How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[dan/california]

4 minutes ago, chrisl said:

I've been thinking about this since the MC/DC discussion came up, and struggle a little to fully agree with this.

My first thought was along the lines of what you wrote here: if you have "perfect" ISR and comms, then you can run DC very effectively.  In principle all the way down to the individual level with Borg spotting.  And then as you lose ISR and/or the ability to get it to the pointy end, the pointy end has to shift to MC, with the caveat that they need to have some "far point" to keep them from getting too far out in front of the rest of the mission.

But then I thought about RU and the timetables.  Aren't they essentially using DC in the near absence of C4ISR?  At best they seem to have C2.5R, and even that's questionable.  So they give a detailed timetable and punish flexibility, leading the lower echelons to just keep throwing meat into the grinder until they run out.  

The difference, of course, is training.  RU has more rigid training to start with, apparently less combined arms training than a box of CMBO, and has to resort to fairly crude DC because that's all they can do.  "Go that way, annihilate anything in your path, be at point X by Y time, then stop.  If you turn around, Wagner will shoot you." 

So what you really need to train is the continuum and the transition.  If we take the extreme limit with the totally integrated battlefield, you start out with DC, but even there, if you micromanage/DC too much you might as well just have robots/UXVs, each controlled by an individual far back from the lines.  And then those robots need autonomy to switch to their robotic version of MC when they lose C2. Ideally it's progressive autonomy that fills in little gaps when the comm loss is short, and increasing, including a defined mission goal and maybe local meshing to neighboring bots who are also out of comm back to the rear.  We don't have that level of AI yet, so we send "robots with wetware" - well trained infantry who can work with DC when it's available and understand why that's a good thing, even if it sometimes doesn't make sense, and then transition smoothly to whatever level of MC is necessary as the integration disintegrates.

 

Chrissl said what I was trying to say much better than I did, but I suspect we are missing something about the actual way doctrine and training translate to the real world that The_Capt knows in his bones.

[dan/california]

3 minutes ago, chrisl said:

Hey - I edit bad novels as a side gig and I agree that I'd tell you to take it out.

I suspect you edit no so bad stuff if your contributions here are any any indication. Also post links to said books or DM them to me.

[The_Capt]

26 minutes ago, chrisl said:

I've been thinking about this since the MC/DC discussion came up, and struggle a little to fully agree with this.

My first thought was along the lines of what you wrote here: if you have "perfect" ISR and comms, then you can run DC very effectively.  In principle all the way down to the individual level with Borg spotting.  And then as you lose ISR and/or the ability to get it to the pointy end, the pointy end has to shift to MC, with the caveat that they need to have some "far point" to keep them from getting too far out in front of the rest of the mission.

But then I thought about RU and the timetables.  Aren't they essentially using DC in the near absence of C4ISR?  At best they seem to have C2.5R, and even that's questionable.  So they give a detailed timetable and punish flexibility, leading the lower echelons to just keep throwing meat into the grinder until they run out.  

The difference, of course, is training.  RU has more rigid training to start with, apparently less combined arms training than a box of CMBO, and has to resort to fairly crude DC because that's all they can do.  "Go that way, annihilate anything in your path, be at point X by Y time, then stop.  If you turn around, Wagner will shoot you." 

So what you really need to train is the continuum and the transition.  If we take the extreme limit with the totally integrated battlefield, you start out with DC, but even there, if you micromanage/DC too much you might as well just have robots/UXVs, each controlled by an individual far back from the lines.  And then those robots need autonomy to switch to their robotic version of MC when they lose C2. Ideally it's progressive autonomy that fills in little gaps when the comm loss is short, and increasing, including a defined mission goal and maybe local meshing to neighboring bots who are also out of comm back to the rear.  We don't have that level of AI yet, so we send "robots with wetware" - well trained infantry who can work with DC when it's available and understand why that's a good thing, even if it sometimes doesn't make sense, and then transition smoothly to whatever level of MC is necessary as the integration disintegrates.

 

With respect to the RA, that is a pretty accurate assessment to be honest. They employ their command system for a lot of reasons - history, training systems, political constraints/restraints.  What they brought to this war was old school tactical Soviet DC, without any of the operational MC that system was known for.  Further they were not built for next gen DC, the lack of control they demonstrated points to a much more effective MC command style as a better option for them but like so much in this war, they went in upside down.  Built for one type of war while trying to execute another.  Then when that failed they tried to turn this war into one they were built for but the UA refused to play by those rules.

To really fry brains there are concepts on hyper-MC out there that in a completely integrated system may actually work very well.  Here we are talking about the UA early on, self-synchronization.  Here higher command is basically there to send support as tactical elements self- organize and synchronize.  This is really an emergent non-linear warfare strategy and it does work in stuff like guerrilla warfare but the UA took it into the conventional space.  This is the line between positive and negative capability - if you really want to go down the rabbit hole.  

Beyond this you get into inverted command and slaving systems, the idea that systems self-select who is in command at a given time and all support is slaved for the window a unit is in charge.  That command authority is dynamic and shifts with the flow of battle.  This sort of thinking melts policy makers brains as none of our legal frameworks are set up for this sort of thing.

So one really has two poles of C2 systems, but a lot of spectrum in between.  The reality appears that advantage goes to the side that can best fit the C2 system to the problem and means to solve it.  Further adaptive C2 which is much harder to do, also appears to offer significant advantage - like being ambidextrous in a sword fight.  So yes, continuum and transition but there are arguments for both school extremes. 

Edited February 25, 2023 by The_Capt

[billbindc]

4 hours ago, panzermartin said:

But Cold War never went that hot, Ukraine 2022 hot. 300.000 military casualties in Europe in a year of conflict , german tanks in the steppes again after 70yrs , US weapons killing russian soldiers en masse. This conflict doesn't feel to have a Cold War vibe, where things never went out of control. Partially thanks to more capable leadership in both camps. 

Russian pilots were directly fighting American pilots over Korea. Come now.

[chrisl]

10 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

To really fry brains there are concepts on hyper-MC out there that in a completely integrated system may actually work very well.  Here we are talking about the UA early on, self-synchronization.  Here higher command is basically there to send support as tactical elements self- organize and synchronize.  This is really an emergent non-linear warfare strategy and it does work in stuff like guerrilla warfare but the UA took it into the conventional space.  This is the line between positive and negative capability - if you really want to go down the rabbit hole.  

There are lots of people working on distributed sensor/actor systems that work like this with no humans in the loop at all. A big difference in issues around adoption is that they're generally intended to not kill people at all, rather than having to separate good and bad people to kill (c.f. The Evil Bit)

 

Quote

Beyond this you get into inverted command and slaving systems, the idea that systems self-select who is in command at a given time and all support is slaved for the window a unit is in charge.  That command authority is dynamic and shifts with the flow of battle.  This sort of thinking melts policy makers brains as none of our legal frameworks are set up for this sort of thing.

That's essentially how incident command works for wildland firefighting at the urban interface.  LA County has been doing it since before I moved here in the mid 1990s, but the basic principle is that whoever gets to the fire first is in charge until they do a formal handoff, and other agencies come in as fast as they can and take direction, basically ignoring pre-existing levels of authority (city/county/state/multiple federal) until they get a command center organized and do the handoff.  San Diego wasn't doing that in 2003 and got themselves tied in C2 knots at city boundaries while the whole county burned.  They got it mostly fixed by 2007 and had a much better response when the fires broke out then.  It's also still a work in progress - LA County and the Forest Service had some conflicts about nighttime use of water dropping helos in 2009 that ended up taking a few years to sort out policies on, because LA City and County have better nighttime capability than the feds.

[The_Capt]

17 minutes ago, chrisl said:

There are lots of people working on distributed sensor/actor systems that work like this with no humans in the loop at all. A big difference in issues around adoption is that they're generally intended to not kill people at all, rather than having to separate good and bad people to kill (c.f. The Evil Bit)

Ya the race to the automated bottom.  A lot do this is centred on an Amazon style delivery of effects - you pick the X and the system will figure out deliveries.  This gets the lawyers in a tizzy but I have zero doubt that less humans will make for a better system because we are very prone to error.  Half of friction in warfare is caused by simply being human.

19 minutes ago, chrisl said:

That's essentially how incident command works for wildland firefighting at the urban interface

Mirrors a lot of police systems as well.  The difference is none of these systems were built to create organized mass.  In fact police need to change command systems to create mass.  But as we are seeing in this war, mass in the future may mean different things.  If I need mass built on unmanned systems then I will likely be highly DC because machines are not their yet with interpretation of intent - might never need them to be.

[billbindc]

4 hours ago, kevinkin said:

Ok, the writer has his past. What what about his thoughts on Ukraine's past and future? Is the writer pointing out "let the buyer beware"? A very quick look at Carden indicates he is a typical Nation writer: anti-big business, anti-war, "better red then dead" kind of guy. But the point that Ukraine will become dependent on the west, at least for a while, and a prime place for investment (in the name of freedom) seems to coincide with a lot of the discussion here. But to place blame directly on Ukraine for not getting its act together since '91 would require mounds of research into the inner workings of the state and its foreign policy. You can't just throw that out there. Especially in light of who Ukraine is fighting. Absolute butchers. For 30 years, Ukraine’s leaders also squandered a chance to consolidate a viable multiethnic nation state. As an American, the writer should know how hard that is and that resisting a mono-ethnic state, a “Ukraine for Ukrainians.” is a constant struggle. Perhaps the antithesis of The Nation, the WSJ today: Ukraine Is the West’s War Now The initial reluctance of the U.S. and its allies to help Kyiv fight Russia has turned into a massive program of military assistance, which carries risks of its own. They don't go as far as mentioning dependency. But there is some overlap. 

It also leaves out the endless efforts Russia put into weakening and suborning the Ukrainian state. Carden isn't just bad, he's another boring "the US is always wrong" ideologue. No thanks.

[Vet 0369]

On 2/24/2023 at 2:00 PM, The_Capt said:

I think you might be a bit dated, USMC thinking has evolved somewhat:

https://www.secnav.navy.mil/donhr/Site/Commandant Strategic Documents/USMC Vision and Strategy 2025.pdf

The USMC has smartly figured out that their value proposition is not to "seize and secure advance Naval bases", it is to be the fastest conventional gun to draw on.  You want to send a signal in the land domain...send in the Marines fast, first. 

LOL, at my age, I don’t doubt that I’m “a bit dated.” However, the only reference I could find to a “Mission” statement for the USMC, was a USMC training publication that referenced the National Security Act of 1947 that was signed by President Truman. There were only two references to National Security Act Amendments of 1952 and 1954 that defined the USMC place in the military chain of command, and set the size of the USMC to the Department of the Navy and to a strength of 400,000 “active” Marine’s in three Infantry Divisions and three Air Wings (there were six Marine Infantry Divisions during WWII, my Father was in the 5th Spearhead Division). I have not been able to find anything that actually changed the mission of the USMC.

The Commandant’s “Vision Statement” is not a “Mission Statement” in my opinion. It is simply a statement of how the Commandant intends to “carry out” the Mission, exactly the same as the “Vision Statement” of a the CEO of any company. Making “Vision Statements” began as the rage in U.S. Government agencies while I was working in the FAA, and all of the Managers and above were required to provide an “acceptable Vision Statement.”

I am more than happy to concede my assertion of the USMC mission if someone can produce an Amendment to the National Security Act that specified it as “Law” in that Act.

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, kevinkin said:

The writer is inappropriately pointing blame at Ukraine for not be a purrfect kitten for 30 years when everything would be just fine for Ukrainians. That's water under the bridge. What he should ask is whether we can expect something different coming out for the war given the challenges Ukraine faces. He is insulting calling Ukraine a failed state. But it's not insane to say Ukraine will be dependent on the west for the foreseeable future. But goes without saying. Ah, the drive to create content strikes again. 

This was my beef with his points.  Yes, Ukraine has been struggling for the last 30 years because Russia has invested heavily in making sure the status quo stayed in place.  It had a much harder time doing this in the former Warsaw Pact countries because they got on the EU bandwagon early when Russia was less organized.  Plus, the Russian mafia control seen in Ukraine carried over from the Soviet Union, whereas the former Warsaw Pact countries had less of it to get rid of.

Despite all of this, Ukraine has moved further and further away from Russia's grip.  It is why this war is happening, in fact.  Now?  Russia's control is gone and its influence (two separate things) has been hammered.

I have zero doubts that economically Ukraine will emerge more like Czech Republic than Bulgaria in short order.  The writer is overly pessimistic and, as billindc is alluding to, suffering from preconceived bias that has overall been shown to be really off base.

Steve

[chrisl]

4 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Ya the race to the automated bottom.  A lot do this is centred on an Amazon style delivery of effects - you pick the X and the system will figure out deliveries.  This gets the lawyers in a tizzy but I have zero doubt that less humans will make for a better system because we are very prone to error.  Half of friction in warfare is caused by simply being human.

Mirrors a lot of police systems as well.  The difference is none of these systems were built to create organized mass.  In fact police need to change command systems to create mass.  But as we are seeing in this war, mass in the future may mean different things.  If I need mass built on unmanned systems then I will likely be highly DC because machines are not their yet with interpretation of intent - might never need them to be.

The fire systems do create organized mass.  One of the things they've finally learned is that it's much better to overmatch a fire when it's small than wait to see how bad it might get.  We can go from zero to tens of trucks from at least 3 jurisdictions in minutes and a small city of firefighters in a couple days.  It's pretty amazing to watch, though preferable not with the firefighters in your yard.  

 

[NamEndedAllen]

4 hours ago, sburke said:

The debt is an internal political football and has been for decades.  The war in Ukraine is not and except for a handful of tik tok politicians there is a high degree of unity in the US gov't and the general population to back Ukraine.  The house would be harder than the Senate mainly because McCarthy would have to put it to a vote.

True except the debt vote used to be pro forma until recently. Now it is an excruciating annual game of chicken used to extract ideological concessions.  But to the point, the Constitution requires the Senate and only the Senate to ratify treaties. And I was wrong about needing 60 votes. It’s worse. Two thirds, 66 votes. So, very low probability of getting a new military alliance treaty ratified, committing to another war in Europe in any reasonable amount of time. If ever.  

I. Treaty Power

The Constitution provides, in the second paragraph of Article II, Section 2, that “the President shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”

 

[sburke]

14 minutes ago, NamEndedAllen said:

True except the debt vote used to be pro forma until recently. Now it is an excruciating annual game of chicken used to extract ideological concessions.  But to the point, the Constitution requires the Senate and only the Senate to ratify treaties. And I was wrong about needing 60 votes. It’s worse. Two thirds, 66 votes. So, very low probability of getting a new military alliance treaty ratified, committing to another war in Europe in any reasonable amount of time. If ever.  

I. Treaty Power

The Constitution provides, in the second paragraph of Article II, Section 2, that “the President shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”

I dunno, depends on events.  Mitch is totally onboard with support for Ukraine.  If China starts backing Russia militarily that ups the odds.  Besides do we really need another alliance? NATO seems to be working pretty good right now.

[dan/california]

19 minutes ago, sburke said:

I dunno, depends on events.  Mitch is totally onboard with support for Ukraine.  If China starts backing Russia militarily that ups the odds.  Besides do we really need another alliance? NATO seems to be working pretty good right now.

I think he is saying it take a Senate vote to let Ukraine into NATO. It is an amendment of the treaty that requires ratification. It was just done for Swedne and Finland. Well except by the bleeping Turks, abut that s a separate argument.

[kevinkin]

Russian pilots have a hard time flying in their own airspace. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-shot-down-own-warplanes-pilots-didnt-want-fly-report-2023-2

But it's not just the aircraft that Russia needs. Experienced pilots have been in short supply for Moscow, with its air force starting the invasion with "fewer than 100 fully trained and current pilots," according to the Royal United Services Institute, a British think tank, which cited Ukrainian military assessments.

What, the USAF National Guard has 10x or more in it's important role? 

 

[dan/california]

1 minute ago, kevinkin said:

Russian pilots have a hard time flying in their own airspace. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-shot-down-own-warplanes-pilots-didnt-want-fly-report-2023-2

But it's not just the aircraft that Russia needs. Experienced pilots have been in short supply for Moscow, with its air force starting the invasion with "fewer than 100 fully trained and current pilots," according to the Royal United Services Institute, a British think tank, which cited Ukrainian military assessments.

What, the USAF National Guard has 10x or more in it's important role? 

 

Russia is just to broke/cheap/corrupt to pay the gas and airframe wear to train them. It is even more of a Potemkin air force than it is an army. And it just makes me even more curious how much of their strategic rocket forces are functional. Because if the button gets pressed your dead, and if the button gets pressed and the rockets don't fly, your still dead, but you had a lot more fun first. In a system as screwed up as Russia's...

[kevinkin]

I have never been in combat, but over the years I have come to understand that conventional ground troops are completely demoralized under air supremacy. So Ukraine's supporter still have a major ace in the hole. Which could mean the RA will have to stay in theirs giving the UA time to train and re-fit until the time is right.    

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Vet 0369 said:

LOL, at my age, I don’t doubt that I’m “a bit dated.” However, the only reference I could find to a “Mission” statement for the USMC, was a USMC training publication that referenced the National Security Act of 1947 that was signed by President Truman. There were only two references to National Security Act Amendments of 1952 and 1954 that defined the USMC place in the military chain of command, and set the size of the USMC to the Department of the Navy and to a strength of 400,000 “active” Marine’s in three Infantry Divisions and three Air Wings (there were six Marine Infantry Divisions during WWII, my Father was in the 5th Spearhead Division). I have not been able to find anything that actually changed the mission of the USMC.

The Commandant’s “Vision Statement” is not a “Mission Statement” in my opinion. It is simply a statement of how the Commandant intends to “carry out” the Mission, exactly the same as the “Vision Statement” of a the CEO of any company. Making “Vision Statements” began as the rage in U.S. Government agencies while I was working in the FAA, and all of the Managers and above were required to provide an “acceptable Vision Statement.”

I am more than happy to concede my assertion of the USMC mission if someone can produce an Amendment to the National Security Act that specified it as “Law” in that Act.

Sure, the Marine Corps of 2023 should absolutely be tied down by an act from 1947 - that is how to win nations wars in the 21st century.  

But ok, let's play Forum Lawyer because it is Saturday.  The document you want to look at is the United State Code - Title 10 to be more specific.

https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscode/2021/

Within that is the up to date "compositions and functions of the USMC".

So the deal actually is that the US President can assign additional duties - which is a wonderful catch-all.  The only caveat is that the USMC must still be able to do its primary jobs of:

- seizure/defence of advanced naval bases (you did get that one)

- for conduct of such land operations as may be essential to the prosecution of a naval campaign. (oh my that is wide open to interpretation)

- Security detachments for protection...etc

So the USMC is basically the US Navy's land force to project ashore.  If the USMC Commandant can sell his vision to the US Navy (and these things do not make nice glossies without being sold) then between them they can pretty much define the mission however they like within "essential to the prosecution of a naval campaign".  Further the President can task the USMC with missions such as NEOs and rapid projection so long as they "do not detract".  I am pretty sure if the President orders it the answer will never be "but Mr President that may detract from our base seizing duties".

The use of the USMC to project US military power around the globe, from sea to shore, has a long history and sending a force to Taiwan is not going to get held up by the freaking 1947 NS Act if the political calculus lands on it as an escalatory solution.  Although this sort of sentiment fits right into my "really constipated and conservative military culture" point very well.

[DesertFox]

2 hours ago, billbindc said:

Russian pilots were directly fighting American pilots over Korea. Come now.

We could repeat that over Ukraine, but that wouldnt end well for the flyin Ivans.

[Beleg85]

Some updates from various sources:

-Situation in Bakhmut became critical- corridor is maybe 3-4 km wide by this moment, both main supply roads are under direct enemy fire.

-Russian are rushing everything they have in area- artillery, airforce and of course they try to swarm it with infantry. They also shell Konstantinovka this evening.

-Gen. Sirsky is near Bakhmut to oversee the situation-quite possible indication they plan to retreat. There are gossips that disagreements between various military leaders and politicians as to strategy regarding this city reached level of concious lack of coordination between units (still unconfirmed and ofc. prone to subjectivity, but many Ukrainians ask "why our boys are still there dying"). Hard nut to crack, as they clearly overinvested symbolically in defence of this place.

-If defenders will not counterattack soon and in numbers, the city may be sorrounded soon.

 

[dan/california]

AFU may have decided Bakmuht is flat enough to let go of.

Edit:crossposted with Beleg85

Edited February 25, 2023 by dan/california

[Artkin]

9 minutes ago, dan/california said:

Aaron Bouma #Militaryspecialist #ActuallyAutistic
@CANADA566
Military Specialist Carleton County, Owner Operator 
@BoumaWoodwork
, #HOST-THE BOUMA REPORT, Autism Assessment, #ActuallyAutistic #OSINT #WAR #StandwithUkraine

 

Lol yeah great source.

[Huba]

25 minutes ago, Artkin said:

Aaron Bouma #Militaryspecialist #ActuallyAutistic
@CANADA566
Military Specialist Carleton County, Owner Operator 
@BoumaWoodwork
, #HOST-THE BOUMA REPORT, Autism Assessment, #ActuallyAutistic #OSINT #WAR #StandwithUkraine

 

Lol yeah great source.

Other twitter aggregators seem to agree that this is the situation at the moment, see @Beleg85 post above for example. Here's the latest map from Artur Micek who we often quote here:

It looks like Bakhmut is about to fall, hopefully UA withdrew the forces already, their track record in this type of operations is very good up to this point.

[danfrodo]

26 minutes ago, Huba said:

Other twitter aggregators seem to agree that this is the situation at the moment, see @Beleg85 post above for example. Here's the latest map from Artur Micek who we often quote here:

It looks like Bakhmut is about to fall, hopefully UA withdrew the forces already, their track record in this type of operations is very good up to this point.

I hope they can counterattack the northern side at least to help get the guys out, if necessary.  This went south fast. 

[akd]

lol

 

Edited February 26, 2023 by akd

[NamEndedAllen]

3 hours ago, sburke said:

Besides do we really need another alliance? NATO seems to be working pretty good right now.

Well yeah! That’s the point in this little series, along with dealing from a position of strength. Any military guarantees for Ukraine following some sort of negotiated end of the war better be in addition to Ukraine owning a position of inescapable strength: significant battlefield defeats of the Russians. NATO membership is the ideal guarantee, but China’s “peace plan” is unlikely to see Russia willing to accept Ukraine in NATO.  Not to mention the complete withdrawal from Ukraine. Both would mean a total Russian defeat, even with the sanctions lifted. So instead of NATO membership someone suggested a new, smaller military alliance could make guarantees to protect Ukraine. That’s why it’s important to understand how the USA actually makes treaties, and its very high bar and lengthy process.  

Regardless of all this, I think many here are skeptical of any real juice behind China’s attempt to score international points. AFAIK,  they’re amateurs in brokering peace. My hopes are pinned on Ukraine with the Western Allies assistance forcing Russia out of the war by inflicting significant defeats on the battlefield. Then come peace agreements, and NATO membership. Not by China weaseling some sort of shaky agreement during a stalemate that let’s Russia start this cycle all over again. All that is a different discussion.