How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[acrashb]

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Russia saying that the threat of NATO expansion caused them to invade Ukraine... well... not so easily fact checked. 

Exactly, because no single fact belies it.  The Economist addresses this by presenting two or more sides to most issues, it works.  
It also leads to long-form articles vs. a short headline; most people only read headlines.

[ArmouredTopHat]

34 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

And the innovations worked! The Entente figured out how to attack successfully against the German defensive system, and the Germans never figured out how to stop them. The Germans didn't agree to a ceasefire because they were tired of the killing (as the 2022 All Quite on the Western Front movie would have you believe (it opened strong, but I really wasn't impressed with that movie overall)), and they didn't agree to a ceasefire because their economy had collapsed (though that was definitely putting pressure on them), and they definitely didn't agree to a ceasefire because they had been abandoned and betrayed by the home front (as the Germans were telling themselves in the run-up to WW2). They agreed to a ceasefire because they had decisively lost the war on the battlefield. By the time the ceasefire went into effect they had been in constant retreat for four months with no prospect of ever being able to stop the Entente advance (we always seem want to focus on the tragedy of the war, and I suppose that makes it hard to remember the victories of the last four months of the war). 

Yeah I am not sure what Steve is arguing about when the Western allies had pretty much perfected complex, all arms attacks with sophisticated artillery fire plans and innovative infantry assaults that were readily collapsing the line and exploiting it afterwards. (Including the use of cavalry to harras!) Battle of Amiens became known as the black day for the German army for a reason. 

The armistice was the only thing that prevented wholescale collapse of the German army, a lot of that had to do with the domestic situation but it is undeniable that the German army had in fact been routed on the western front. The armistice spared it from becoming a slaughter. 

In other words, the western allies had innovated with technology to overcome a barrier that was impossible to deal with in 1914 with the means available. 

[ArmouredTopHat]

12 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

So what you are saying here is that prior to WW1 the military knew how to fix their problems but somehow didn't convince their political overseers to give them what they needed until AFTER the war started and it was clear they needed it.  Or are you saying the militaries didn't know how to fix their problems and failed to get their leaders to understand that going to war "as is" was a really bad idea? 

I'm saying that there was wide understanding that manned, defended trench networks were going to be extremely difficult to dislodge, and that the only means devised to deal with them were to attack vigorously before they could be fully established and to rapidly discombobulate them if they did, because it was the best option available. Else you were at the risk of sitting in front of said defence positions and get shot to pieces in a brutal war of attrition. (Which ended up happening) Believe it or not, generals were interested in trying to find a solution that did not involve the wholesale senseless slaughter of their people. You kind of need those people to win the war!

The technology that was required to breach and then exploit multiple lines of trenches simply did not exist in 1914. The technology was literally made in response to this problem and was to put it mildly cutting edge. Such adaptations were readily adopted which flies in the face of a 'conservative mindset of military apparatus' 

For gods sake Haig was trying to cram as many machine guns into units even before the war, contrary to popular belief:

https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/2bskfp/sir_douglas_haig_and_the_machine_gun_or_the/

He was also a champion for the tank, for air recon and for the Lewis gun. Where is this 'conservatism' you speak of?

I feel we are being far too judgemental of generals and officers even though they were pretty aware of the problems involved. They just had no practical means in 1914 to deal with the problems inflicted from a war of such scale. Stop pretending that you have / had any answers for that time either. 

I am not arguing that everything was 'going as planned' but to say the western powers stumbled into this war with no idea how to fight it is a bit silly. Again, 1905 was observed heavily and most countries had literally adjusted their field manuals in response. They wanted to fight a short, decisive war with lots of offensive focus because the alternative was what they saw in Manchuria: heavy losses on both sides for literal years. They wanted to avoid that, and were unfortunately forced to endure it and innovate through it to find solutions. 

I strongly advise for you to read up on what the officers were saying, they displayed remarkable awareness of the problem of firepower and the defence and not this notion that marching in close formation would work due to 'elan'. 

 

Edited October 11 by ArmouredTopHat

[panzermartin]

 

Scores of destroyed UA equipment, east of Veseloe. Not sure if there is related battle footage around. 

 

[ArmouredTopHat]

Back to Ukraine, they are doing this stupid crap again. 

[danfrodo]

1 hour ago, Billy Ringo said:

Always find it interesting when someone tells me they go to Fox/CNN/PBS/The Economist, etc. for their news because it's "the truth."  In my humble opinion they are all biased to one extent or another AND are being fed dishonest BS by those trying to push an agenda.  And even the seasoned professional journalists aren't immune to being hoodwinked occassionally.

Nonsense.  Classic both-siderism nonsense.

Fox, newsmax et al are lie machines for people that can't handle the truth.  PBS/CNN, etc, are flawed and have biases -- like every other human enterprise.  They are not specifically designed brainwashing machines.  

For example:  How many fox news viewers think the 2020 election was stolen?  -- the vast majority!

How much money did fox news choose to settle a lawsuit because it actually had zero evidence the election was stolen after telling its viewers over & over that it did have evidence? -- $787 MILLION.  

The plaintiffs had evidence that fox news KNEW it was lying but kept lying because when they told the truth early in Nov 2020, they lost most of their viewers to other lie machines.  So Fox started back up with the lies.  They have brainwashed their viewers so much they can't even tell them the truth because the viewers can't handle it.

Fox et al lied and lied and lied about climate change for decades.  Still think it aint real?  They knowingly lie yet their viewers want those lies because they can't handle reality anymore.

 

[kimbosbread]

I’d like to point out that a decent amount of content on reputable news sites or newspapers comes directly from public relations folks working for the government, industry or whoever else. So that also hurts the trust.

Also who is trustworthy changes over time quite a bit. I might have trusted the NYT and WSJ pre 2nd gulf war, but after meh quite a bit less.

[JonS]

I'm finding the juxtaposition of the "regulate the news" sub-thread alongside the "cartoon history of WWI" sub-thread over the last couple of pages grimly hilarious.

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Centurian52 said:

They agreed to a ceasefire because they had decisively lost the war on the battlefield. By the time the ceasefire went into effect they had been in constant retreat for four months with no prospect of ever being able to stop the Entente advance (we always seem want to focus on the tragedy of the war, and I suppose that makes it hard to remember the victories of the last four months of the war)

I disagree and the facts on the ground do not support.  Yes the Germans were pushed back - the arrival of the US in the war did them no favours - but there was no major operational, let alone strategic offensive breakthrough to signal annihilation through dislocation. The situation on the battlefield on the Western Front simply does not support your position that Germany surrender as a result of military positional factors. Nor did shining Entente innovation produce operational or strategic breakout - tactical perhaps.

I have seen this narrative come up before and it simply does not line up with the military picture of 1918. Exhaustion of German forces and national exhaustion of Germany’s economy make far more sense. More plainly…Germany had been in constant retreat because they were exhausted.

One does not have to look too hard to see the poor shape Germany was in:

https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/organization-of-war-economies/

“On average, GDP seems to have declined by approximately 20 to 30 percent, with the most favorable estimation indicating a 12 percent decline between 1913 and 1918. The less favorable estimation suggests that the German GDP dropped by 43 percent during the war. During the same period the share of government spending relative to GDP rose from 10 to 59 percent, leaving a smaller share of total GDP for non-governmental consumption.^28”

France was battered too but had US loans and wasn’t under a blockade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_World_War_I

So this was a multi-power race to the bottom. Germany lost. I have been hearing this new WW1 narrative for a few years now. It is apologist and seems to try and polish up the tarnished reputations of the Entente military powers. It also is BAD history, in my opinion. It does not match the picture from before or after that war.

I think it is a major mistake to try and pin the end of WW1 to endstates on the battlefield. Those endstates are a direct result of four years of brutal fighting, economic exhaustion and political suicides. Innovation did occur but it is absurd in my opinion to try and cite that as a major factor in Germany’s defeat. Germany’s defeat was strategic (seriously, take a look at that economic site and see the drops in imports on foodstuffs). To my mind a myth of “superior Entente innovation defeated Germany” is as bad as the German “stab in the back” myth.

 

 

[alison]

2 hours ago, Billy Ringo said:

The key challenge is: who decides what is truth and what is false?  And, even if you get it right which I don't think is possible, how do you keep it from being coerced at some point?

Always find it interesting when someone tells me they go to Fox/CNN/PBS/The Economist, etc. for their news because it's "the truth."  In my humble opinion they are all biased to one extent or another AND are being fed dishonest BS by those trying to push an agenda.  And even the seasoned professional journalists aren't immune to being hoodwinked occassionally.

This is getting dangerously close to the "all news is equally false" claim which makes up exactly the kind of misinformation that empowers authoritarians and those whose goal it is to undermine the media as an institution.

The expectation is not that the media should be unbiased, it's that it should not report falsehoods. Responsible media outlets take it seriously when they were misled by an interviewee or a source, and they routinely publish corrections. Responsible media do their own fact checking before anything even makes it to press. That's literally what journalism is! If I just wanted to consume a bunch of hearsay I'd gossip with my neighbors or colleagues.

Facts are facts and they are not subjective. An event occurs, you catch it on camera, you show it exactly as it happened (or, at least, as it was perceived from that angle) - that's the starting point. Building on that you can then look at that event and see how it plays into a history of similar events - is there a trend? Is this something common to a certain area or certain communities? Is it unique? Then you can interview people who were involved in the event. How did it affect their day? Then you go back and crosscheck other data to ascertain if what you're hearing on this day matches what people said about similar events before, and if their spur-of-the-moment feelings are actually born out or if they're just responses in the heat of the moment. Maybe you scratch airing those interviews if it turns out they're historically irrelevant. Maybe you speak to some experts who study these events to see if they have a better insight that might help consumers of your reporting understand it better.

Certainly at every step here there is room for journalists to make a value judgement about whether something is worth putting into the final piece, but the measure of a good journalist is one who is able to sort the wheat from the chaff and distill it down to a bite-sized story about the event that occurred, educating people who weren't there, or maybe who were there but were too close to have been able to contextualize it on the national or international scale. That's it, that's the news. It's not all the news about everything there is to know. It's just a brief summary of one event. Other journalists will cover others.

I think I might have shared this here before, but to give an example of how journalists can report facts while still being misleading, I present RT.

When I lived in Germany I lived in a district where there were a few historical squats that occasionally got into conflicts with the police. I can't remember exactly the events leading up to this one, but at some point (coincidentally close to election season) the police decided to make a show of force and place a couple of riot squads on the street round the clock. So I, a rent paying, ordinary citizen had to walk home from work past dozens of heavily armored cops every day for weeks. Ostensibly they were there to protect people like me, from my neighbors, I guess?

Anyway, at one point the squat organized a protest and I took part, because I wanted the cops off my street as much as everyone else did. It was a full blown "black bloc" style protest that was escorted by thousands of riot police who had been bussed in from all over Germany to deal with the existential threat to law and order. There were probably more cops than protestors. Local residents were angry at the police overreach and we made our opinions clear in no uncertain terms. Later in the night after most of us went home, some cars allegedly owned by police (or maybe it was politicians) got firebombed. The tensions continued for a week or two till the police stood down and the election was held and the whole thing turned out to be somewhat of a nothingburger.

But on that day, RT was the only news agency visibly on the scene. They captured video of every scuffle, every kid who got a bit rowdy and got pepper sprayed or beaten down by a stormtrooper-looking cop. And then they published it online without comment. Which they do for lots of protests in western countries all over the world. Strictly speaking they were reporting the facts. But in reality, they were not contextualizing the anger or violence in a way that's useful for people who weren't involved in the event. It is useful for the Russian government, however, because it allows outside commentators (bloggers, influencers, "analysts" etc) to alternatively build a narrative that Germany is a police state or that it's threatened by violent anarchists, both of which are, in fact, nonsense. The truth is this was a hyper local bit of political theater, and a good journalist would have dug into the story enough to recognize and communicate that. Which a few German journalists did, to their credit.

Anyway, the point is that RT have a right to record that truth and portray it without comment as something that just barely qualifies as news. That kind of "reporting" is a huge chunk of what we are getting from Ukraine in this very thread. But the important thing is what happens next. Do you let a bunch of professional agitators watch the raw video and share their opinions and present that as news too, or do you wait for real journalists to investigate and put together a report? There are media outlets in the US that literally have "news" in their name but unfortunately do too much of the former. There are other media outlets in the US that do a much better job. They should not all be painted with the same brush.

Edited October 11 by alison
correcting phone typos

[The_Capt]

3 minutes ago, JonS said:

I'm finding the juxtaposition of the "regulate the news" sub-thread alongside the "cartoon history of WWI" sub-thread over the last couple of pages grimly hilarious.

Ah, the “too cool for school” kid has shown up. Gonna go smoke up in the girls room next?

[Centurian52]

27 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

I disagree and the facts on the ground do not support.  Yes the Germans were pushed back - the arrival of the US in the war did them no favours - but there was no major operational, let alone strategic offensive breakthrough to signal annihilation through dislocation. The situation on the battlefield on the Western Front simply does not support your position that Germany surrender as a result of military positional factors. Nor did shining Entente innovation produce operational or strategic breakout - tactical perhaps.

I have seen this narrative come up before and it simply does not line up with the military picture of 1918. Exhaustion of German forces and national exhaustion of Germany’s economy make far more sense. More plainly…Germany had been in constant retreat because they were exhausted.

One does not have to look too hard to see the poor shape Germany was in:

https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/organization-of-war-economies/

“On average, GDP seems to have declined by approximately 20 to 30 percent, with the most favorable estimation indicating a 12 percent decline between 1913 and 1918. The less favorable estimation suggests that the German GDP dropped by 43 percent during the war. During the same period the share of government spending relative to GDP rose from 10 to 59 percent, leaving a smaller share of total GDP for non-governmental consumption.^28”

France was battered too but had US loans and wasn’t under a blockade.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_World_War_I

So this was a multi-power race to the bottom. Germany lost. I have been hearing this new WW1 narrative for a few years now. It is apologist and seems to try and polish up the tarnished reputations of the Entente military powers. It also is BAD history, in my opinion. It does not match the picture from before or after that war.

I think it is a major mistake to try and pin the end of WW1 to endstates on the battlefield. Those endstates are a direct result of four years of brutal fighting, economic exhaustion and political suicides. Innovation did occur but it is absurd in my opinion to try and cite that as a major factor in Germany’s defeat. Germany’s defeat was strategic (seriously, take a look at that economic site and see the drops in imports on foodstuffs). To my mind a myth of “superior Entente innovation defeated Germany” is as bad as the German “stab in the back” myth.

 

 

I'm well aware that Germany was in extremely poor shape. If the Entente had never developed effective tactics for successfully attacking Germany's defensive system, then exhaustion alone probably would have been enough to defeat Germany eventually. But it would have taken longer.

In reality Germany was not defeated by exhaustion alone, and Entente offensive tactics did work against Germany's defensive system (perhaps a good way of putting it would be that effective offensive Entente tactics allowed them to exploit German exhaustion to defeat the German army much sooner than they would have been able to without effective offensive tactics). They did not produce an operational or strategic breakout because the offensive system they had developed did not seek to produce an operational or strategic breakout. They had given up on trying to produce a breakout. They had switched from thinking in terms of exploitation into the enemy's depth to thinking in terms of lateral exploitation. The offensive system they developed focused on maintaining constant pressure by stringing together limited attacks that were not pressed beyond their culmination points. When one attack culminated, a fresh attack would be launched on another part of the front.

Edited October 11 by Centurian52

[poesel]

3 hours ago, billbindc said:

That translates effectively into meaning that it's an aging out problem. 

I'm afraid that more problems in the world are / have been solved by this than we want to know.

[ArmouredTopHat]

39 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

So this was a multi-power race to the bottom. Germany lost. I have been hearing this new WW1 narrative for a few years now. It is apologist and seems to try and polish up the tarnished reputations of the Entente military powers. It also is BAD history, in my opinion. It does not match the picture from before or after that war.

I think it is a major mistake to try and pin the end of WW1 to endstates on the battlefield. Those endstates are a direct result of four years of brutal fighting, economic exhaustion and political suicides. Innovation did occur but it is absurd in my opinion to try and cite that as a major factor in Germany’s defeat. Germany’s defeat was strategic (seriously, take a look at that economic site and see the drops in imports on foodstuffs). To my mind a myth of “superior Entente innovation defeated Germany” is as bad as the German “stab in the back” myth.

To think that Germany was not in a perilous situation militarily in 1918 is just foolish. The defeat of their armies in the field directly resulted in the armistice - ergo the reason the war ended. 

Their army was defeated and everyone knew it. Why else would the German generals be begging the Kaiser for an armistice before the rout ended up in Germany itself? Things were bad at home but the German army was literally incapable of holding anywhere at that point. Their frontlines were in collapse, the allies were pushing on all fronts. If the war continued for even a few more months they would of been deep in Germany mopping up what was left. 
 

39 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

but there was no major operational, let alone strategic offensive breakthrough to signal annihilation through dislocation. The situation on the battlefield on the Western Front simply does not support your position that Germany surrender as a result of military positional factors. Nor did shining Entente innovation produce operational or strategic breakout - tactical perhaps.

I am sorry but what?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Days_Offensive

Germany lost over a million men killed, wounded or captured, not to mention the penetration of the Hindenburg line as well as the loss of all their gains from the spring offensive and more. (They suffered heavier losses than the attacking Entene) All within 100 days. It was a lethal blow. German generals literally conceded defeat from this final operation and pushed for the armistice as things broke down. At the end of the offensive, the Germans were literally losing their heavy artillery and other such equipment from overruns. Their line was shattered with no real prospect of regrouping and establishing any semblance of defence. It was over. 

How is this not a strategic breakthrough, especially when compared to previous WW1 operations? It literally ended the war with an Entente victory. To say all of this is just irrelevant is perhaps the stupidest thing I have ever heard with regards to the subject. 

Do you just ignore the actual history or something? Is your unwillingness to admit that a bunch of supposed chateau generals actually innovated their way through four years of war to produce decisive results in favour of the Entente so great that you simply cannot grant the credit or something?

Edited October 11 by ArmouredTopHat

[The_Capt]

13 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

In reality Germany was not defeated by exhaustion alone, and Entente offensive tactics did work against Germany's defensive system (perhaps a good way of putting it would be that effective offensive Entente tactics allowed them to exploit German exhaustion to defeat the German army much sooner than they would have been able to without effective offensive tactics). They did not produce an operational or strategic breakout because the offensive system they had developed did not seek to produce an operational or strategic breakout. They had given up on trying to produce a breakout. They had switched from thinking in terms of exploitation into the enemy's depth to thinking in terms of lateral exploitation. The offensive system they developed focused on maintaining constant pressure by stringing together limited attacks that were not pressed beyond their culmination points. When one attack culminated, a fresh attack would be launched on another part of the front.

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. So essentially you are saying that Entente innovation accelerated German exhaustion while exploiting it. Kinda sounds a lot like Corrosive Warfare that a few nutters have been going on about in this current war.

This I can buy, however, it only created a short road at the end of a very long one. Germany basically tried the same that Spring..and they had plenty of innovation to field. But they ran out of gas. What we don’t know is if the Entente would have ran out of gas too. But given the fresh-faced doughboys (late to every war) arrival I think the political level in Germany read the bloody letters on the walls.

What resonants in all this is the inter-level dynamic evolution of the War. Political, strategic, operational and tactical do not exist on glorious isolation. They are an interdependent system. By 1918 Germany’s entire system was failing. And I will grant you that Entente rejuvenated Corrosive Warfare very likely accelerated that failure.

Now dragging all that back to 2024…whither goest Russia and Ukraine in all this?

[poesel]

18 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

Their army was defeated and everyone knew it.

I'm not disputing the fact that the army was defeated. But far from everyone knew. For one, the German public didn't. Right politicians ran around with the slogan 'undefeated in the field' after the war to (successfully) put the blame of the surrender on the left.

Not marching into German cities after the surrender was a political mistake by the allies.

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, billbindc said:

Simply put, there's no way to put the social media back in the bottle until average Americans feel the real consequences of buying loads of bull**** from folks who mean them harm. That translates effectively into meaning that it's an aging out problem. 

A couple of weeks ago I was purging a box of keepsakes.  Included in it was a thick packet of Holocaust denier BS that someone mailed me in the very early 1990s (the guy made repro SS camo items and it turns out he was a white supremacist as well).  Those were the days when the crazies actually had to work to spread their disease.  Young hatemongers have no idea how easy they have it!

Steve

[dan/california]

1 hour ago, alison said:

Facts are facts and they are not subjective. An event occurs, you catch it on camera, you show it exactly as it happened (or, at least, as it was perceived from that angle) - that's the starting point.

That is how it used to work. AI is, or is about to, make faking video trivial. I still don't think we understand how bad it is going to be when videos aren't presumed to be factual anymore.

[NamEndedAllen]

4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Journalists seem to have settled on quoting/repeating what Trump said and then right after (sometimes in the same sentence) state it is false.  Sometimes with more commentary, sometimes just keeping it simple.  They have adopted the same strategy for his supporters and surrogates.  Sure, it spreads the disinformation, but anybody reading/hearing his comments in that form can see very clearly that it has been fact checked and fell short of the truth.

And…this simply isn’t working. For obvious reasons including that those who believe Trump are not watching or reading the more responsible houses of journalism. But those who are somehow not clear are indeed more likely to absorb the lies and to repeat them. Lastly, is the failure of individuals to *think* through what they hear, see, or read: a failure of critical thinking. That is likely due to multiple causes ranging from *laziness, *reluctance to entertain information contrary to one’s biases, and *failures in the educational system. That last is increasing geometrically as homeschooling by extreme politically and religiously based teachers spreads. 

4 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

In fact, anything labeled "news" by any form of oversight body would likely be outright rejected because "that's what they want to think!  I'm not a Sheeple!".  They will continue to tune into "entertainment" branded nonsense like Tucker or random podcaster because, in their twisted view, those sources aren't controlled by the government (and/or Jews and/or Elites, and or whatever paranoid delusion).

I don’t know about other western nations but until or unless the USA is ruled by a single party authoritarian entity, there will never be an accepted and widespread ‘oversight’ of journalism content in the desired sense of eliminating lies and disinformation. 

Although retired now, I remain actively engaged with my former staff and colleagues at one of the largest credible ‘real’ news networks in the USA. One group of journalists and academics have a biweekly Zoom under the rubrik of “Journalism” In The Age Of Trump”. Begun because of the recognition of how difficult it is to forge an ethical and practical and *effective* policy of reporting on Trump, and now his many copycats. It isn’t simple. Every suggestion here and elsewhere has been chewed over and over in newsrooms across the country. My own thinking for ethical journalism is stop the constant repeating in whole cloth the obvious lies and disinformation. Instead, use a form such as, “Candidate X once again heatedly denied the well established facts about (insert the event or issue)”. The inescapable problem is well known. Those who insulate themselves into the extremist information bubbles are never reached by credible journalism, regardless of how they report.

This is for me personally among the greatest tragedies of my life which has been pledged to upholding our piece of the Constitution’s machinery dedicated to ensuring that each generation of Americans is willing and capable of self governance, via Constitution’s core process. In a hasty nutshell:

- Free public education,
- The ‘free flow of information’ - via free ‘press’, public libraries, the Postal Service, free speech providing the grist for applying critical thinking earned with that free education…

To intelligently evaluate the statements, policies and effectiveness of both governance 

And to periodically freely evaluate and *elect representatives* based on intelligently understood conditions and results.

However imperfect over the life of the Republic, we now see every facet of the Constitution’s process of reinventing self-governing Americans evety generation under attack for so long that all are breaking down. And I grieve for my country.

[ArmouredTopHat]

15 minutes ago, poesel said:

I'm not disputing the fact that the army was defeated. But far from everyone knew. For one, the German public didn't. Right politicians ran around with the slogan 'undefeated in the field' after the war to (successfully) put the blame of the surrender on the left.

Not marching into German cities after the surrender was a political mistake by the allies.

It really was a mistake that confounded the post war scene...as well as the histography it seems as some here think that it was a secondary cause to the armistice when it was literally the reason the armistice existed in the first place. 

[billbindc]

32 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. So essentially you are saying that Entente innovation accelerated German exhaustion while exploiting it. Kinda sounds a lot like Corrosive Warfare that a few nutters have been going on about in this current war.

This I can buy, however, it only created a short road at the end of a very long one. Germany basically tried the same that Spring..and they had plenty of innovation to field. But they ran out of gas. What we don’t know is if the Entente would have ran out of gas too. But given the fresh-faced doughboys (late to every war) arrival I think the political level in Germany read the bloody letters on the walls.

What resonants in all this is the inter-level dynamic evolution of the War. Political, strategic, operational and tactical do not exist on glorious isolation. They are an interdependent system. By 1918 Germany’s entire system was failing. And I will grant you that Entente rejuvenated Corrosive Warfare very likely accelerated that failure.

Now dragging all that back to 2024…whither goest Russia and Ukraine in all this?

Now that's a question. The similarities are that neither side can solve for offense and...that's about it. They are mismatched in size, motivation, innovation and technology. The battlefield is virtually empty relative to WWI densities. There is no blockade close to what Germany dealt with. Nuclear weapons limit escalation and direct support. Support from the United States isn't just a very important element...it is probably make or break for either side.  

What does all that mean? That either an exogenous factor...the American election...effectively decides the war in Russia's favor or the war continues until either side breaks. 

[Battlefront.com]

40 minutes ago, ArmouredTopHat said:

To think that Germany was not in a perilous situation militarily in 1918 is just foolish. The defeat of their armies in the field directly resulted in the armistice - ergo the reason the war ended. 

There you go again... inventing strawmen to argue against.

Nobody has said the German army wasn't in a perilous state by 1918.  Can you quote anybody saying that, or will you concede you just made it up?

There are two sides to this argument going on now:

1.  Germany lost because it was exhausted

2.  Germany was exhausted because it had lost

There's truth to both of these arguments.  However, I side with The_Capt that the deciding factor wasn't the Entente's superior awesomeness on the battlefield as much as it was that the US entered the war and Germany, already nearly spent, realized it was over and did the sensible thing and ended the war on very unfavorable terms.

How much did the Entente's tactics contribute to Germany's ultimate end?  That's a reasonable discussion to be had.  Starting off on either extreme (it was all Entente brilliance or it was all Germany being burnt out) is unlikely to hold up.

And it's all irrelevant anyway unless we start tying this together with what is going on now.

The situation we see on the battlefield now is that Russia still hasn't solved for the challenge it faces, but has continued to chip away at Ukraine's ability to continue fighting.  Not through brilliance, but pure brute force with little sparks of innovation.  The West would do well to take note of this because in a war against China it might very well become relevant.

Steve

[Carolus]

Quote

French reserve officer and military expert Stephane Audrand presented an interesting material about the peculiarities of the training of the 155th separate mechanized brigade "Anne de Kyiv" ("Anne de Kyiv") in France.

As a positive, first of all, the fact that the entire brigade was prepared as a whole, and not by separate units. That is, the preparation was not only individual, but also collective, with coordination.

The French understand that in the Armed Forces, the brigade is the basis for operational use. In principle, the expert himself writes that it is possible to argue with such a structure, but this is how the Ukrainian army is organized.

Much attention was paid to the preparation of the elements of the headquarters: first of all operational, preparation and battle planning (J3/J5/J7). The French noted that these staff elements are a weak point of Ukraine, which is revealed due to the lack of qualified staff officers.

Another strength of such team-based training is the provision of training that matches French equipment. Such equipment is designed to work together. Many common OVT samples, uniform standards. Processing and support become simplified.

Another strong point: the realism of learning. The conditions were carefully measured: trenches, drones, shell explosions. A minimum of theory, a maximum of practice.

Another plus that the French noted for themselves: a high level of control and support. 1,500 instructors were allocated to train the personnel of the brigade. It was a very good level of trainers and OPFOR (playing for the enemy) that fostered development, close communication and interaction.

The French note that they are handing over a turnkey brigade to the Ukrainian command, which will be prepared individually and collectively, according to the needs of Ukraine, but "in the French style". This practice is used for the first time, so there will definitely be opportunities for improvement.

However, there are limitations:

is a limitation of available weapons. VAB (wheeled armored personnel carrier, more like a reconnaissance patrol), AMX10-RC (wheeled light tank), CAESAR (known to us self-propelled guns). So, a team of "medium/light" format. A unit that does not fit into the standards of the usual mechanized brigades "on a guslyanka".

In principle, the French immediately offered to consider the option of using such a "light" brigade as a mobile one at the operational level: vanguard, flank protection, "firefighter", pursuer, etc.

An expert from France expressed more apprehension about the ability of the Armed Forces command to adapt to the use of such a brigade than a real warning. He believes that the "light brigade" has its place in the modern application system.

Regarding other nuances:

the fire support system of the brigade needs to be strengthened;

engineering units need to be strengthened;

the anti-aircraft defense system of the brigade needs to be strengthened;

the UAV application system needs to be strengthened;

the EW system needs to be strengthened.

However, the training of an entire brigade by French instructors during the full cycle of training from individual to collective training (with staff elements) is a very positive practice.

The French suggest continuing to look for options for bilateral cooperation with other countries to implement similar projects. I completely agree with them.

If France can make such an effort, for example, twice a year with a partner (Germany, Great Britain, the Benelux countries, as well as the Scandinavians or even Italy will do the same), then it would be possible to form 8-10 Ukrainian brigades every year.

At the same time, the expert raised the topic of deploying the training of Ukrainian personnel officers (he is most likely considering online courses). He believes that in this way it will be possible to train approximately 100 Ukrainian staff officers per year, which will significantly increase their personnel capabilities, as well as strengthen the ties of the French with the Ukrainian command.

I don't believe in distance learning - you only need offline. I know how to study online at ZSU.

As a conclusion from the French: brigade training is a wonderful innovation. They hope that this is the first experience that will spread throughout Europe. For both efficiency and consistency

On the training of the "French Brigade" of the UA via @Ernesta

[ArmouredTopHat]

18 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

How much did the Entente's tactics contribute to Germany's ultimate end?  That's a reasonable discussion to be had.  Starting off on either extreme (it was all Entente brilliance or it was all Germany being burnt out) is unlikely to hold up.

I think if you shattered the last defensible line an opponent has setup between you and their homeland, and are actively overrunning their heavy artillery and railheads....then you might be on the road towards the ultimate end. Especially after removing a million of them from the equation. 

There was little if anything the Germans could do at that point. Even if they did cobble together a line the Entente wold of smashed it with their superiority of force that was so very evident in 1918. They even had active plans for the war going into 1919, though I doubt the war would of lasted more than a few months longer given just how quickly the frontline was falling before the armistice. 

Its also bleeding obvious to me that the Ententes military success was the reason above all others that the German high command sought the armistice. 

 

18 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

And it's all irrelevant anyway unless we start tying this together with what is going on now.

The situation we see on the battlefield now is that Russia still hasn't solved for the challenge it faces, but has continued to chip away at Ukraine's ability to continue fighting.  Not through brilliance, but pure brute force with little sparks of innovation.  The West would do well to take note of this because in a war against China it might very well become relevant.

The comparison to the current war is that a military can collapse very quickly and suddenly due to hostile action / pressures of conflict. I suspect this will happen to the Russians and it will be quite sudden given how many point of failures they have. 

Edited October 11 by ArmouredTopHat

[Centurian52]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Now dragging all that back to 2024…whither goest Russia and Ukraine in all this?

Well, Kyrylo Budanov claims that the Russians aim to win by 2026 (which I'm pretty confident they can't do) because that's about how long they think their war economy can keep going (they should start seeing some really serious economic consequences around the second half of 2025). Based on Covert Cabal's videos on satellite imagery of Russian storage bases that's also around when I'd guess that they'll really start feeling the pinch on their Soviet tank, artillery, and IFV stockpiles. ISW is also assessing that they're starting to struggle with recruitment, and they have been consistently increasing sign-on bonuses throughout 2024 to keep up recruitment without having to resort to another round of mobilization (they seem to be really afraid of doing another round of mobilization). Obviously you can't just keep increasing sign-on bonuses forever, especially if your economy is going down the drain, so that points to a Russian manpower shortage as well sometime in the second half of 2025 (either that or they mobilize, and face the political costs that they've been so afraid of).

What it all points to for me is that exhaustion is going to start causing serious problems for the Russians around late 2025, though maybe that doesn't become really crippling until 2026. If Ukraine can't exploit that exhaustion then maybe the Russians can keep the war going by ratcheting down its intensity (the attacker controls the intensity of the fighting, so if Ukraine can't go over to the attack then Russia can lower the intensity to something sustainable). I suspect that it is probably possible to find an offensive system that will work against any defensive system in any technological era (with the caveat that the defense will probably always be a stronger form of warfare than the offense (I suspect that's one thing that Clausewitz was probably right about)). It'll just be a matter of working out what that offensive system is (which may be tricky since it may not look like anything that preceded it (there's no reason to necessarily expect that offensive system to look anything like the traditional maneuver warfare that dominate thinking in the second half of the 20th century)). Ukraine demonstrated some adaptations at the beginning of the Kursk offensive that may be the beginnings of an effective offensive system. It remains to be seen whether they can bring those adaptations together into a full system, deploy it effectively against actual Russian defenses (Kursk wasn't a great demonstration since it was so thinly defended), and whether the Russians will be able to come up with a counter to that system.

If the Ukrainians can come up with (or demonstrate, if they've already come up with it) an effective offensive system then they should be able to exploit Russian exhaustion to push them over into full collapse, just as the Entente did to the Germans in 1918. Exactly what that collapse looks like will probably depend on what system Ukraine comes up with.

Edit: To get my prediction on-record, I think we're looking at Russian defeat in 2026 or perhaps 2027 if they manage to draw things out.

Edited October 11 by Centurian52