How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Beleg85]

2 hours ago, billbindc said:

Prepare yourselves for a lot of coverage of this event that will resemble the "Just send <insert deus ex machina weapons system here> and we will win the war!!!!!" takes. There is far too much emphasis on individuals, isolated policies in the way in which the media understands this war. A new direction is clearly needed and Zaluzhny is out. That's how systems work. 

https://kyivindependent.com/zelensky-dismisses-commander-in-chief-zaluzhnyi/

Systems in this context are in fact nets of dependencies... The problems are that replacement is controversial at very least and almost certainly heavily politically motivated. Already during Kharkiv counteroffensive voices could be heard from local Ukrainians that were very critical of Syrksy, his style of command and several close members of his staff. Also Zaluzhny always struck me as simply much more imaginative and independent-minded kind of guy. Despite some criticism, he also served as kind of "lucky mascott" for many on the frontlines and civilians. This may take some toll on morale, in longer run.

Well, we will see. Most probably Ukraine can expect spike in mass mobilization soon.

[TheVulture]

1 hour ago, poesel said:

Who in the US needs to sign off on arms purchases from NATO partners, and who sets the price? Is there a loophole for delivering arms to Ukraine?

There's always a loophole somewhere. Look at the Iran-Contra scandal for an example from the more extreme (and illegal) end.

[Battlefront.com]

2 hours ago, Holien said:

Sorry I disagree, Putin wants a veneer of an election where he wins comfortably. 

Yes sure he can waft his bigus dickus with a raft of mafia like measures but for the election he needs to be seen as winning.

He needs battlefield victory hence the current pressure on military meaningless bits of Ukrainian soil.

Removing a candidate that was allowed to stand indicates further weakness.

If Putin felt strong he would declare himself the ultimate ruler and dispense with the sham but for some reason he needs an election victory.

I agree with you.  This has always been the pattern of Putin's regime and, in fact, most authoritarian regimes (including the Soviet Union).  It's the same mentality behind the referendums in Crimea and the occupied territories.

Let's not forget that many Russians don't really understand what democracy is.  When the Crimea referendum went forward we had someone on our forums, there on the ground, not understanding why there was no real choice being offered.  "Hey, I go down to my local polling place, place my vote... so it works, right?".  It was only later when he saw dumpsters full of marked ballots that he realized how much of a sham it was.

I suspect many Russians just don't understand what reality is and instead see "choices" and think that = democracy.  Putin deliberately set up the Presidential politics for just that reason and now killed it ahead of the election.  This doesn't speak to strength.

Steve

[dan/california]

3 hours ago, billbindc said:

Prepare yourselves for a lot of coverage of this event that will resemble the "Just send <insert deus ex machina weapons system here> and we will win the war!!!!!" takes. There is far too much emphasis on individuals, isolated policies in the way in which the media understands this war. A new direction is clearly needed and Zaluzhny is out. That's how systems work. 

https://kyivindependent.com/zelensky-dismisses-commander-in-chief-zaluzhnyi/

 

3 hours ago, Holien said:

Sorry I disagree, Putin wants a veneer of an election where he wins comfortably. 

Yes sure he can waft his bigus dickus with a raft of mafia like measures but for the election he needs to be seen as winning.

He needs battlefield victory hence the current pressure on military meaningless bits of Ukrainian soil.

Removing a candidate that was allowed to stand indicates further weakness.

If Putin felt strong he would declare himself the ultimate ruler and dispense with the sham but for some reason he needs an election victory.

I agree that the entire Russian election is pure theater, this heavy handed disqualification is merely an opening act of the play. Having said that it would not be the first time an authoritarian system made a severe miscalculation on something like this. Sometimes when you shove it in peoples face that they are nothing but sheep for the sheering it goes badly wrong. Ceaucescu's last speech being the most optimistic example. The great unhappiness when Putin took the Presidency back form Medvedev is another, although obviously the regime was able to repress that one.

Edited February 8 by dan/california

[kimbosbread]

24 minutes ago, TheVulture said:

There's always a loophole somewhere. Look at the Iran-Contra scandal for an example from the more extreme (and illegal) end.

Where there’s a will there’s a way… but this doesn’t help in the US case if where the administration did not have much will for the last 2 years, and now that it’s too late and they’ve lost congress, they are flailing around.

Biden could absolutely allow Ukraine to use our weapons on Russia, or provide volunteer jet pilots, or any sort of other action, but that hasn’t happened and won’t happen because his administration itself is conflicted on how much aid to provide. If they really cared, they’d absolutely just crate over stuff and say it’s scrap, laws be damned. What are the Republicans going to do, impeach Biden?

[The_MonkeyKing]

Mixed opinions on him

 

[FancyCat]

I am reminded of the American Civil War, the criticisms of General Grant (also called a butcher incidentally) and General McClellan. The Army of the Potomac needed multiple commanders cycled in until victory.

[The_Capt]

6 minutes ago, FancyCat said:

I am reminded of the American Civil War, the criticisms of General Grant (also called a butcher incidentally) and General McClellan. The Army of the Potomac needed multiple commanders cycled in until victory.

That is a very good analogy.  McClellan was a brilliant force generation general.  He built a modern army out of a tiny start up.  That was an enormous task with many critical systems essentially beginning from nothing - logistics, C4ISR, training and doctrine.  He was in fact exactly what the Union needed at the beginning of the war.  But when it came time to fight, he was sub par and dangerous.  The political level had to replace him and find the right general for the right time: Grant.

Grant would have been a disaster in the first half of the war.  He would have fought like Lee and likely broken the north.  Lee was arguably the wrong general for the South too.  Aggressive to a fault. Slavish adherence to the offensive.  He took an incredibly motivated military and basically broke it without achieving victory.  Now a strong argument can be made that he knew he was up against the clock and was essentially trying to destroy the Union before they inevitably grew too strong but there are holes in this.  However, the Confederacy never solved for stuff like logistics or C4ISR over the same period - that is a major strategic shortfall.

Regardless, generals are very often terrible in a moment other than their own.  Most of the wartime generals of WW2 would have been horrible in small dirty wars.  Good generals in low intensity or peacetime often fail in wartime.  The trick is to put the right general in the chair at the right time. I do not know what the dynamic is with the UA but clearly the politically level has decided they need someone else for what comes next…we will have to see if they are right.

[dan/california]

30 minutes ago, kimbosbread said:

Where there’s a will there’s a way… but this doesn’t help in the US case if where the administration did not have much will for the last 2 years, and now that it’s too late and they’ve lost congress, they are flailing around.

Biden could absolutely allow Ukraine to use our weapons on Russia, or provide volunteer jet pilots, or any sort of other action, but that hasn’t happened and won’t happen because his administration itself is conflicted on how much aid to provide. If they really cared, they’d absolutely just crate over stuff and say it’s scrap, laws be damned. What are the Republicans going to do, impeach Biden?

I have been advocating getting rid of Jake Sullivan for at least a year. His epic foot in mouth Atlantic article right before Oct-7  was the perfect opportunity for him to spend more time with his family, Biden didn't take it. As the podcast with General Breedlove I posted above makes clear, the administration has been scared of its own shadow all the way from the beginning.

[LongLeftFlank]

12 hours ago, Carolus said:

Make Ukraine the new graveyard of empire.

I'm troubled by this, and here is why....

As an ordinary (non-professional class) Ukrainian man under 35, choosing between:

1. your patriotic duty to enlist as an frontline combat soldier in an increasingly (?) lethal conflict of unknown duration and

2. fleeing to the EU (or elsewhere), where you might start near bottom economically but keep your life and limbs, and over time may well live better than you would back in even a post-ceasefire Ukrainian armed camp / 'okrajina' ( borderlands) -- also, your more patriotic relatives will forgive you in time if you send money home.

... how many are choosing 'b' these days?

For 1916 poilus, landser and Tommies, there was no realistic 'b'.

Tatarigami....

 

 

Edited February 8 by LongLeftFlank

[LongLeftFlank]

Fun Galeev short thread, related to his leitmotiv that the Mittelstand and its non-German counterparts is what is propping up the Russian war machine....

 

Nitter link to thread for those who don't X.

 

[billbindc]

3 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

That is a very good analogy.  McClellan was a brilliant force generation general.  He built a modern army out of a tiny start up.  That was an enormous task with many critical systems essentially beginning from nothing - logistics, C4ISR, training and doctrine.  He was in fact exactly what the Union needed at the beginning of the war.  But when it came time to fight, he was sub par and dangerous.  The political level had to replace him and find the right general for the right time: Grant.

Grant would have been a disaster in the first half of the war.  He would have fought like Lee and likely broken the north.  Lee was arguably the wrong general for the South too.  Aggressive to a fault. Slavish adherence to the offensive.  He took an incredibly motivated military and basically broke it without achieving victory.  Now a strong argument can be made that he knew he was up against the clock and was essentially trying to destroy the Union before they inevitably grew too strong but there are holes in this.  However, the Confederacy never solved for stuff like logistics or C4ISR over the same period - that is a major strategic shortfall.

Regardless, generals are very often terrible in a moment other than their own.  Most of the wartime generals of WW2 would have been horrible in small dirty wars.  Good generals in low intensity or peacetime often fail in wartime.  The trick is to put the right general in the chair at the right time. I do not know what the dynamic is with the UA but clearly the politically level has decided they need someone else for what comes next…we will have to see if they are right.

Have to quibble: Grant did fight at the start of the war and he did not fight at all like Lee. He also had a very clear sense of the strategic goals of his moves right from the beginning. I agree that Lee made the calculation you did above but he was very muddy on how to get there. 

[Sequoia]

Yep, not the right forum for this but I'm with Bill above on that.

[Probus]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Lee was arguably the wrong general for the South too.  Aggressive to a fault.

I'm glad you qualified that.  He was kinda in the same position as Yamamoto.

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

Mixed opinions on him

 

I don't know what to make of it.  The grumblings I've read about Syrski are from the perspective of losses.  Nobody likes to lose comrades and everybody blames the next higher up echelon of command for those losses.  That's normal.  The problem is that war requires losses in order to win.  Therefore, criticism of Syrski should be kept in context of what was gained for those losses and if there were alternatives that offered better outcomes.

The Bakhmut chapter of this war will be debated by people, informed and not, for the next 100 years much the way key battles of WW1 and WW2 are still debated.  There is no easy answer if it was worth it or if there were better alternatives.  The guys on the ground, that saw their buddies die, are not necessarily the best people to make that determination.

Another general that gets a lot of debate is Patton.  At the time he was criticized for pushing his men too hard, ordering advances instead of rests.  But after the war the perspective is that he made a lot of correct decisions.  Why?  Because a) the Allies won the war b) they won it quicker because of Patton's actions, and c) other generals screwed up far worse.  Bradley, who was Patton's right hand man, was overall commander of one of the worst campaigns of the NW Europe... Hürtgen Forest.  Overlooked because of the things that went much better.

Soooo... anyway... I don't know what to make of Syrski.  Grumblings may not be the best indicator.

Steve

[The_Capt]

46 minutes ago, billbindc said:

Have to quibble: Grant did fight at the start of the war and he did not fight at all like Lee. He also had a very clear sense of the strategic goals of his moves right from the beginning. I agree that Lee made the calculation you did above but he was very muddy on how to get there. 

Sure, Grant was more reckless.  FFS, at Shilo he fought with a river at his back!  That entire battle was a pretty risky gamble that could have easily ended in total disaster.  As to strategic acumen, I think Grant understood what war he was in but very likely would not have had the patience to wait for everyone else to figure it out.  

I do not think the Grant of 1862 was the same guy who took over in 1864, and neither was the Army he took over.  It was a positive alignment.  Lee got high on his own supply from early aggressive wins that never culminated in strategic success.

My overall point stands - there is a magic point in time and space when the right general meets the right moment, with the right army; this is consistent throughout history.  And so the inverse - which is frankly more frequent.   Perhaps that is what we are seeing in Ukraine...question is: which one? 

[Fernando]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

 Lee was arguably the wrong general for the South too.  Aggressive to a fault. Slavish adherence to the offensive.  He took an incredibly motivated military and basically broke it without achieving victory.  Now a strong argument can be made that he knew he was up against the clock and was essentially trying to destroy the Union before they inevitably grew too strong but there are holes in this.  

Napoleon was in a much worse predicament in 1814 facing two armies (Blucher's and Schwarzemberg's)  both several times larger than his tiny one.. What did Napoleon do? He attacked parts of both armies again and again. Napoleon lost (it is difficult to win over armies which are 5 times larger than your forces, even if you are Napoleon, indeed), but all scholars think his strategy was the only one and Napoleon was at his best, as good as in Italy.

There is no way to win a war on the defensive. You may avoid to lose it, but it is impossible to win it.

[JonS]

9 minutes ago, Fernando said:

Napoleon lost ... but all scholars think his strategy was the only one

Then "all scholars" are falling for the false dichotomy fallacy.

[The_Capt]

1 minute ago, Fernando said:

Napoleon was in a much worse predicament in 1814 facing two armies (Blucher's and Schwarzemberg's)  both several times larger than his tiny one.. What did Napoleon do? He attacked parts of both armies again and again. Napoleon lost (it is difficult to win over armies which are 5 times larger than your forces, even if you are Napoleon, indeed), but all scholars think his strategy was the only one and Napoleon was at his best, as good as in Italy.

There is no way to win a war on the defensive. You may avoid to lose it, but it is impossible to win it.

We had a whole thread on this somewhere.  It depends.  Napoleon was living in a time of offensive primacy, his strategy worked - the rest of the 19th century tried to emulate it.

Then came WW1 - and we won that one through defensive action that wore the Germans out through grinding attrition pressures.  So you can win a war defensively...in fact Mao wrote and entire doctrine on this.  You can even win a "real" war defensively.  One could argue Ukraine won back vast swaths of their country on largely attritional mechanics on over stretched Russian forces.  They can win again through defensive attrition.

They will go on the offence again but these become finishing moves after the heavy lifting of defensive attrition has done its work.  The truly great generals knew when to apply either approach.

Finally, there are plenty examples of "winning" a war is exactly that, not losing.  We have become so western-enamored with total victory complete with parades etc.  However, far more wars in history ended with stalemates or incomplete victories.  We have bought into this entire dogma to such an extent that Ukraine - despite remaining an independent nation and fending off Russia - is "losing" this war because they do not achieve a version of victory we basically made up in our own heads.  And then turned into movies.

Defining what "winning and losing" really means in this war has been a central strategic issue.  We need to stop projecting our definitions onto Ukraine, much like we need to stop projecting western judgements. 

 

[Probus]

So do you think that Ukrainian generals are running the show or the American/EU generals that are feeding the UA strategic and tactical intelligence?

[NamEndedAllen]

10 hours ago, Maciej Zwolinski said:

The Russians have a better record of recovering lost ground but only because they are willing to waste an infantry brigade conquering a small village.

Once upon a time, they wasted infantry brigades all the way to Berlin.

in a war of attrition, and with little or no aid from the USA, the fog of war here is thick and heavy.

[Fernando]

31 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

We had a whole thread on this somewhere.  It depends.  Napoleon was living in a time of offensive primacy, his strategy worked - the rest of the 19th century tried to emulate it.

Then came WW1 - and we won that one through defensive action that wore the Germans out through grinding attrition pressures.  So you can win a war defensively...in fact Mao wrote and entire doctrine on this.  You can even win a "real" war defensively.  One could argue Ukraine won back vast swaths of their country on largely attritional mechanics on over stretched Russian forces.  They can win again through defensive attrition.

They will go on the offence again but these become finishing moves after the heavy lifting of defensive attrition has done its work.  The truly great generals knew when to apply either approach.

Finally, there are plenty examples of "winning" a war is exactly that, not losing.  We have become so western-enamored with total victory complete with parades etc.  However, far more wars in history ended with stalemates or incomplete victories.  We have bought into this entire dogma to such an extent that Ukraine - despite remaining an independent nation and fending off Russia - is "losing" this war because they do not achieve a version of victory we basically made up in our own heads.  And then turned into movies.

Defining what "winning and losing" really means in this war has been a central strategic issue.  We need to stop projecting our definitions onto Ukraine, much like we need to stop projecting western judgements. 

 

WWI was finally won by the Allies on the offensive on ALL fronts. The Central Powers front in Salonika crumbled, Turkey's front in Palestine crumbled, and the Western and Italian fronts started to crumble too. 

Not losing is ALWAYS a poor man's "victory", a false victory in fact. In Spain we say that people who does not console himself is because he does not want to ("El que no se consuela, es porque no quiere"). There is no DECISIVE victory withouth at least one final offensive. Even Talibans and Vitnamese won with a final offensive.



 

 

Edited February 8 by Fernando

[dan/california]

14 minutes ago, NamEndedAllen said:

Once upon a time, they wasted infantry brigades all the way to Berlin.

in a war of attrition, and with little or no aid from the USA, the fog of war here is thick and heavy.

One of the things most obscured by that fog is how much help they are getting from China. I mean it isn't zero, but is it enough to keep them in the field two longer than they would have lasted otherwise?

[Vanir Ausf B]

41 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Sure, Grant was more reckless.  FFS, at Shilo he fought with a river at his back!  That entire battle was a pretty risky gamble that could have easily ended in total disaster.

The things is, Grant had no intention of fighting a battle at Shiloh. The Union generals thought the Confederate army was 20 miles away and were taken completely by surprise.

[dan/california]

10 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

The things is, Grant had no intention of fighting a battle at Shiloh. The Union generals thought the Confederate army was 20 miles away and were taken completely by surprise.

Which was a rather large error. But once Grant figured out what was going on he did a fantastic job of not letting a mistake become a disaster. The Confederates on the other hand managed to turn early success into a fiasco that they never really recovered from.