How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[acrashb]

7 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

I expect the solution is to go with the "Ike doctrine" of WW2, aka "Broad Front".

That's what I had in mind.  No more 'thunder runs'.  Slower but more effective.

[Der Zeitgeist]

10 minutes ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

New video of the tank vs. Ukrainian infantry incident we saw earlier. This one is filmed directly from the soldiers that were shot.

https://t.me/ZeRada1/8384

Here's the same thing in Twitter, so it's easier to watch if you don't use Telegram.

 

[dan/california]

3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Neither am I.  Especially if Western forces don't spend quite a bit of time trying to make sure it is "better enough" by adopting new doctrine to account for this sort of hybrid conventional/unconventional warfare.  I don't think what we have on paper right now is sufficient.

I expect the solution is to go with the "Ike doctrine" of WW2, aka "Broad Front".  Move forces forward with an eye on force protection more than rapid seizure of far flung objectives.  Don't just drive down roads, dismount and sweep the forests.  As the advance continues ensure that there are "garrisons" left in key spots (with all kinds of ISR toys) that are capable of at least temporarily challenging platoon sized attacks. Run fewer, but better protected resupply convoys.  In hotter spots, proactively run infantry along routes just ahead of a convoy to keep the attacker off kilter.  Don't run convoys on any sort of schedule and try to vary supply routes as much as possible.  And above all else, have the skies above supply routes swarming with drones 24/7.

That sort of stuff needs to be gamed out to test, then tried out in the field, then codified as draft doctrine, and repeat the cycle until it seems solid enough to rely upon.

Steve

We may just be moving into a new military era where offensive action is just harder. In WW1 the problem of being. on the offensive against a prepared and supplied enemy was effectively unsolvable. The Germans were beaten by blockade, and sheer bloody attrition. From WW2 until Feb 23  the side on offense usually did way better than the side just trying hold ground, at least as long as they were smarter about it than the Germans were at Kursk, and had air superiority . Maybe the pendulum has just swung again

[sross112]

I can't speak about the other Western countries, but in the US there are a lot of very good reasons to sign up.  Pay is decent, educational opportunities are made available (even required in the case of officers), professional development is promised (though imperfectly implemented at times), there's a raft of benefits for veterans after leaving, and if you stick with it there's a significant pension paid out for the rest of your life.

And then there is the best reason of all, because they want to be a soldier, sailor, airman or Marine. This is a very big qualitative difference especially when it comes to morale. Then add in the other things that have been mentioned like the support and respect of their country and it's people backing them. Lay on the good gear and training and a trust that your life won't be thrown away by your commanders and you have a good recipe for a solid war fighter. So the difference between a western soldier and a conscript is pretty big and hard to quantify. It is probably the difference between the slave and the gladiator in a colosseum. 

Yes, longleftflank, your painting all infantry with that big old brush is pretty offensive to those that served. It is pretty par for the course though for the educated elite to look down their noses at those that aren't. The thing that I always thought was funny though is that when a young person is a Marine they are a dullard who couldn't do anything else with their life so they joined the military. Then after they get out and get done with college and are working as an engineer somewhere they were miraculously transformed from the knuckle dragging imbecile that they were to this newly intelligent creature by some magic wand. Education does not equal intelligence. The position that someone holds in life does not equal their potential. 

The inverse to your statement is that those that didn't serve are a bunch of soft pathetic effeminates with no concept of honor, integrity, pride or courage. We know that is not the case, just like we know that classifying all combat arms soldiers into the too dumb for anything else category isn't the case. I think when you paint with a wide brush like that it is called bigotry. In my opinion everyone needs to be very careful with the wide brush when applying it to people. Everyone is wired different. Everyone makes choices. Everyone has their own set of circumstances. It is very dangerous when people are viewed as faceless masses and not the individuals that they are.

I will concede that  there are some dullards in the military. I was blessed with serving with a couple of them. However, the vast majority were awesome and don't deserve such derision. 

[sburke]

2 hours ago, akd said:

@sburke @Kinophile

I don’t recall this charming face:

I think this guy is already on the list, but not sure if unit was listed:

 

we have both.

[Maquisard manqué]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61083402

Sadly this is partly why Boris is making such an effort is I engage with Ukraine over the war. Without it (and the browny points he accrues from it) he would be out.

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, acrashb said:

At least we (the West) are having this discussion.  This is another reason Western forces are so effective: they swim in and are culturally influenced by open societies and so can adapter faster than their counterparts.

Having said that, it took several years in the second gulf war for the US military to a) recognize that it was now fighting an insurgency and b) issue FM 3-24 to support counter-insurgency doctrine (re-learning British knowledge from the Malaya Emergency and the US' knowledge from the Philippine-American war, among others).  One hopes we collectively learn faster from this war; I am heartened by the recent, relatively timely pivot (at least in public announcements) from highly asymmetrical warfare to more peer- and near-peer to peer planning, doctrine, and force structures.

This is true, however it also was very quick to adopt interim strategies and industry was quick to ramp up production to meet them.  The best example of this were field led "up armoring" of unarmored trucks.  For sure not adequate, but unlike the bits of aluminum taped to the front of Russian trucks, effective to some extent.

There were also rapid changes to how units operated.  YEARS of training were tossed out the window and new improvised methods applied immediately.  If this hadn't happened the war effort would likely have collapsed before FM 3-24 was developed.

This is akin to WW2 when the US developed hedgerow cutters for its tanks.  The speed at which it went from bright idea to theater wide implementation is astonishing even to me nearly 70 years later.  Analysis of this particular innovation was largely credited to the "entrepreneurial" culture of the US as expressed in the military.  Very good chains of command allowed it to spread like wildfire and the US culture of pushing aside paperwork to get things done also came into play.

Which is to say, the US has a clear track record of adapting to major change very quickly from the bottom up instead of the top down.

Steve

[Aragorn2002]

6 minutes ago, panzermartin said:

I think US army is on a different league on all levels. The funding is insane 10 times up compared to the second Russia I think. Everything is better and of course the soldiers are more respected and have better future prospects. Not everyone can afford this! 

I served one mandatory year with the hellenic infantry and our professional soldiers didn't impress me much...There were mostly goofy kids out of villages and poor rural areas. Air force, Navy and special forces were an entirely different case. Still sometimes I think, you don't have to attend university to be a foot soldier maybe in the long term you need rugged young people that can endure the misery of prolonged warfare. 

But I agree Russia has always been cruel with the lowly infantryman and this war has reminded me how much. The state  feeds those godamn oligarchs that can have their shinny 1 billion superyacht but they give so little to the poor foot soldier.

One of the reasons why the Reichswehr during and after the Weimar republic was so succesful in raising a generation of brilliant soldiers (not just officiers) and multiply to a mass army in a short period was that they only took the best and brightest in their ranks. That's definitely something to aim for since it pays off big time. The Reichswehr of course didn't have any other choice, but we have. Nowadays this starts with attracting intelligent and ambitious young people. I think one can not take this too seriousely, especially in our high tech society. Pay them well and make sure they have all they need. As the Russians prove now, this is even more important than state of the art equipment. 

[danfrodo]

43 minutes ago, Harmon Rabb said:

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

Thanks Harman Rabb, I was looking for a legit way to help, there's always so many scams when there's lots of folks wanting to donate.  Putting some money where my mouth is right now.

[dan/california]

Boris is, well, Boris, but in this case of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, the right thing is the important half.

[sburke]

44 minutes ago, Harmon Rabb said:

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

I went with sunflowers of peace.  I figured our gov't was throwing enough military aid. This group builds medical kits etc to alleviate the suffering of the civilian population.

Sunflower of Peace - Help the people of Ukraine

[Ultradave]

23 minutes ago, sross112 said:

Pay is decent, educational opportunities are made available (even required in the case of officers), professional development is promised (though imperfectly implemented at times), there's a raft of benefits for veterans after leaving, and if you stick with it there's a significant pension paid out for the rest of your life.

And then there is the best reason of all, because they want to be a soldier, sailor, airman or Marine. This is a very big qualitative difference especially when it comes to morale.

First part is Steve's quote.

Yes, as Steve has mentioned somewhere else, the fact I was a paratrooper for years is reason to question my intelligence or sanity, or both. And yet, I had a career as a nuclear engineer after the Army, so I wasn't completely brain dead (or some words to that effect )

For me personally, my parents paid for my freshman year of college and told me I'd have to figure it out from there. That was what they could afford. As it happened, I had a few friends who were in Army ROTC and told me, "Come on, try it, you'll like it." That led to a 3 years ROTC scholarship and regular Army commission, with my university completely paid for. Good deal. Just had to pay them back with some years, sweat and blood. Still a good deal. College would certainly have been out of reach for me otherwise.  Artillery and Airborne - figured I'd want my time in the Army to be exciting and challenging and I got my wish. 

Dave

PS - I might ad that this is fairly typical of junior officers. More Army officers come from ROTC than from West Point each year.

Edited April 12, 2022 by Ultradave

[Lethaface]

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Ok, I think we got it: Russian's suck.

My issue with this is that we have seen multiple assessments on this all over the place (no fault on you personally for posting, my frustration is with the mainstream military analysis) to the point they have become a self-reinforcing echo chamber in the making, all designed to explain why the Russians have failed, and likely will continue to fail.  Why this is dangerous:

- It creates a very convenient narrative that what we are seeing is "all on Russia doing it wrong".  There is truth here, do not misunderstand me on that point; however, it completely misses the fact that the Ukrainian's made the Russians do it more wrong. 

- By limiting the analysis and assessment to how poorly the Russian tactical and operational forces are not doing, we are risking the creation of a schadenfreude bubble that conveniently pins the phenomena we are seeing all on the Russians while risking some potentially incredibly significant implications on what the Ukrainian defenders are doing.  

Not to take away from your advice of more analysis and assessment into low(er) level problems / achievements by Russia or Ukraine, I think it is very wise to try and learn from lessons that others (could) have learned (instead of having to experience/learn every lesson the 'hard' way).

However, the sum of low-level problems with Russia's forces or Ukrainians achievements, don't necessarily add up to the systemic failure we see basically everywhere where there is a glimpse behind the curtain .

Imo these are two different 'things' (identifying root cause VS using proper lessons learned for learning & improving).
For example a project might fail simply because the sponsor has ran out of money during the project. In which case, it's still interesting to do a lessons learned on individual deliverables / cooperation, methodology (etc): what could we have done better? what went good and should be kept on the menu?

Not doing the lessons learned at all, because of the large external factors, is a missed chance to learn & improve. But another traditional pitfall is to explain failing on a external/higher level from lower level stuff (in this example: finding reasons the sponsor didn't have enough money INSIDE the project team; what could we have done better so that the sponsor had more money (answer: nothing, wrong question).

--

About a decade ago I read a study 'why Arabs lose wars', probably got the link through this forum. I found it a very interesting study and it connected with observations I made while travelling/visiting countries with varying degrees of corruption / favoritism.

I have been thinking about this a bit over the last week, partly stemming from discussions with friends/colleagues/acquaintances who had trouble accepting the idea that Russia (still conceived as a global power etc etc) can make the mistakes that it did make. How can the Russian general staff / think tanks not 'know' all this stuff?  These people can't connect the dots and feel that we're not seeing everything, Russia must still have something they're holding back, etc.

In this thread the dots have already been connected by plenty, imo. The main reason why Russia will lose this war and (unless **** changes bigtime) all the next wars of aggression they start against any non-dwarf state with a serious army is: CORRUPTION and everything that comes from it (nepotism, etc).
Basically the same answer to 'why Arabs lose wars'.

That said, only a fool would then 'close the book' and conclude 'nothing to learn from this'. 

[Erwin]

13 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Please, before you start in on this again... can you PLEASE address the many, many, many points that have been made against this notion every time you post the same thing?  It's like you say the "Sky is Black" without evidence and the rest us point out that the "Sky is Blue" by pointing to evidence.  Then you come back a couple of pages later and say the "Sky is Black" again.  Please either debate the challenges to your point or stop making it.  It's really getting annoying.

Steve

I am confused.  Are you saying that it is impossible for Russia to capture Mariupol so we should stop worrying about it.  Or, are you saying that all the intelligence that you have is better than everyone else's so that you can ignore what other sources eg WSJ - hardly an apologist for Russian behaviour - are saying.  Looking at the small picture - ie about winning all the military battles, but ignoring the large picture implications - like losing the war is what happened in Vietnam. 

What I have been posting about is that there are much larger issues here than what territorial gains Ukraine may or may not be making.  It would be unwise to assume everything we are being told is 100% true by either side.  We keep being told that Russia cannot continue the way it has, and that is agreed.  Russia can change its strategy and is doing so. 

At time of writing, Europe is still paying Russia millions to continue buying Russia's oil and gas.  In addition, Russia conspires with China and other nations - among them Iran, India and other middle-east nations which have refused to sanction Russia, to replace the USD as the primary international currency.  That is what the war is about and the major global problem we in the west need to address in order to have any chance of a "win".

 

Edited April 12, 2022 by Erwin

[Kinophile]

Simple Numbers Time! 

Comparisons of RUS  & US Army losses for illustrative purposes:

A little back-of-the-envelope series for my own edification. This is a quantitative comparison. Obviously the Iraqi Army was NOT the UA, but there is a similar invasion force involved, in terms of total numbers. Iraq war numbers are very accurate. But it's the percentages are the interesting thing.

2022 - RUS Invasion of Ukraine:

• c.190,000 (out of 280,000 active) = 67% of entire Army used as Invasion Force
• Initial Invasion RUS losses (KIA & WIA) - c.40,000 = c.21% 

2003 - US Invasion of Iraq:

• c.148,000 (out of 480,000 active) = 30% of entire Army used as Invasion Force
• Initial Invasion US losses (KIA & WIA) = 690 (.46%)
• By comparison - if US used 67% of entire US Army in 2003 that would be = c.288,000 initial invasion force
• Further comparison - if US lost 21% of that 288K in 2003 that would be = c.60,400 

Ref. KIA->WIA ratio:

• RUS seems to have the classic 1:3 of KIA:WIA (c.10,000 KIA : c.30,000 WIA)
• US loss ratio during the Invasion were 1:4 (139 : 551)
• By comparison US loss ratio during the entire Iraq War increased to 1:7 (4,500 : 32,000), despite an increase in force, combat tempo and losses. US medivac drastically improved.

Avg. RUS Invasion Losses Over Time:

• RUS Invasion is c.2 months old
• 60 days / 40,000 = 666 per day
• Extrapolating +2 months, at current rate, by end of June is = c.80,000 = 42% of Initial Invasion Force (!)
• RUS medivac has not improved.

Avg. US invasion losses over Time:

• US Invasion lasted c. 1.5 months
• 45 days / 690 = 15 per day
• IF the invasion had lasted 3 months (i.e. double) then US losses would be = c.1,380 = 0.9% of Initial Invasion Force

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 12, 2022 by Kinophile

[danfrodo]

8 minutes ago, Ultradave said:

First part is Steve's quote.

Yes, as Steve has mentioned somewhere else, the fact I was a paratrooper for years is reason to question my intelligence or sanity, or both. And yet, I had a career as a nuclear engineer after the Army, so I wasn't completely brain dead (or some words to that effect )

For me personally, my parents paid for my freshman year of college and told me I'd have to figure it out from there. That was what they could afford. As it happened, I had a few friends who were in Army ROTC and told me, "Come on, try it, you'll like it." That led to a 3 years ROTC scholarship and regular Army commission, with my university completely paid for. Good deal. Just had to pay them back with some years, sweat and blood. Still a good deal. College would certainly have been out of reach for me otherwise.  Artillery and Airborne - figured I'd want my time in the Army to be exciting and challenging and I got my wish. 

Dave

 

Well, UltraDave, the military could've been a lot dumber in a hurry back in the day.  I was a few weeks from enlisting in order to pay for college. I was working in a gas station making minimum wage and going to comm college at night.  But then lucked into a co-op job at GM (generous motors) plant and made 4x minimum wage and decided to forego the military. 
And that is why the US military did not degrade to Soviet levels decades ago.  Sometimes it's not about attracting the right people it's about avoiding the wrong ones 

But good points here about how military is viewed in different countries and cultures.  Overall in the US I'd say military held in high regard and is considered an honorable sacrifice for our country (yes, there's lots of exceptions to that opinion but I am saying overall)

Sounds like not the case in Russia, but is the case in Ukraine.  Morale and motivation + good tactics & weapons sure do make a difference.

[Battlefront.com]

4 minutes ago, Ultradave said:

Yes, as Steve has mentioned somewhere else, the fact I was a paratrooper for years is reason to question my intelligence or sanity, or both. And yet, I had a career as a nuclear engineer after the Army, so I wasn't completely brain dead (or some words to that effect )

And you have an excellent memory

The thing is that the motivation to join a branch of the US military and the benefits it provides are not unrelated.  If the US military treated recruits like Russia does, you can be assured the amount of US citizens that normally might join the military would dwindle very quickly.  Yet all the incentives in the world wouldn't matter if people didn't see value in joining.  Meaning, the motivation and incentives to sign up are closely related.

I know there's pushback against the US military every time it revises its policies to be "kinder", but overall I think the US military has done a good job of identifying where existing practices stray a bit too much into unnecessary and even counter productive behavior.  Decades ago, for example, there were big changes made to boot camp.  At the time some said it would result in poorer quality soldiers, others said sadism doesn't make good soldiers.  Similarly, the emphasis on setting stringent safety standards for training exercises, when done right, is a good thing since an injured or dead soldier is a cost to the taxpayer and a reduction of readiness, not a bragging right.

These are the sorts of things Russia hasn't addressed.  The amount of deaths and serious injuries during basic training is staggering.  But the amount of suicides indicates it's far worse than that.  Here's a recent article on the subject, and it covers some of the broader problems with Russian conscription (one estimate is 30% of the recruits are not suitable stock for soldiering):

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/02/17/decade-after-military-reform-hazing-plagues-russian-army-a69309

Then there is this one from 2018 that states that major problems have not been worked out of the system.  Here is one example:

Quote

A systemic breakthrough in the Russian army occurred after the case of private Andrei Sychev, who fell victim of cruel bullying in 2006 at the Chelyabinsk Tank School. As medical assistance was not provided timely, the legs and genitals of the 19-year-old were amputated.

This degree of brutality is what Russia is still struggling to overcome.

https://ridl.io/en/hazing-suicides-and-unreported-deaths-in-the-russian-army/

Steve

[Aragorn2002]

40 minutes ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

Here's the same thing in Twitter, so it's easier to watch if you don't use Telegram.

 

Good God. And it definitely was an Ukrainian tank? Poor guy who made the decision to open fire.

Edited April 12, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[DesertFox]

Makes you wonder how a tank in such pristine conditions gets lost.

 

 

[Haiduk]

3 minutes ago, Aragorn2002 said:

Good God. And it definitely was an Ukrainian tank?

At the beginning of the video a soldier jokes: "Look, that it [tank] didn't fu..g shot at us accidentally!"

[Kinophile]

39 minutes ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

Here's the same thing in Twitter, so it's easier to watch if you don't use Telegram.

 

Was it a misfire?

The tank is in column. The damn TC is standing up out of the hatch. Earlier in the clip one of the UA soldiers waved up the road to someone.

Man.

 

[Aragorn2002]

Just now, Haiduk said:

At the beginning of the video a soldier jokes: "Look, that it [tank] didn't fu..g shot at us accidentally!"

Sad business. Getting shot is one thing, but by your own people that's really bad.

[Aragorn2002]

1 minute ago, Kinophile said:

Was it a misfire?

The tank is in column. The damn TC is standing up out of the hatch. Earlier in the clip one of the UA soldiers waved up the road to someone.

Man.

 

Yeah, that thought occured to me too looking at the tank commander standing.

Edited April 12, 2022 by Aragorn2002

[Kinophile]

12 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

 

Sounds like not the case in Russia, but is the case in Ukraine.  Morale and motivation + good tactics & weapons sure do make a difference.

It might be now, it sure as heck wasn't in 2013. 

Even now I'd say it's more about Patriotic motivation than economically uplifting.

Perhaps our UKR friends can describe better?...

[slysniper]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

So What Happened?

  I am not sure and will likely spend a fair amount of time over the next decade trying to figure it out but there are some alarming trends that western militaries cannot avoid:

- Russian had the mass, Ukraine did not.  Not saying the conventional UA sat out the first phase of this war but a 1300km frontage was largely defended by a hybrid force built on a foundation of irregulars...and it just butchered Russian mass.  To the point of operational collapse.  The Russians had knives, Ukraine had pillows, and Ukraine won; this is not small.

- The Ukrainians appear to have done something to friction and might not even realize it.  Through a combination of information superiority - built largely on civilian infrastructure no less, and a shift in weapons effects, they were able to hit the entire length of the Russian forces, all the way back to the SLOC nodes.  All of this using a lot of unmanned, which we have discussed.  More to the point, they appear to have projected friction onto the Russian forces (already brittle for reasons presented) to the point that the Russians collapsed under their own weight. 

- Russian concepts of mass are not that different from our own.  We still rely on roughly the same organizational concepts.  We call them "tactically self-sufficient units", Battlegroups etc.  And yes they are set up differently, but I am not sure that would have made a difference, our tanks need gas too (and gawd help us if the RedBull supply is cut).  But we have pursued Adaptive Dispersed Operations at the tactical level as well (awkward crickets) - "oh but we would do it right" - would we?  Our LOCs are just as long as the Russians, our armour just as vulnerable and out combined arms concepts not too far distant.   "Well the Russians didn't know what to do with their infantry...we do".  Ok, so our Battlegroups do not have that much more infantry than a BTG and those Javelin systems really mean that your BG screen now needs to sweep every bush and henhouse out to 4000m(!) along the BG frontage or you are going to be trading burning vehicles for every km you advance.  Surprise is pretty much dead.  Unmanned is likely going to be everywhere...the list goes on.  This is not another "tanks are dead" issue, it is "is mass as we know it dead?" issue.

- Information.  There will be new fields of study created in military education based on this war on what just happened with respect to information in this war, from tactical-to-political.  If I had to pick one factor that tries to explain a lot of this it is information. The implications are, again significant, to say the least.

I get these are early days but I see an "easy out" bubble forming, and it is dangerous in more ways than most understand. That is what I took away from that thread.

  

 

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

This is exactly what I am talking about.  "No need for us to worry because...Russians suck and we don't"

There are a lot of assumptions here, and I am always cautious around assumptions at times like these.   We do have better C4ISR but spotting and engaging a two man team out at 2+kms is nearly impossible if they don't want to be spotted, we found that out in spades in Iraq and Afghanistan.  We are very spottable at 2+kms.  APS, sure, and so long as every logistic truck and re-fueler has APS, every infantry vehicle and every command vehicle, every artillery piece and every engineering vehicle.  APS is what we have but I am not sure how it performs against a Javelin-like system or a Switchblade and I am pretty sure the Chinese are figuring that one out as I type.

Tactical movement, again I am not sure what that means anymore.  We can spread out in our formations and use the terrain but we would still be spotted and engaged at long range, I am not sure spreading out will matter in this context.  And, again, our LOCs are just as long and vulnerable.

Look, we are not "ok" until we know we are "ok".  And right now we do not know if we are ok.  The Taliban choked out the best the west could send with a whole lot less than what Ukrainian defence brought to bear, took a lot longer but I shudder to think about a western intervention against an asymmetric foe armed with the Chinese equivalents for Javelins/NLAWs (or whatever comes next) and cheap unmanned systems and munitions.

 

 

Capt, you and I think alike, I would never had worded it as well.

But I also think that we need to evaluate what is happening and need to realize that the Armed forces of the West could also had suffered the same type of fate to an extent if they had tried a similar action.

I think the concepts of warfare is evolving and it always come down to who can come up with a new method that the enemy is not prepared for. That is what has happened, if a force knew what the Ukrainians were doing in advance, they can develop tactics to prevent it, but presently the Russians are playing catch up, I don't know if they can do it.

Meanwhile, on defense, the Ukrainians had advantages with their methods, But there is a huge difference if they try true offensive actions. I don't think that is a option for them without them suffering losses they cannot afford.

Their offence should be more of gorilla warfare, and that is likely where it should stay.