NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
From a blog I read about the modern system of war, which is an informative take on how modern militaries fight, and the theory is that an army that has implemented the modern system is always going to beat one that hasn't implemented it. Of course that's a bit abstract and theoretical, but from reading these articles I'm more confident that the Russian problems will continue. https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-chemical-weapons-anymore/
That means that modern system forces are focused on cover and concealment in defense, but on mobility – often very rapid mobility – in attack. ... The thing is, embracing the Modern System is hard. Actually pulling this off requires a relatively high degree of training. It also requires delegating a lot of authority down to lower officers and NCOs. ... it is really hard to do if your common soldiers are undertrained, simply illiterate, or if (as in an authoritarian regime) you can’t trust your officers with any kind of independence.
I mean how could you assume anything but bad faith when they spent months mobilizing on the border while insisting it was just training exercises and then attacked unprovoked.
It's like assuming that the guy currently robbing your house is probably not acting in good faith.
They could be acting in bad faith and still trying to negotiate earnestly if only to find a way out of the mess they put themselves in. If they are in fact only pretending to negotiate, they must be a bit delusional about their own war effort.
On March 17 2022 10:10 datscilly wrote: https://www.intelligencer.ca/news/world/how-training-by-canada-gave-ukrainian-army-fighting-chance-against-russia The idea that the Russian army lacks tactical flexibility and their squad leaders not given the authority to make decisions is interesting, because that implies their problems are due to training / leadership, and they will continue to be less effective than the Ukrainian army per soldier during the course of this war.
From a blog I read about the modern system of war, which is an informative take on how modern militaries fight, and the theory is that an army that has implemented the modern system is always going to beat one that hasn't implemented it. Of course that's a bit abstract and theoretical, but from reading these articles I'm more confident that the Russian problems will continue. https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-chemical-weapons-anymore/
That means that modern system forces are focused on cover and concealment in defense, but on mobility – often very rapid mobility – in attack. ... The thing is, embracing the Modern System is hard. Actually pulling this off requires a relatively high degree of training. It also requires delegating a lot of authority down to lower officers and NCOs. ... it is really hard to do if your common soldiers are undertrained, simply illiterate, or if (as in an authoritarian regime) you can’t trust your officers with any kind of independence.
I have no doubt that other things being equal the modern system gives you significant advantages, but saying the modern one always win sounds kind of optimistic. If that were true the Taliban probably wouldn't be in power right now. Also note that the quoted part of the article includes the familiar disclaimer that the Modern System (TM) is hard to implement properly (and therefore empirical failures can be chalked up to implementation). Sounds just like the Monkey Model argument Russians trotted about when Iraqi tanks proved to be spectacularly bad.
That's far from saying it doesn't help, but IMO that kind of reasoning is giving too much credit to Western influence while downplaying the inherent strength of the UKR army. Compared to most countries in the world their army is quite formidable and the difference between Russian/Ukrainian technology/equipment is minimal or at least far less pronounced than what Western armies experienced in the past few decades.
On March 16 2022 23:51 KwarK wrote: *snip In a lot of western countries there are a lot of military planners who have devoted a lot of time and energy to working with the Ukrainian military so that they have the tools they need today. Probably more time and energy than the Russians put in planning their side of the war. The more that I learn about the planning and resources available to each side the more I see a Ukrainian victory as likely. It wasn’t widely publicized before this conflict for obvious reasons but the Ukrainian military has in many ways been rebuilt to wield a western sword that was custom made to kill Russians.
Yes, Canadian instructors were also there- Operation UNIFIER and as I understand it, they and the other NATO instructors were emphasizing mission command vs top-down command structures.
In place of the top-down style of leadership inherited from Soviet days, the Canadians and other NATO instructors tried to instill the idea of giving small-unit commanders the autonomy to make decisions on the fly.
It was a cultural transformation, but seems to be paying off in spades as the out-gunned Ukrainian forces perform remarkably well against a Russian onslaught, says one of those teachers from Canada.
The attacks that have helped stall a huge Russian convoy north of Kyiv, for instance, have been made possible partly by small-unit leaders taking the initiative to craft their own ambushes, says Capt. Hugh Purdon.
“That all comes down to a platoon or section commander saying ‘We’re going to use the Javelin (anti-tank weapon) here and then we’re going to pull back and use the Javelin here,’” he said. “You multiply that thousands of times and all of a sudden you have a viable defence.”
“That is probably the biggest shock the (Russian) occupiers of Ukraine are seeing right now,” said Purdon. “You don’t have the level of success you are seeing … if you haven’t developed that (leadership style).”
So although smaller, you are seeing a far more efficient defensive force not only on spending priorities but also at the operational level. With mission command, the Ukrainians would be far more flexible, being able to adapt on the fly. With all these trainers from NATO, because NATO countries have quite a bit of experience in modern warfare, the Ukrainians would be getting pretty up to date information on how to fight a modern warfare. Whereas was the last real war Russia was in was Afghanistan in the early 80's?
Whether Ukraine wins in the end, I do not know, but they are putting up a hell of a fight.
Georgia in 2008 is the last war Russia fought. They performed poorly there after which they tried to reform and modernise their army. It's why many experts expected a short war but turns out they're performing even worse than in Georgia.
On March 17 2022 10:10 datscilly wrote: https://www.intelligencer.ca/news/world/how-training-by-canada-gave-ukrainian-army-fighting-chance-against-russia The idea that the Russian army lacks tactical flexibility and their squad leaders not given the authority to make decisions is interesting, because that implies their problems are due to training / leadership, and they will continue to be less effective than the Ukrainian army per soldier during the course of this war.
From a blog I read about the modern system of war, which is an informative take on how modern militaries fight, and the theory is that an army that has implemented the modern system is always going to beat one that hasn't implemented it. Of course that's a bit abstract and theoretical, but from reading these articles I'm more confident that the Russian problems will continue. https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-chemical-weapons-anymore/
That means that modern system forces are focused on cover and concealment in defense, but on mobility – often very rapid mobility – in attack. ... The thing is, embracing the Modern System is hard. Actually pulling this off requires a relatively high degree of training. It also requires delegating a lot of authority down to lower officers and NCOs. ... it is really hard to do if your common soldiers are undertrained, simply illiterate, or if (as in an authoritarian regime) you can’t trust your officers with any kind of independence.
I have no doubt that other things being equal the modern system gives you significant advantages, but saying the modern one always win sounds kind of optimistic. If that were true the Taliban probably wouldn't be in power right now. Also note that the quoted part of the article includes the familiar disclaimer that the Modern System (TM) is hard to implement properly (and therefore empirical failures can be chalked up to implementation). Sounds just like the Monkey Model argument Russians trotted about when Iraqi tanks proved to be spectacularly bad.
That's far from saying it doesn't help, but IMO that kind of reasoning is giving too much credit to Western influence while downplaying the inherent strength of the UKR army. Compared to most countries in the world their army is quite formidable and the difference between Russian/Ukrainian technology/equipment is minimal or at least far less pronounced than what Western armies experienced in the past few decades.
Yeah, this seems like analysis made for the home population, stating how the competent and awesome westerners helped the stupid easterners become a functioning military. I think that at its core the analysis from a few pages back is a lot more convincing. This is exactly the war the Ukrainian military was built for. A lot of the expensive russian stuff simply doesn't help at all in this war.
As a segway, i would be very surprised if the Taliban forces didn't have a lot of local autonomy in the field. I highly doubt that you it is even possible to run an insurgent force top-down.
Some interesting leaks and developments have been happening. Russia wants to cut down all the trees in controlled territories to get wood for sale and also ruin Ukraine ecologically (their troops have been destroying farming equipment too). Also, Russia has now officially left the Council of Europe, which makes them no longer bound by human rights treaties etc.
Looks like shit is about to hit the fan real hard.
There isn't a deal with the Ukrainian government that Vladamir Putin could possibly accept that wasn't an unconditional surrender. If he fails in his objective to remove Zelenskey's government from power then this whole invasion is completely defeated. It doesn't help that there's no way that Ukraine will ever accept Putin's terms to surrender Donbas and Crimea and NEVER join NATO. That's assuming that Putin would even honor that agreement in the first place which I think everyone with a brain is skeptical of.
Any deal he takes that is less than a full surrender of Ukraine is going to make him look like a loser. Both on the international stage and in Russia. We're already seeing what his game plan is with installing Russian sympathetic mayors in occupied towns and cities. That's his plan for all of Ukraine and that's been his plan since day 1. He NEEDS his puppet buffer state back or so he thinks. If he doesn't get it, then all that's going to happen is that the next time he tries to pull something like this it's going to get even more difficult.
On March 17 2022 17:35 Vindicare605 wrote: There isn't a deal with the Ukrainian government that Vladamir Putin could possibly accept that wasn't an unconditional surrender. If he fails in his objective to remove Zelenskey's government from power then this whole invasion is completely defeated. It doesn't help that there's no way that Ukraine will ever accept Putin's terms to surrender Donbas and Crimea and NEVER join NATO. That's assuming that Putin would even honor that agreement in the first place which I think everyone with a brain is skeptical of.
Any deal he takes that is less than a full surrender of Ukraine is going to make him look like a loser. Both on the international stage and in Russia. We're already seeing what his game plan is with installing Russian sympathetic mayors in occupied towns and cities. That's his plan for all of Ukraine and that's been his plan since day 1. He NEEDS his puppet buffer state back or so he thinks. If he doesn't get it, then all that's going to happen is that the next time he tries to pull something like this it's going to get even more difficult.
Technically speaking the current Ukraine borders were guaranteed by the signers of the Budapest Memorandum Signatures came from these countries: 1) Russia - currently ignoring 2) Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan - the group of countries which is the memorandum about 3) US, UK - according to the press they offered the biggest assurances 4) France & China - according to the press they offered less significant assurances
Russia does ignore the part about the Ukrainian borders and sovereignity of the country. But what is the rest doing? According to my bad memory France & China were not very keen on giving any guarantees, but UK and US?
Basically - any treaty for Ukraine is useless as it's not just Russia who's ignoring it. Fun fact, according to that memorandum it's banned to pass sanctions on Belarus to change its political opinion, this was breached during the year 2013 by US.
On March 17 2022 13:25 calh wrote: They could be acting in bad faith and still trying to negotiate earnestly if only to find a way out of the mess they put themselves in. If they are in fact only pretending to negotiate, they must be a bit delusional about their own war effort.
Yes, If Putin is actually negotiating its to find a way to extract from this while saving face, probably by claiming Crimea and the 'peoples republics'. But on the other hand I imagine if you were serious about wanting to find a diplomatic solution you should stop bombing civilian targets?
The Russian advance has ground to a halt, so its easy to assume Putin is only negotiating to by time to prepare for a renewed offensive.
But they don't have the troops for a new large scale offensive. Replacement troops will probably be of lower quality as well. Looks to me like plan A was to overthrow the Ukrainian government in a quick war and there's no plan B. Putin doesn't have any decent options left. Either he continues the war and maybe makes some slow gains at great cost or he retreats for nothing significant.
On March 17 2022 19:23 RvB wrote: But they don't have the troops for a new large scale offensive. Replacement troops will probably be of lower quality as well. Looks to me like plan A was to overthrow the Ukrainian government in a quick war and there's no plan B. Putin doesn't have any decent options left. Either he continues the war and maybe makes some slow gains at great cost or he retreats for nothing significant.
That's the whole problem for Putin. He can't retreat without losing face and as a dictator his strong man image is very important and he doesn't have the resources to push forward and actually 'win'.
It would be dangerous to assume that Putin can't still win the war against Ukraine. Oil pipelines are currently being laid to support a long-term siege. Ukraine needs to get active and push back on as many fronts as possible.
Russia states that it has paid it's bill in dollars, not rubles.
Russia’s finance ministry said on Thursday that it had made a $117 million payment on interest due on two U.S. dollar-denominated bonds. The payments are due this week to prevent Russia’s first default on foreign debt since the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution.
The ministry said the payment had been made to a “foreign correspondent bank” on Monday, but it was unclear whether the bondholders will receive the money. The ministry said it would provide an update later from Citibank’s London branch, which it said was the paying agent on the bonds.
The country has about $40 billion in sovereign debt, half of which is owned by overseas investors.
The government has a 30-day grace period to make this week’s payments before a default is confirmed. It has said that if Western sanctions prevent it from paying the money in dollars, it will pay in rubles instead.
Fitch Ratings said on Tuesday that payment in rubles for debt owed in dollars would be considered a default.
So it seems the FSB is now arresting persons of the Military for failing to achieve objectives. Unclear on what the charges are but can't see how this will help things.
On March 17 2022 17:35 Vindicare605 wrote: There isn't a deal with the Ukrainian government that Vladamir Putin could possibly accept that wasn't an unconditional surrender. If he fails in his objective to remove Zelenskey's government from power then this whole invasion is completely defeated. It doesn't help that there's no way that Ukraine will ever accept Putin's terms to surrender Donbas and Crimea and NEVER join NATO. That's assuming that Putin would even honor that agreement in the first place which I think everyone with a brain is skeptical of.
Any deal he takes that is less than a full surrender of Ukraine is going to make him look like a loser. Both on the international stage and in Russia. We're already seeing what his game plan is with installing Russian sympathetic mayors in occupied towns and cities. That's his plan for all of Ukraine and that's been his plan since day 1. He NEEDS his puppet buffer state back or so he thinks. If he doesn't get it, then all that's going to happen is that the next time he tries to pull something like this it's going to get even more difficult.
Technically speaking the current Ukraine borders were guaranteed by the signers of the Budapest Memorandum Signatures came from these countries: 1) Russia - currently ignoring 2) Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan - the group of countries which is the memorandum about 3) US, UK - according to the press they offered the biggest assurances 4) France & China - according to the press they offered less significant assurances
Russia does ignore the part about the Ukrainian borders and sovereignity of the country. But what is the rest doing? According to my bad memory France & China were not very keen on giving any guarantees, but UK and US?
Basically - any treaty for Ukraine is useless as it's not just Russia who's ignoring it. Fun fact, according to that memorandum it's banned to pass sanctions on Belarus to change its political opinion, this was breached during the year 2013 by US.
UK and US spearheaded the 2015 effort to modernize the Ukrainian army and have both underwritten the costs and provided all these missiles.
I will repeat myself - Budapest Memordum included guarantees that countries THEMSELVE will respect the border integrity of Ukraine, Kazakhstand and Belarus. There were no assurances of protection from others. Only Russia violated the memorandum.
According to the memorandum,[22] Russia, the US and the UK confirmed their recognition of Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine becoming parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and effectively abandoning their nuclear arsenal to Russia and that they agreed to the following:
Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.[23] Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine. Refrain from using economic pressure on Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine to influence their politics. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used". Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.[19][24]
I'm curious to see how the EU will be able to stop this. Seeing how Germany always overrode countries during the debt crisis. It also affects China seeing how the worlds largest buyer of scrap metal, and steel etc.
Italy may block exports of raw materials to counter potential shortages arising from Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Deputy Industry Minister Gilberto Pichetto Fratin said on Thursday. "The intention is to intervene by banning the export of what few goods we have," Pichetto Fratin told a parliamentary hearing. "With the shortage of steel, for example, the export of scrap alone causes damages to the country.
"With the shortage of steel, for example, the export of scrap alone causes damages to the country. So it is foreseeable that there will be a decree to block these exports, it is being evaluated and one of the most credible options."
EPT
