ukraine, how they make the grass root audience of political parties, how political parties connect to business sponsors and what military views politicians and oligarchs have at the moment.

First step of the process was/is to show with verifiable sources that Ukrainian population, politicians and regions are not copycat poster clones as they look in the press. They have different views and aspirations and that's normal as Ukraine is a large country. Sometimes those are far apart and quite extreme but that's the reality of it. But it has nothing to do with the blame game - whatever happened has happened and that's the future that is interesting.

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, cool breeze said:

I thought the interview quotes were quite insightful and very relevant to the military situation. I've always thought that why the wars are fought is one of the most important details.

Sure, but this is an entirely different topic which gets into an endless amount of debate about how representative and accurate sources are, the larger issues of civil societies, etc.  It's a complex topic.  One that I'm personally very interested in, but do not think it has much use for military discussions.  For the military aspect it's only important to recognize that there's a variety of reasons why people are fighting, however there is only one reason there is a war... Russia pursuing it's own interests.  Without Russian weapons, ammunition, armed forces, organization, training, financial support, and political support there would be no war.  As complex as the war is, this truth is extremely black and white.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

29 minutes ago, IMHO said:

Old news for practically any CIS country  Nope, my (perhaps) too ambitions goal was/is to show how quite real military decisions become the product of internal Ukrainian political and business dynamics.

Sure, just as quite real military decisions become the product of internal Russian political and business dynamics.  Russia did not start this war with Ukraine because Putin woke up one day and thought it would be super fun.  So looking at only one side of the equation is inherently unbalanced.

29 minutes ago, IMHO said:

And I honestly believe that might be of interest to the audience. But it's a process that takes multiple steps and I inevitably have to beauty-parade the political part as well - beliefs of different groups of people inside Ukraine, how they make the grass root audience of political parties, how political parties connect to business sponsors and what military views politicians and oligarchs have at the moment.

And that isn't relevant to the military conflict.  There is also the other side of the story, which is the mirror image of Russian groups on the other side of the border.  Especially since it was those groups, utilized by the Russian government, that started the war in the first place.

29 minutes ago, IMHO said:

First step of the process was/is to show with verifiable sources that Ukrainian population, politicians and regions are not copycat poster clones as they look in the press. They have different views and aspirations and that's normal as Ukraine is a large country. Sometimes those are far apart and quite extreme but that's the reality of it. But it has nothing to do with the blame game - whatever happened has happened and that's the future that is interesting.

Sure, but it has little to do with the military conflict in front of us.  And as stated above, it's a one sided perspective at best.

Steve

[Haiduk]

2 hours ago, kinophile said:

@Haiduk I've read the current UKR tactics described as 'novel', but I'd call them. 'incremental'. 

I'm curious, has the western training begun to affect tactics? Has it started to stimulate different, more flexible tactics? The units involved in the last 2 months of skirmishing - did they go through the full western training programs in UKR? 

To be clear, UKR seem to have been very flexible and adaptive since the Russian invasion. I'm just curious as to how effective and useful the NATO training has been, after 2-3 years of it. 

 

It's too hard to say... NATO training mostly directed on small groups work, enchencing of communication and interaction between commanders, but what exactly western instructors teach us - this is unknown. VDV and Natinal Guard units mostly trainaing by western programs and about per one batalion from some mech. brigades. All what I see on maneuvers video - offensive, capturing buildings, repelling attack and counter-attack, forcing the rivers. So, we are obviously preparing for "Croatian scenario".

Last operations on front is more similar to WWII - short rush forward, to secure positions and to defend its under heavy enemy artillery fire and enemy attacks. Like in WWII, all solving how troops steady under shelling, which continues 6-10 hours day by day and how quickly troops can dig in or extend existing enemy trenches. Donbas war already call "war of artillery". How NATO experience good for such position war - I don't know. But in real offensive, urban combat, I think, it will be useful.

Btw, many our soldiers say, that during joint training NATO soldiers in the same way learn from us. During last maneuvers in Georgia US officers were shocked, when have seen how our marines worked in mined and booby-trapped forest and how they set this "surpises" for opponents.       

Edited February 28, 2017 by Haiduk

[DMS]

1 hour ago, kinophile said:

I'm curious, has the western training begun to affect tactics? Has it started to stimulate different, more flexible tactics? The units involved in the last 2 months of skirmishing - did they go through the full western training programs in UKR? 

VSU have more expirience of conventional warfare than any western army. Can they really teach Ukrainians? In technical questions, like communications - surely yes. But what's about tactics? A lot of local specifics, from terrain till equipment.

Edited February 28, 2017 by DMS

[Kinophile]

6 minutes ago, DMS said:

VSU have more expirience of conventional warfare than any western army. Can they really teach Ukrainians? In technical questions, like communications - surely yes. But what's about tactics? A lot of local specifics, from terrain till equipment.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

The western focus has again not been on tactics nearly as much as small unit leadership. You see room clearing or river crossings because they're a tool to achieve that outcome, but the end goal is to improve the junior officer-NCO level, and foster more independent thinking across the board.

 

Basically breaking the largely defunct anyway Soviet mold and trying to build a more robust and agile organization. It's not like we've got NATO forces there to teach them how to drive BMPs mo better.

[Kinophile]

Ugh, the forum bug where you can't delete a quote box once you tap inside it (on mobile devices). 

Nevermind. KevlaredTomatoCatapult said it better. 

[Haiduk]

4 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

The western focus has again not been on tactics nearly as much as small unit leadership.

Yes, I meant exactly this, but this is allowed informatin for media. Many other is nor for TV.

[Battlefront.com]

7 minutes ago, DMS said:

VSU have more expirience of conventional warfare than any western army. Can they really teach Ukrainians? In technical questions, like communications - surely yes. But what's about tactics? A lot of local specifics, from terrain till equipment.

What I've found from looking at accounts from NATO and Ukrainian forces is that Ukraine still has a lot to learn in terms of basic soldiering.  Ukraine started the war with a Soviet conscript minded system, whereas the NATO forces are centered around very different principles.  In particular the roles of individual soldiers and their responsibilities.  In particular leadership duties.  This extends upwards to how to coordinate units.

Where Ukraine has had more to teach NATO is on dealing with fighting a largely peer level conventional force.  It has been a while since NATO forces have had such fights.  In one instance the British showed Ukrainian forces how to "properly" clear a path through a minefield.  The Ukrainians said they learned a lot and were impressed with the British battle drill's approach and emphasis on safety.  However, the Ukrainians pointed out that if the British tried to do this against the Russians they'd all be dead from mortar and artillery rounds while out clearing the lanes.  There's a big difference between clearing a path through mines in a COIN situation vs. a conventional one where the enemy has their artillery preregistered and someone watching.

So from what I can tell, both sides are learning from each other in different ways.  Certainly I've seen several reports where the US soldiers said they learned as much from their Ukrainian "students" as they imparted.

Where things get into a different category is maneuvering larger forces.  This is where Ukraine is traditionally weak and it is still unknown how well it can conduct brigade sized operations.  NATO, on the other hand, is extremely experienced with this.

Steve

[IMHO]

@Battlefront.com

1. Steve, if I studiously avoid commenting on some topic, may be there's a serious reason why I do this? And may be that's not because I'm a retarded zombie-bot? 
2. May be someone else can do the analysis of DNR/LNR/Russia side?
3. Nah, it comes back to Georgia route  We could have had an extremely detailed discussion both on Georgian and even Russian side 

[Battlefront.com]

8 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

The western focus has again not been on tactics nearly as much as small unit leadership. You see room clearing or river crossings because they're a tool to achieve that outcome, but the end goal is to improve the junior officer-NCO level, and foster more independent thinking across the board.

 

Basically breaking the largely defunct anyway Soviet mold and trying to build a more robust and agile organization. It's not like we've got NATO forces there to teach them how to drive BMPs mo better.

A friend of mine was part of a Ukrainian sponsored mentor training program for Ukrainian junior officers prior to the war starting.  He said how absolutely frustrating it was because for it to work he needed "buy in" from the mid to senior level officers.  Otherwise he'd get a 1LT on the right path and then watch the guy get ignored or put down.  Then if the 1LT made Captain he'd behave like the older Captains.  It's like any bad culture, it isn't a simple thing to change.

Steve

[Kinophile]

9 minutes ago, IMHO said:

@Battlefront.com

Edited February 28, 2017 by kinophile

[Kinophile]

16 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

Yes, I meant exactly this, but this is allowed informatin for media. Many other is nor for TV.

My query is based on how long the training has been going on. 3 years... Something must be showing. 

@Battlefront.com has your friend seen what UKR forces are like now? Their analysis of UKR forces  before/during the war would be very illuminating!

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

15 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

A friend of mine was part of a Ukrainian sponsored mentor training program for Ukrainian junior officers prior to the war starting.  He said how absolutely frustrating it was because for it to work he needed "buy in" from the mid to senior level officers.  Otherwise he'd get a 1LT on the right path and then watch the guy get ignored or put down.  Then if the 1LT made Captain he'd behave like the older Captains.  It's like any bad culture, it isn't a simple thing to change.

Steve

Same deal with the Iraqis. You were basically always at war with the way it "always worked" or offering solutions that sure, work for AMERICANS, but we Iraqis know Iraq so back off while we poke this IED with a magic golf ball finder because we know how to do this. 

 

Getting that buy in is essential. And often requires some extraordinary efforts.

[Battlefront.com]

2 minutes ago, kinophile said:

My query is based on how long the training has been going on. 3 years... Something must be showing. 

From what I've seen, it's showing in terms of better discipline and small unit coordination.  Logistics has apparently been much improved.  But the biggest improvements have been equipment quality and availability.  When Ukraine went to war they were missing a lot of stuff and what they did have was largely Soviet leftovers.  There were some early examples of the old Ukrainian blatant corruption happening (armored vests with plastic fillers instead of ballistic plates, for example), but that's apparently been largely squashed.

2 minutes ago, kinophile said:

@Battlefront.com has your friend seen what UKR forces are like now? Their analysis of UKR forces  before/during the war would be very illuminating!

His job was terminated after Yanukovych fled to Russia.  Ukraine had more immediate issues to be concerned about at the time.  My friend then went to become an OSCE observer and even got himself on camera saving the life of a Russian journalist who was hit by shrapnel.  He now lives in Odessa and is pursuing other professional interests.

Another friend I have in the OSCE has said that there's been a major and stead improvement in the quality of soldiering over the past 2 years he's been at the front.  On the Ukrainian side, that is.  He's not had very kind things to say about the other side

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

9 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Same deal with the Iraqis. You were basically always at war with the way it "always worked" or offering solutions that sure, work for AMERICANS, but we Iraqis know Iraq so back off while we poke this IED with a magic golf ball finder because we know how to do this. 

I'll never forget the US officer that said the biggest success they had training Iraqis was to get them to not do the "Death Blossom".  I am pretty sure I read one of the first instances where that phrase was ever printed in the US media.  I probably spit out whatever I was drinking all over my monitor when I read that.  I'm a big fan of The Last Starfighter (saw it in the theater, doncha know) so I knew exactly what he was talking about.  Now the term is pretty well known.

9 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Getting that buy in is essential. And often requires some extraordinary efforts.

Yup.  And to compare and contrast, the US had the opportunity to force these changes upon the Iraqis, political and military.  It would have required a 30-50 year commitment perhaps, but it could have been done because the US (and it's partners) had total control over the country.  This is not the case with Ukraine.  It can only change if and when the Ukrainian establishment wants it to change.  I know it took quite a while for some of the former Warsaw Pact militaries to come up to speed, but there again they basically had to because that was the deal and NATO held them too it. 

Steve

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

For me it was seeing the AK with a safety on. It's not a good safety and poorly positioned, but it meant less Iraqis shooting each other in error. 

[Kinophile]

From my third party, 2000 miles away, non military, media brainwashed perspective, it seems like the post-invasion UKRofficers are more flexible, more willing to learn and more disciplined, than the iraqis. Anecdotal impression, to be sure. But the Ukies have that advantage of already being a western type army and culture. 

Has there been any decent, independent review of the UKR ground forces, comparing then and now? 

Edited February 28, 2017 by kinophile

[Battlefront.com]

7 minutes ago, kinophile said:

From my third party, 2000 miles away, non military, media brainwashed perspective, it seems like the post-invasion UKRofficers are more flexible, more willing to learn and more disciplined. Anecdotal impression, to be sure. 

I have a little different take on it.  The 2014 Ukrainian summer offensive started off with what the Ukrainians had... a largely inept conscript based force led by officers ranging from competent to criminally negligent (if not just outright criminals).  The early fighting sorted out some priorities with some becoming better leaders and others finding excuses to get out of combat duties.  The soldiers were grousing from the beginning because they didn't trust most of their officers.  Then the poop hit the fan when Russia launched its counter offensive.  It became pretty clear that things had to change or there would be widespread mutinies (there were some at the front and on bases), so it seems enough senior leadership got behind the idea of getting rid of the deadwood and promoting those who showed themselves to be competent.  They initially limited this to battalion and lower formations, not as much higher up (excepting logistics perhaps).  My impression is that things are decently sorted out at Brigade and below, but probably have more work to do in the General ranks.

So I'm not sure if the Ukrainian officers were inherently as a group prone to flexibility as much as it was dire circumstances sorted out the men from the mice.

Quote

Has there been any decent, independent review if the UKR ground forces, comparing then and now? 

In passing, there's lots of it.  But I'm unaware of a focused study on this narrow topic.

Steve

[Haiduk]

10 hours ago, kinophile said:

has your friend seen what UKR forces are like now?

Our soldiers say - best times for Ukrainain army were in late 2014-2015. Despite on all сhaos, bloody battles and defeats. There are many new people came to army (as well as servicemen and civil volunterres) with own new initiatives, which radically changed many things and found full support from side of Minister of Defense. Peak of form was on 5th wave of mobilization. This sound strange, but mobilized soldiers of 4th-5th and partially last 6th wave have much more motivation, than contractors now. But rejection from next mobilization wave and significant raising of payment for attraction of more contractors, caused that in army gushed a flow of old-school retired officers of Soviet military mentality and soldiers-contractors from small towns and villages, many of which go to army not to defeat the enemy, but "to serve" and receive money. HQs of brigades, Joint Tactical Groups, Corpses, General Staff, MoD cabinets filled with huge number of "old farters", which do only absolutely seemless paper work and force of frontline units commanders to fill tons of paper. And strictly control this with multiple committees. How to you "Journal of soap accounting, given to servicemen" or "Journal of accaunting of washing of personnel in bathhouse"?  And such marasm counting with dozens and hundreds.

Frontline troops hate them possibly more then separs. And staff rats in the same way hate frontline soldiers. Many incompetent commanders supressed all initiatives of own soldiers and volunteers. Contrarctors unlike mobilized have became almost as slaves - any attempt of soldiers to complaine on bad supply or commander's incompetence on higher levels can finish itself with commander report on you "bad behavior" and cutting of big part of month payment. Many veterans and motivated soldiers reject to prolong own contracts and demobilize themselve - they don't want to serve in this "soviet style" army. And many motivated young guys, which see this ressurection of "soviet guard" reject to sign contracts or go to "Azov" or VUC (Right Sector units) or UVA (splitted from RS units, which followed for Yarosh). So, our veterans say, alas guys, our army again rapidly falling back into "sovok" and paper marasmus instead warefare and development.    

Edited March 1, 2017 by Haiduk

[Kinophile]

Wow. 

[IMHO]

@kinophile, yepp his evaluations is absolutely correct. I have mine that differs in details but leaving the details - it's the same. But the question is there a way to end the end war,@Haiduk?

[Nefron]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

however there is only one reason there is a war... Russia pursuing it's own interests.  Without Russian weapons, ammunition, armed forces, organization, training, financial support, and political support there would be no war.  As complex as the war is, this truth is extremely black and white.

That can also be said about Ukraine. If they didn't pursue what they believe to be their interests, there would be no war. 

[Kinophile]

42 minutes ago, Nefron said:

That can also be said about Ukraine. If they didn't pursue what they believe to be their interests, there would be no war. 

This is ridiculous. Their basic interest is national survival as an independent state.

I mean, really?