Hitler himself got nowhere near Moscow. That final attack in 1941 almost completely ruined the German army. It was complete stupidity to change the original plan of operation.
They had the choice of either to do the drive to the south and sack Kiev or prepare as originally planned the strike on Moscow. Doing both did lead to disaster (i.e. For those who don't know. The retreat did cost them the mobility and most of the losses of man power were not because of combat, but because of the weather)
Finally citing a successful movie character tells a lot by itself and I guess you have never read the book, where the character comes from. By the way Steiner didn't save anything, it is just the tragic story about trying to survive in the chaos of war while at the same time being the target of another man's obsession.
Criticism is always important! And I often start to think Tom doesn't "offer any solutions." Then I have to criticize myself. What would a solution be? We can start with the opposite. Not breaking up effective brigades or units. Why does he need to spell that out? These stories are long enough ;) You wrote "heavy desertions". Where do you get those numbers? And do they make a real difference? Tom doesn't feel they warrant writing about--can he write about everything? There are only so many hours in the day.
As for different weapon systems, again, criticize yourself. If you're a soldier do you want a weapon you can understand or a new weapon that is somewhat beyond you, but if you learn how to use, can save your life? Yes, multiple weapon systems are a pain but I have confidence Ukrainians would do better with more complexity than having some homogenous system that makes the politician's life easier.
Tom answers almost every comment I can see. He certainly reads them. Again, be critical. I'm critical. We're ALL critical here. But...
I also feel he's a bit harsh. For example, he says it's a flaw that Syrskyi has many of his "buddies" put into leadership position. I'd argue it easier to get things done if you're working with people you're used to working with, who understand your way of seeing things, and you theirs. Meritocracy is easy to imagine, near impossible to implement.
Yes isn't my perspective just as far away from the battlefield as his?
Where we differ, perhaps, is you see some of his analysis as "lazy" where I see them as "frustrated." I have written about Ukraine and Israel for the past few years on Medium, and though that means absolutely nothing in terms of expertise, it does give me experience in that one experiences "the horrors of it all" while researching/writing.
For example, I said very early on that Biden was no friend to Ukraine. Almost everyone saw it differently then. Now most have come around. So I feel 3 years of lives wasted because of U.S. and European pussy-footing. Again, doesn't make me right. But it is VERY difficult for me to write these days because that feeling of frustration boils over. I see this with Tom. Since I'm not writing I need to make allowances. Some of us have to write! :) Do you write about this stuff? Anyway, thems me thoughts :)
Okay, I thought you were new. Then I get it. I really do.
Yes, Trump only says out loud what those around him say. He has a gift for knowing what will rile people up the most. I don't "like" him but it is a benefit that we can learn what those behind closed doors are really saying.
Around the time of the Iraq war I read the papers Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others had written about the Middle East years before. What's fascinating is 99% of the public doesn't care about this stuff yet the media doesn't bother to report the truth, which I doubt would change much. Another aspect that drive me (and you and Tom) insane.
The U.S. will enter the war eventually. Then it will get the Mother of all wake up calls. The problems with our military are deep and wide. They'll make Syrski look like a genius ;) Of course, we've had 3 years of a wake-up call but we're the only ones listening. I say over and over again. We're in WWIII.
Here's what Tom Cooper wrote about ZSU and Syrsky in 2023. Quote: "BTW, quite ironic to monitor online comments of multiple Western ‘war monitors’ in style of, ‘Syrsky acting like Soviet general and only pumping troops into Bakhmut’, or ‘it’s time to withdraw’.
1.) Let me remind everybody that it’s Ukrainians — and nobody else — who are to decide where shall they fight, and where shall they withdraw.
2.) None of us has a trace of clue about what exactly is going on where; what kind of intel are involved commanders receiving about their opposition, its capabilities and intentions; and why are what of involved commanders doing what they do. Indeed, right now, we do not know if — for example — the reinforcements Syrsky reportedly sent to Bakhmut are there to a) bolster the defences, b) secure a withdrawal, or c) run some sort of a counteroffensive — whether ‘in’ or ‘near’ the area. That all is going to become known only weeks, months, and years later. (Good example: immediately after the Battle of Midway, the US press was reporting that it was Boeing B-17 heavy bombers that smashed the Kido Butai (Imperial Japanese Combined Fleet, including its aircraft carriers) and the Japanese amphibious assault ships. It was only months later it became clear that it was the US Navy that ‘ambushed’ the Kido Butai…)
3.) Let me remind everybody that Syrsky wouldn’t have to ‘pump troops’ into this battle, had the West supplied him with enough artillery ammunition, UAVs, and heavy infantry weapons. At least I’m 1000% certain, he would’ve always preferred the latter solution. And, finally,
4.) … well, these ‘Soviet-minded Ukrainian (faggot) generals’ are the people who smashed the 35th CAA north-west of Kyiv, demolished the 41st CAA north of Chernihiv, bushwacked the 6th and 20th CAAs in the Kharkiv Oblast, massacred the 1st GTA when this attempted to cross the Siversky Donetsk and then ‘raided’ it out of eastern Kharkiv… and most of that with troops that had less training than the VSRF’s kontraktniki they were facing…
….the difference was that ‘back then’ they were well-supplied with ammunition…"
Interesting looking back. Some of these statements look at least to me contradictory to what he says about Syrsky today. But is this because he has better intel, better understanding, have seen more of the war etc? All statements here are from early 2023. Lots have happened since then. But still, interesting criticism.
People change and their opinions change. Years go by, we get experience, we are losing childish belief that people in power know what they are doing and understand that their decisions are no more informed or educated than ours. Everything changes.
Of course Tom isn’t on the frontline. But he follows it pretty closely and have done so for the whole war. He has a lot of contacts telling him about their experience and then he complies and analyses this and presents his conclusions. Yes, the officers are on the frontline (Syrsky isn’t), some support his analysis some don’t. But. You criticize his distance, not his analysis. He writes painstakingly and detailed about concrete instances. He shows why he draws his conclusions. The only criticism you have to offer is that he is at a distance, and then some rather pathetic comparison to «other Austrians». (How imaginative is that?). My challenge to you then would be to provide a concrete example of where his analysis of the concrete errors he lays on Syrsky and buddies are wrong. For instance that practice of sending pieces of units to different fronts. Has it happened or not? Do you think it is good or not? The lack of reserves. Is the description factually wrong? Is the analysis of it mistaken? The lack of reinforcement of existing well functioning units? And so on. If you want to challenge Tom’s analysis seriously please be concrete and refer to his text. Tell us why he is wrong there. Don’t blab about «distance» and professional officers.
We are all critical here… this is where I feel very tempted to be as that guy in Life of Brian shouting: I am conformist! ( or some such). I guess we try.
I understand your points. Many might agree with your critique (although you are wrong about shrinking western arms deliveries-the opposite is true). However, Don and Tom constantly offer the same solution. It is repeated multiple times in this article. How could you miss that? No one can wave a wizard's wand and reform an army overnight but it needs doing. And nothing will happen without the start that is finally being made.
1. Retreat and straighten the front. Several brigades are now available as reserves. The troop density on the frontline is now large. You can fight the Russians without a 1:5 disadvantage.
2. Use the freed brigades and the time from strong frontline to rotate brigades to the rear. Bring their battalions back, train the recruits, clean the house.
3. Create divisions from one standard brigade and 2-3 new brigades. You don't need all the equipment or staff officers, just the clear chain of command and unit knowledge.
4. Start to release soldiers from active duty into a reserve corps. They should be used as trainers, technical experts and fortification specialists. They will finally get away from death but will act as force generator.
When you refuse to mobilize the nation before a full scale invasion, then you refuse to mobilize the nation after the full scale invasion, you end up with a few(relatively speaking) on the frontlines bearing the overwhelming brunt of war. The desertions are a result of this poor human resource management and a lack of a top down national plan to efficiently utilize that human resource. Zaluzhnyi called for national mobilization and was fired for saying things that were not fruity enough. Tom is delivering bitter medicine but the medicine is necessary.
Almost like Sykrsky is working for the Russians with what he’s doing. With all due respect to the Ukrainians and the soldiers that have died and wounded badly please be the voice of reason and make noise to the government… it’s gonna get more than it should be of your troops maimed or killed… change the leadership practices. Change the way of making this war about who knows who and how much influence can be gained.
I think you don't really understand the situation with military in Ukraine. It was a very Soviet army, and after independence, it only became worse. Up to 2014 all the high, middle and low command was pure soviet-style kleptocratic military with the only valued quality of not being a problem for higher-ups. The things started to change after 2014 bit by bit, but you don't change institutions like this quickly. I would guess even now 80% of command structure in Ukrainian army are soviet-style officers with one single way of "fighting" they've learned 30 years ago, but at least they can do SOMETHING. It's not as there are anyone to replace them with. Even if Syrsky was batman, it's not an easy task to change anything!
Here, let me give you a task: you are to command an army, but you can't rely on 80% of your command structure and you have no one to replace them with. Would you get stuck in micromanaging, I wonder? Especially if every order you give without micromanaging results in abject failure?
what is it that makes the army 'Soviet'? I keep hearing it all the time and I don't understand it at all. To me, it just serves as yet another bad word without a specific meaning. What does it mean? Is it 'too bureaucratic'? But every army is bureaucratic. Is it 'too centralised'? But every army has some sort of GenStab-U. Is it 'fighting with unreliable and outdated weapons'? I doubt there are armed forces with the latest gen weapons out there, except maybe the US. Is it 'having no value for human life'? I don't know.
And why is 10 years since 2014 not enough to change an institution like the armed forces?
Oh my god, seriously? It's the year 2025 and we are discussing "what makes an army Soviet"?! Okay, okay, sorry, people who are not military or history enthusiasts likely shouldn't care about such things, but I really can't explain it all in a comment! I'll write some quick explanations, but rest assured that "soviet style army" is not a bad-word, it has a set of specific meanings.
Soviet army, right from the start, from Lenin-Trotsky situation, was built, first and foremost, to not be a threat to political leadership. That means that a military leadership should consist of people who lack ambitions, independence, charisma that could lead to them creating a power base of their own. Institute of comissars was introduced to watch commanders on every level so that they would not develop capability for independent thoughts and actions. It is by far better to promote below average commander who would not be a threat than to promote a good commander who could develop his own powerbase and entertain some thoughts of becoming a political player. Soviet army - not a political actor through whole Soviet history.
That leads to lack of trust in commanders on every level - commanders can't make their own tactical decisions, they are there to follow orders from top, not to decide anything by themselves. They are not selected by their capability to make decisions nor educated to make them.
Commanders are not trusted not to run from enemy, that's why they are not allowed to make decisions about retreat. Stalin's "no step back without order, or you would be executed" order is a great illustration. Generally, Soviet army's horrifyingly bad performance in WWII can serve as an illustration as a whole, but western historians write very little about it and for Russian historians it's not something they can speak about, for it breaks the Myth. The apotheosis of what makes the army Soviet and why it is bad is seen in the Finnish war, and there is plenty written about it.
Soldiers are conscripts with bad training; it is no because "soviets are stupid", it is a result of whole Soviet army doctrine and structure of army, where, in case of war, mass conscription should expand the army many-many times over peace level and all those people can't be taught, there are no trainers no time; so the structure and doctrine is built to make war with the mass of people who are badly trained and don't want to be there. For example, a sergeant - he is not supposed to lead his troops or to decide anything for himself or his people, he is there to just force people to do what officer says, in minute detail. Gods forbid he decides, say, where latrines are to be dug - that's dangerous independence, way above his pay grade. No leadership training or troop cohesion on any level, there is just no time.
Again, enlisted men are denied any capability to make tactical decisions, for it is seen (and rightly so) that if left on their own they'll just retreat or hide and will not really fight because they lack training, motivation (no troop cohesion, no feeling that your friends rely on you) or leadership (sergeant, platoon leader are no leaders and not trained to be, hell, they'll be the first to run, so they are not trusted)
There is also specific cultures of Vranyo and Smekalka, you can watch, say, Perun in his "how lies destroy armies" to see how it works specifically in Russian army. Perun has, among his many, many videos, some analysis of specific traditions in politics, economics, procurement and so on of different types of armies, including Soviet.
As to why 10 years is not enough it's simple! Commanders in the army rise through ranks in carriers that are built in decades, not years. Once they are on top, they are building the selection programs in a way to create their own copies. Military academies are populated by people who are taught the same way and they teach the only "proper" way they know. A captain in 2015 may learn something from NATO academy, but to be sent there he first should have been selected by people who value Soviet-style education for that's how they were brought up, and after return, he may want to do something the new way, but his colonel and his general are Soviet people and are having none of that, and he is either pushed out of army or learns the "proper", corrupt ways to be promoted.
Army is reformed, so to say, one funeral at a time, and there was simply not enough time for Ukrainian army Old Guard brass to die out from old age. And there is no one to replace them with, there are no mass cadre of Ukrainian commanders for years taught, trained and selected in western academies and armies, even though those have problems of their own indeed, it's just not the same type of problems.
Ukrainian army's problems are hugely problems of a Soviet style army, it is easy to see in what specific ways it is.
What the hell am I doing writing this farking treatise anyway! With posts that long I could start my own substack, ha.
Thanks for the reply. Although I don't agree with you, I do not want to get into the whole thing with you. Perhaps if you indeed get your substack we can discuss it there :)
Gods forbid. :) my opinion is not strictly mine, it's a result of a decade of discussions and arguments on thematic forums. I'm not in a hurry to start it all again. :)
Aside from the topic of this article - the book "War" of Bob Woodward seem to tell the story of saving the world from the nuclear apocalypse. This story reminds me the story of 155 brigade in sense of "standing with Ukraine" etc. And I'm not sure if the author and the characters are even capable understand what exactly this story is about.
A very big thank you to both authors. Excellent analysis. This war is no longer a question about which side is more competent, but which side is less incompetent.
IMHO in air and on the sea Ukraine is slowly getting the upper hand, but the situation on the ground is a nightmare or 'bardak'.
Syrskyi is becoming more and more part of the problem.
As written before Ukraine needs a proper basic structure of it's forces (i.e. Brigade-Division-Corps....). This is a "Conditio sine qua non", i.e. there is no way around it.
Micromanagement on a small scale is an obession and hampering, on a large scale it is stupid and leading to catastrophic results.
Just creating new brigades for having more 'numbers' is stupidity. Why one may ask?
What is import is the numbers of the soldiers doing actually combat (no matter in which function). In a modern army this is only a small percentage. The times of Frederick the Great where almost everyone in a regiment would do the fighting are long gone.
So creating new brigades and at the same time starving the existing one to death is pure stupidity and actually wasting man power.
During WW II the USA did restrict itself to 92 divisions and kept them well supplied with everyting including man power. Those 5 ones, which were hit worst, did have a loss rate of 176%.
Ruining the morale of the soldiers is not only a stupidity, but suicide. The result is a ever rising number of deserters.
Ukraine cannot win by numbers, for that the RF is far too big.
Ukraine can only win by better quality. Is it possible for them to achieve victory?
Yes IMHO.
Rheinmetall is doing an excellent job, also some other countries like Denmark and Norway (just to name a few) by financing the arms industry inside Ukraine.
As I wrote on a different channel at the beginning of the war in 2022:
This a long walk for Ukraine on a very bitter road full of pain and despair, but it is the only way to go if Ukraine wants to exist as a free, self-determined, sovereign state.
Just want to add that every single war in a history of humanity is a competition between incompetencies. This one isn't an exception, although the starting point for both sides is rather deep in a hole.
However, I have to add, that, being an avid observer of Ukraine's public and political life since 2010, my opinion is: Zelensky is the best Ukraine currently has. There are a couple of more competent politicians, but the popular opinion will not accept them; the rest is worse.
Whatever is our opinions about Zelensky, there is no better alternative. Oh, well. We have to work with what we got.
The history of warfare has also enough examples of competence. But it is also a matter of weapon technology, which can have a lot of influence. And finally no matter how competent a 'general' can be, there is still the chance that someone at the final end of the chain of command ruins everything.
Regarding that war IMHO the RF has, luckily for Ukraine, fundamental problems just masked by it's size and the vast amount of resources it has at it's disposal.
Ukraine on the other hand has a problem with it's soviet legacy and it's upper military leadership.
As I don't know anything about the flow of information between military and political leadership I don't have enough information to come to a conclusion regarding the political side.
Thanks Tom and Don. Same old, same old. All the same since the end of the Kherson offensive. Drapatyi will do nothing because what has to be done, can only be done by the CinC. If Syrskyi was going to do anything, he would've already done it. Zelenskyy and Syrskyi are going to lose the war, which hand on heart, at the end of 2022, I considered impossible to f*** up. I gravely underestimated the level of retardation in the Ukrainian leadership. I truly wonder what they have spent their entire military careers on, other than drinking vodka, as they seem to not even have read any soviet manuals, on any topic. At least 2 years of having a numerical advantage overall, yet always being outnumbered on every section of every front. It is kind of an achievement. Like shoving a jar up ones...
It's important to keep everything in context and magnitude. These are issues that Ukraine has the ability to fix and create a more powerful army as a result. Ukraine also has many excellent brigades. Russia's problems are even bigger, with regards to both their army and economy. There's still a very good chance for Russia to lose the way things are. If Ukraine is able to theoretically fix all its problems, Russia's defeat will happen more quickly and with fewer Ukrainian casualties.
All issues I have been complaining about can be fixed by Ukraine. However, without getting the basics right, it doesn't matter they have some excellent brigades. They will squander them like the 72nd and the tactical level has very little impact on the strategic situation.
Russia has a completely different set of problems. Arguably bigger ones than Ukraine. However, while there definitely will come a time they cannot continue this war, it is highly unlikely they will be unable to hold territory. In such case, it'll just be a discussion of who lost this war more, instead of who won it.
I cannot stress this enough, with the current territorial situation, Ukraine is not a viable state. It's just a bigger Kosovo.
Yes it needs to come back to it's internationally accepted borders, which would give it the chance to be a very successful "petrol" state, which is exactly one of the resons why "Gollum" (aka Pudding" wants to finish it's existence.
I think Zaluzhnyi never got a chance to rectify his mistakes. As well he was not a micromanager like Syrskyi. He was right about a lot of things before his depature, i.e national mobilization, reliance on domestic innovation
Sounds like Syrskyi is a good battalion or brigade commander but not the person you want to be Chief of Defence Forces. Great write up as always thank you
We, the International Legal Analytical Center, also have our own views on how to defeat the enemy in this war.
In this extremely difficult situation, the International Analytical Center for Law proposes to reinstate General Zaluzhnoluzhny and his entire team? Under him, we liberated Ukraine.
It would be nice.
More F-16s? More Leopard tanks?
Not exactly. Although, if instead of the F-16 and Mirage-2000 we got the Gripen, then:
would start shooting down enemy MiGs and Sus
would protect 00 from CABs
we would have gained air supremacy.
This is the main prerequisite for a counterattack.
What, a miracle happened, and the International Analytical Center for Law figured out how to create a staff with 5-6 effective managers and a kagal0m at the helm?
Unfortunately, no. We, the International Analytical Center for Law, have not yet figured out how to create a staff with 5-6 effective managers and a kagal0m at the head. However, uniting the world, and Europe above all, would be an extremely useful action.
Is Rammstein not enough as a group?
Not enough. The world believes the enemy's propaganda.
So what to do?
To speak to the world in a language it understands.
In English?
German?
No, politically correct!
How is that?
For example: don't call Vladimir Putin a "narrow-eyed, Asian, yellow-haired, circumcised, Mongolian monkey, very similar." This is not politically correct. Politically correct: yellow Asian Vladimir Putin.
For example: don't call French people niggers, but Afro-French people.
For example: don't call circumcised Muslims from Norway, but Norwegians of Asian descent. They were shot by the racist Anders Behring Breivik.
Ukraine must convey to Europe (and the world) that white Europeans have faced an attack from yellow Asians (Muscovites, Chinese, North Koreans, Iranians).
That this is the world's largest interracial war.
That this is the new Genghis Khan.
That Rus-Ukraine is once again bleeding, but is preventing Asia from conquering Europe.
That the defense of Europe is not only the business of Rus-Ukraine, but also of all of Europe (and the world).
What's up, all European troops should be in Ukraine by 00.
That we won't be able to sit out behind our backs.
Politically correct vocabulary has long been understood by Europe (and the world).
Politically correct vocabulary filters out the deceit of Muscovite propaganda.
Politically correct vocabulary creates the desired image in the minds of politicians.
Politically correct vocabulary doesn't require billions in weapons.
Politically correct language is worth billions in weapons.
We need to start talking.
Don't be silent.
Interestingly, 100% of the world's politicians do not comment on the Russian attempt to annex Ukraine in politically correct terms. Even such an authority as the Austrian analyst Tom Cooper avoids politically correct terms:
Thank you for the update. It is very hard and frustrating to read. Your analysis is detailed, supported by data and understandable. As well as uncomfortable. (I get suggestions here of unbiased, but I don’t feel that’s the right.) I see the gradual loss of the war here, but of course I don’t really see and know the Russian problems. But Ukraine must stop the slow grinding forward. Because it emboldens Putin, dishearts the Ukrainian soldiers and external supporters. Even if we say it’s small, just symbolic, trading land for soldiers etc it must be stopped. So Ukraine either needs some serious serious drone warfare break through, or some upgrade of its Army. I think actually the first is the most likely. Painful to watch and being powerless. Ok, onto the Ricsaws then. Only useful support.
Ukraine can't. It won't happen. Russia will continue to grind forward for years; realistically, it doesn't matter. No matter how disheartened we may be, Putin will accept no less than complete destruction of Ukraine and nobody will agree to that.
What we can is to influence public opinion to accept the long war and plan European budgets accordingly - grow mil-industrial complex.
The overall situation isn't without hope, the tide is slowly changing with the biggest problems on the ground, but those can be solved too. For this the decision makers need enough insight.
This war will decide the fate of Ukraine and still the outcome is not yet decided.
"What is with other 100+ brigades and independent battalions….?"
For a media president that is not important as there is no coverage by media, especially Western media. So it simply doesn't matter.
Just look back to Afghanistan. There were only glorious reports about how great and winning full everything is. If you left the space of statewide noticed media you got to independent reporting like yours, that displayed a different picture. A YouTube video named "this is what winning looks like" actually showed in 2012 all the problems that will lead to the eventual downfall.
Funny, how your reporting about Syrski reminds me of my former teacher for practical pomology. While grading how the pupils cut the trees (needs to be done annually in winter), he called those, that were only cosmetic and not changing the root of the problem of the tree, the "I don't dare" cut.
That was not ment to embarrass people, but to give them confidence to do the necessary stuff that needs to be done as the consequences of your actions won't vanish, but haunt you.
Tommythecat can you read and understant text? If yes read it again (+some older articles)
Erm... solutions are described all the time.
It might be of some use to actually read the feature, otherwise it's impossible to discuss its content... (and pointless to write it, too).
Ah yes: and regarding 'that other Austrian': another comparison with Hitler, and you'll have to BS on some other blog.
Hitler himself got nowhere near Moscow. That final attack in 1941 almost completely ruined the German army. It was complete stupidity to change the original plan of operation.
They had the choice of either to do the drive to the south and sack Kiev or prepare as originally planned the strike on Moscow. Doing both did lead to disaster (i.e. For those who don't know. The retreat did cost them the mobility and most of the losses of man power were not because of combat, but because of the weather)
Finally citing a successful movie character tells a lot by itself and I guess you have never read the book, where the character comes from. By the way Steiner didn't save anything, it is just the tragic story about trying to survive in the chaos of war while at the same time being the target of another man's obsession.
Was wondering if i had the right movie on my mind ;-)
Thank you :-)
Hollywood made 2 movies. The first one is rather close to the book. The second one is pure fiction, just to make some extra money with the sequel.
The one with James Coburn is the one i have seen.
Told you to leave Hitler out of this... you simply ignore the warning. Bye.
Hi Tom, Here is the latest of Syrsky's "solutions":
https://meta.ua/uk/news/war-in-ukraine/251380-u-genshtabi-prokomentuvali-informatsiyu-pro-perevedennya-u-pihotu-spetsialistiv-povitryanih-sil/
Technical personnel from the Air Force are transferred to the assault infantry.
Criticism is always important! And I often start to think Tom doesn't "offer any solutions." Then I have to criticize myself. What would a solution be? We can start with the opposite. Not breaking up effective brigades or units. Why does he need to spell that out? These stories are long enough ;) You wrote "heavy desertions". Where do you get those numbers? And do they make a real difference? Tom doesn't feel they warrant writing about--can he write about everything? There are only so many hours in the day.
As for different weapon systems, again, criticize yourself. If you're a soldier do you want a weapon you can understand or a new weapon that is somewhat beyond you, but if you learn how to use, can save your life? Yes, multiple weapon systems are a pain but I have confidence Ukrainians would do better with more complexity than having some homogenous system that makes the politician's life easier.
Tom answers almost every comment I can see. He certainly reads them. Again, be critical. I'm critical. We're ALL critical here. But...
I also feel he's a bit harsh. For example, he says it's a flaw that Syrskyi has many of his "buddies" put into leadership position. I'd argue it easier to get things done if you're working with people you're used to working with, who understand your way of seeing things, and you theirs. Meritocracy is easy to imagine, near impossible to implement.
Yes isn't my perspective just as far away from the battlefield as his?
Where we differ, perhaps, is you see some of his analysis as "lazy" where I see them as "frustrated." I have written about Ukraine and Israel for the past few years on Medium, and though that means absolutely nothing in terms of expertise, it does give me experience in that one experiences "the horrors of it all" while researching/writing.
For example, I said very early on that Biden was no friend to Ukraine. Almost everyone saw it differently then. Now most have come around. So I feel 3 years of lives wasted because of U.S. and European pussy-footing. Again, doesn't make me right. But it is VERY difficult for me to write these days because that feeling of frustration boils over. I see this with Tom. Since I'm not writing I need to make allowances. Some of us have to write! :) Do you write about this stuff? Anyway, thems me thoughts :)
Okay, I thought you were new. Then I get it. I really do.
Yes, Trump only says out loud what those around him say. He has a gift for knowing what will rile people up the most. I don't "like" him but it is a benefit that we can learn what those behind closed doors are really saying.
Around the time of the Iraq war I read the papers Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and others had written about the Middle East years before. What's fascinating is 99% of the public doesn't care about this stuff yet the media doesn't bother to report the truth, which I doubt would change much. Another aspect that drive me (and you and Tom) insane.
The U.S. will enter the war eventually. Then it will get the Mother of all wake up calls. The problems with our military are deep and wide. They'll make Syrski look like a genius ;) Of course, we've had 3 years of a wake-up call but we're the only ones listening. I say over and over again. We're in WWIII.
Here's what Tom Cooper wrote about ZSU and Syrsky in 2023. Quote: "BTW, quite ironic to monitor online comments of multiple Western ‘war monitors’ in style of, ‘Syrsky acting like Soviet general and only pumping troops into Bakhmut’, or ‘it’s time to withdraw’.
1.) Let me remind everybody that it’s Ukrainians — and nobody else — who are to decide where shall they fight, and where shall they withdraw.
2.) None of us has a trace of clue about what exactly is going on where; what kind of intel are involved commanders receiving about their opposition, its capabilities and intentions; and why are what of involved commanders doing what they do. Indeed, right now, we do not know if — for example — the reinforcements Syrsky reportedly sent to Bakhmut are there to a) bolster the defences, b) secure a withdrawal, or c) run some sort of a counteroffensive — whether ‘in’ or ‘near’ the area. That all is going to become known only weeks, months, and years later. (Good example: immediately after the Battle of Midway, the US press was reporting that it was Boeing B-17 heavy bombers that smashed the Kido Butai (Imperial Japanese Combined Fleet, including its aircraft carriers) and the Japanese amphibious assault ships. It was only months later it became clear that it was the US Navy that ‘ambushed’ the Kido Butai…)
3.) Let me remind everybody that Syrsky wouldn’t have to ‘pump troops’ into this battle, had the West supplied him with enough artillery ammunition, UAVs, and heavy infantry weapons. At least I’m 1000% certain, he would’ve always preferred the latter solution. And, finally,
4.) … well, these ‘Soviet-minded Ukrainian (faggot) generals’ are the people who smashed the 35th CAA north-west of Kyiv, demolished the 41st CAA north of Chernihiv, bushwacked the 6th and 20th CAAs in the Kharkiv Oblast, massacred the 1st GTA when this attempted to cross the Siversky Donetsk and then ‘raided’ it out of eastern Kharkiv… and most of that with troops that had less training than the VSRF’s kontraktniki they were facing…
….the difference was that ‘back then’ they were well-supplied with ammunition…"
More at the links from this substack https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/ukraine-war-1-february-2023-operational-level-e87baf595f45
https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/ukraine-war-3-february-2023-56183abaab20
https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/ukraine-war-2-march-2023-high-noon-eea1001c9ff3
https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/ukraine-war-4-march-2023-a375041a94e3
https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/ukraine-war-20-march-2023-93c257aad690
https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/p/ukraine-war-21-march-2023-air-wars-in-the-social-media-d76fd8b73b5e
this is fascinating stuff.
Interesting looking back. Some of these statements look at least to me contradictory to what he says about Syrsky today. But is this because he has better intel, better understanding, have seen more of the war etc? All statements here are from early 2023. Lots have happened since then. But still, interesting criticism.
People change and their opinions change. Years go by, we get experience, we are losing childish belief that people in power know what they are doing and understand that their decisions are no more informed or educated than ours. Everything changes.
Of course Tom isn’t on the frontline. But he follows it pretty closely and have done so for the whole war. He has a lot of contacts telling him about their experience and then he complies and analyses this and presents his conclusions. Yes, the officers are on the frontline (Syrsky isn’t), some support his analysis some don’t. But. You criticize his distance, not his analysis. He writes painstakingly and detailed about concrete instances. He shows why he draws his conclusions. The only criticism you have to offer is that he is at a distance, and then some rather pathetic comparison to «other Austrians». (How imaginative is that?). My challenge to you then would be to provide a concrete example of where his analysis of the concrete errors he lays on Syrsky and buddies are wrong. For instance that practice of sending pieces of units to different fronts. Has it happened or not? Do you think it is good or not? The lack of reserves. Is the description factually wrong? Is the analysis of it mistaken? The lack of reinforcement of existing well functioning units? And so on. If you want to challenge Tom’s analysis seriously please be concrete and refer to his text. Tell us why he is wrong there. Don’t blab about «distance» and professional officers.
We are all critical here… this is where I feel very tempted to be as that guy in Life of Brian shouting: I am conformist! ( or some such). I guess we try.
I missed a bunch of comment! Just saw this. HILARIOUS! Face it, Life of Brian explains more about the war than we ever can ;)
It does.
I understand your points. Many might agree with your critique (although you are wrong about shrinking western arms deliveries-the opposite is true). However, Don and Tom constantly offer the same solution. It is repeated multiple times in this article. How could you miss that? No one can wave a wizard's wand and reform an army overnight but it needs doing. And nothing will happen without the start that is finally being made.
The solutions are simple:
1. Retreat and straighten the front. Several brigades are now available as reserves. The troop density on the frontline is now large. You can fight the Russians without a 1:5 disadvantage.
2. Use the freed brigades and the time from strong frontline to rotate brigades to the rear. Bring their battalions back, train the recruits, clean the house.
3. Create divisions from one standard brigade and 2-3 new brigades. You don't need all the equipment or staff officers, just the clear chain of command and unit knowledge.
4. Start to release soldiers from active duty into a reserve corps. They should be used as trainers, technical experts and fortification specialists. They will finally get away from death but will act as force generator.
The retreats need to be now about 20-50km. Nothing like Dnipro line.
The armies do retreat and should not stay în cauldrons.
The Russians have retreated repeatedly and they are now back on offensive.
You can catter the public opinion and explain the reasons. That's the strong point of Zelenski anyway.
You don't need the western supplies to properly bulid a trench. You need only a book, a will and your brain - surprise surprise
When you refuse to mobilize the nation before a full scale invasion, then you refuse to mobilize the nation after the full scale invasion, you end up with a few(relatively speaking) on the frontlines bearing the overwhelming brunt of war. The desertions are a result of this poor human resource management and a lack of a top down national plan to efficiently utilize that human resource. Zaluzhnyi called for national mobilization and was fired for saying things that were not fruity enough. Tom is delivering bitter medicine but the medicine is necessary.
Let's hope Drapatyi can be the "cometh the hour, cometh the man" in this situation. A hard task but a hopeful one.
2025 could be the year if they can fix even some of these issues.
Almost like Sykrsky is working for the Russians with what he’s doing. With all due respect to the Ukrainians and the soldiers that have died and wounded badly please be the voice of reason and make noise to the government… it’s gonna get more than it should be of your troops maimed or killed… change the leadership practices. Change the way of making this war about who knows who and how much influence can be gained.
I think you don't really understand the situation with military in Ukraine. It was a very Soviet army, and after independence, it only became worse. Up to 2014 all the high, middle and low command was pure soviet-style kleptocratic military with the only valued quality of not being a problem for higher-ups. The things started to change after 2014 bit by bit, but you don't change institutions like this quickly. I would guess even now 80% of command structure in Ukrainian army are soviet-style officers with one single way of "fighting" they've learned 30 years ago, but at least they can do SOMETHING. It's not as there are anyone to replace them with. Even if Syrsky was batman, it's not an easy task to change anything!
Here, let me give you a task: you are to command an army, but you can't rely on 80% of your command structure and you have no one to replace them with. Would you get stuck in micromanaging, I wonder? Especially if every order you give without micromanaging results in abject failure?
what is it that makes the army 'Soviet'? I keep hearing it all the time and I don't understand it at all. To me, it just serves as yet another bad word without a specific meaning. What does it mean? Is it 'too bureaucratic'? But every army is bureaucratic. Is it 'too centralised'? But every army has some sort of GenStab-U. Is it 'fighting with unreliable and outdated weapons'? I doubt there are armed forces with the latest gen weapons out there, except maybe the US. Is it 'having no value for human life'? I don't know.
And why is 10 years since 2014 not enough to change an institution like the armed forces?
Oh my god, seriously? It's the year 2025 and we are discussing "what makes an army Soviet"?! Okay, okay, sorry, people who are not military or history enthusiasts likely shouldn't care about such things, but I really can't explain it all in a comment! I'll write some quick explanations, but rest assured that "soviet style army" is not a bad-word, it has a set of specific meanings.
Soviet army, right from the start, from Lenin-Trotsky situation, was built, first and foremost, to not be a threat to political leadership. That means that a military leadership should consist of people who lack ambitions, independence, charisma that could lead to them creating a power base of their own. Institute of comissars was introduced to watch commanders on every level so that they would not develop capability for independent thoughts and actions. It is by far better to promote below average commander who would not be a threat than to promote a good commander who could develop his own powerbase and entertain some thoughts of becoming a political player. Soviet army - not a political actor through whole Soviet history.
That leads to lack of trust in commanders on every level - commanders can't make their own tactical decisions, they are there to follow orders from top, not to decide anything by themselves. They are not selected by their capability to make decisions nor educated to make them.
Commanders are not trusted not to run from enemy, that's why they are not allowed to make decisions about retreat. Stalin's "no step back without order, or you would be executed" order is a great illustration. Generally, Soviet army's horrifyingly bad performance in WWII can serve as an illustration as a whole, but western historians write very little about it and for Russian historians it's not something they can speak about, for it breaks the Myth. The apotheosis of what makes the army Soviet and why it is bad is seen in the Finnish war, and there is plenty written about it.
Soldiers are conscripts with bad training; it is no because "soviets are stupid", it is a result of whole Soviet army doctrine and structure of army, where, in case of war, mass conscription should expand the army many-many times over peace level and all those people can't be taught, there are no trainers no time; so the structure and doctrine is built to make war with the mass of people who are badly trained and don't want to be there. For example, a sergeant - he is not supposed to lead his troops or to decide anything for himself or his people, he is there to just force people to do what officer says, in minute detail. Gods forbid he decides, say, where latrines are to be dug - that's dangerous independence, way above his pay grade. No leadership training or troop cohesion on any level, there is just no time.
Again, enlisted men are denied any capability to make tactical decisions, for it is seen (and rightly so) that if left on their own they'll just retreat or hide and will not really fight because they lack training, motivation (no troop cohesion, no feeling that your friends rely on you) or leadership (sergeant, platoon leader are no leaders and not trained to be, hell, they'll be the first to run, so they are not trusted)
There is also specific cultures of Vranyo and Smekalka, you can watch, say, Perun in his "how lies destroy armies" to see how it works specifically in Russian army. Perun has, among his many, many videos, some analysis of specific traditions in politics, economics, procurement and so on of different types of armies, including Soviet.
As to why 10 years is not enough it's simple! Commanders in the army rise through ranks in carriers that are built in decades, not years. Once they are on top, they are building the selection programs in a way to create their own copies. Military academies are populated by people who are taught the same way and they teach the only "proper" way they know. A captain in 2015 may learn something from NATO academy, but to be sent there he first should have been selected by people who value Soviet-style education for that's how they were brought up, and after return, he may want to do something the new way, but his colonel and his general are Soviet people and are having none of that, and he is either pushed out of army or learns the "proper", corrupt ways to be promoted.
Army is reformed, so to say, one funeral at a time, and there was simply not enough time for Ukrainian army Old Guard brass to die out from old age. And there is no one to replace them with, there are no mass cadre of Ukrainian commanders for years taught, trained and selected in western academies and armies, even though those have problems of their own indeed, it's just not the same type of problems.
Ukrainian army's problems are hugely problems of a Soviet style army, it is easy to see in what specific ways it is.
What the hell am I doing writing this farking treatise anyway! With posts that long I could start my own substack, ha.
Thanks for the reply. Although I don't agree with you, I do not want to get into the whole thing with you. Perhaps if you indeed get your substack we can discuss it there :)
Gods forbid. :) my opinion is not strictly mine, it's a result of a decade of discussions and arguments on thematic forums. I'm not in a hurry to start it all again. :)
Thanks
In this one bullshit is dominant. Guys, take the reality check.
Aside from the topic of this article - the book "War" of Bob Woodward seem to tell the story of saving the world from the nuclear apocalypse. This story reminds me the story of 155 brigade in sense of "standing with Ukraine" etc. And I'm not sure if the author and the characters are even capable understand what exactly this story is about.
A very big thank you to both authors. Excellent analysis. This war is no longer a question about which side is more competent, but which side is less incompetent.
IMHO in air and on the sea Ukraine is slowly getting the upper hand, but the situation on the ground is a nightmare or 'bardak'.
Syrskyi is becoming more and more part of the problem.
As written before Ukraine needs a proper basic structure of it's forces (i.e. Brigade-Division-Corps....). This is a "Conditio sine qua non", i.e. there is no way around it.
Micromanagement on a small scale is an obession and hampering, on a large scale it is stupid and leading to catastrophic results.
Just creating new brigades for having more 'numbers' is stupidity. Why one may ask?
What is import is the numbers of the soldiers doing actually combat (no matter in which function). In a modern army this is only a small percentage. The times of Frederick the Great where almost everyone in a regiment would do the fighting are long gone.
So creating new brigades and at the same time starving the existing one to death is pure stupidity and actually wasting man power.
During WW II the USA did restrict itself to 92 divisions and kept them well supplied with everyting including man power. Those 5 ones, which were hit worst, did have a loss rate of 176%.
Ruining the morale of the soldiers is not only a stupidity, but suicide. The result is a ever rising number of deserters.
Ukraine cannot win by numbers, for that the RF is far too big.
Ukraine can only win by better quality. Is it possible for them to achieve victory?
Yes IMHO.
Rheinmetall is doing an excellent job, also some other countries like Denmark and Norway (just to name a few) by financing the arms industry inside Ukraine.
As I wrote on a different channel at the beginning of the war in 2022:
This a long walk for Ukraine on a very bitter road full of pain and despair, but it is the only way to go if Ukraine wants to exist as a free, self-determined, sovereign state.
Slava Ukraini!
Just want to add that every single war in a history of humanity is a competition between incompetencies. This one isn't an exception, although the starting point for both sides is rather deep in a hole.
However, I have to add, that, being an avid observer of Ukraine's public and political life since 2010, my opinion is: Zelensky is the best Ukraine currently has. There are a couple of more competent politicians, but the popular opinion will not accept them; the rest is worse.
Whatever is our opinions about Zelensky, there is no better alternative. Oh, well. We have to work with what we got.
The history of warfare has also enough examples of competence. But it is also a matter of weapon technology, which can have a lot of influence. And finally no matter how competent a 'general' can be, there is still the chance that someone at the final end of the chain of command ruins everything.
Regarding that war IMHO the RF has, luckily for Ukraine, fundamental problems just masked by it's size and the vast amount of resources it has at it's disposal.
Ukraine on the other hand has a problem with it's soviet legacy and it's upper military leadership.
As I don't know anything about the flow of information between military and political leadership I don't have enough information to come to a conclusion regarding the political side.
Thanks Tom and Don. Same old, same old. All the same since the end of the Kherson offensive. Drapatyi will do nothing because what has to be done, can only be done by the CinC. If Syrskyi was going to do anything, he would've already done it. Zelenskyy and Syrskyi are going to lose the war, which hand on heart, at the end of 2022, I considered impossible to f*** up. I gravely underestimated the level of retardation in the Ukrainian leadership. I truly wonder what they have spent their entire military careers on, other than drinking vodka, as they seem to not even have read any soviet manuals, on any topic. At least 2 years of having a numerical advantage overall, yet always being outnumbered on every section of every front. It is kind of an achievement. Like shoving a jar up ones...
It's important to keep everything in context and magnitude. These are issues that Ukraine has the ability to fix and create a more powerful army as a result. Ukraine also has many excellent brigades. Russia's problems are even bigger, with regards to both their army and economy. There's still a very good chance for Russia to lose the way things are. If Ukraine is able to theoretically fix all its problems, Russia's defeat will happen more quickly and with fewer Ukrainian casualties.
All issues I have been complaining about can be fixed by Ukraine. However, without getting the basics right, it doesn't matter they have some excellent brigades. They will squander them like the 72nd and the tactical level has very little impact on the strategic situation.
Russia has a completely different set of problems. Arguably bigger ones than Ukraine. However, while there definitely will come a time they cannot continue this war, it is highly unlikely they will be unable to hold territory. In such case, it'll just be a discussion of who lost this war more, instead of who won it.
I cannot stress this enough, with the current territorial situation, Ukraine is not a viable state. It's just a bigger Kosovo.
Yes it needs to come back to it's internationally accepted borders, which would give it the chance to be a very successful "petrol" state, which is exactly one of the resons why "Gollum" (aka Pudding" wants to finish it's existence.
Wasn't Zaluzhny doing a much better job than Syrskyi at this point? Is there any hope for his return? Sounds naive, I know... I can't help but wonder.
I think Zaluzhnyi never got a chance to rectify his mistakes. As well he was not a micromanager like Syrskyi. He was right about a lot of things before his depature, i.e national mobilization, reliance on domestic innovation
Nope. He's failed to stop Syrsky during the Bakhmut, and then didn't remove him when it was the time to do so.
Besides, nobody said Zaluzhny would've been a better solution (and I doubt he would be).
Sounds like Syrskyi is a good battalion or brigade commander but not the person you want to be Chief of Defence Forces. Great write up as always thank you
My victory. How to win this war
Dear ladies and gentlemen!
We, the International Legal Analytical Center, also have our own views on how to defeat the enemy in this war.
In this extremely difficult situation, the International Analytical Center for Law proposes to reinstate General Zaluzhnoluzhny and his entire team? Under him, we liberated Ukraine.
It would be nice.
More F-16s? More Leopard tanks?
Not exactly. Although, if instead of the F-16 and Mirage-2000 we got the Gripen, then:
would start shooting down enemy MiGs and Sus
would protect 00 from CABs
we would have gained air supremacy.
This is the main prerequisite for a counterattack.
What, a miracle happened, and the International Analytical Center for Law figured out how to create a staff with 5-6 effective managers and a kagal0m at the helm?
Unfortunately, no. We, the International Analytical Center for Law, have not yet figured out how to create a staff with 5-6 effective managers and a kagal0m at the head. However, uniting the world, and Europe above all, would be an extremely useful action.
Is Rammstein not enough as a group?
Not enough. The world believes the enemy's propaganda.
So what to do?
To speak to the world in a language it understands.
In English?
German?
No, politically correct!
How is that?
For example: don't call Vladimir Putin a "narrow-eyed, Asian, yellow-haired, circumcised, Mongolian monkey, very similar." This is not politically correct. Politically correct: yellow Asian Vladimir Putin.
For example: don't call French people niggers, but Afro-French people.
For example: don't call circumcised Muslims from Norway, but Norwegians of Asian descent. They were shot by the racist Anders Behring Breivik.
Ukraine must convey to Europe (and the world) that white Europeans have faced an attack from yellow Asians (Muscovites, Chinese, North Koreans, Iranians).
That this is the world's largest interracial war.
That this is the new Genghis Khan.
That Rus-Ukraine is once again bleeding, but is preventing Asia from conquering Europe.
That the defense of Europe is not only the business of Rus-Ukraine, but also of all of Europe (and the world).
What's up, all European troops should be in Ukraine by 00.
That we won't be able to sit out behind our backs.
Politically correct vocabulary has long been understood by Europe (and the world).
Politically correct vocabulary filters out the deceit of Muscovite propaganda.
Politically correct vocabulary creates the desired image in the minds of politicians.
Politically correct vocabulary doesn't require billions in weapons.
Politically correct language is worth billions in weapons.
We need to start talking.
Don't be silent.
Interestingly, 100% of the world's politicians do not comment on the Russian attempt to annex Ukraine in politically correct terms. Even such an authority as the Austrian analyst Tom Cooper avoids politically correct terms:
https://xxtomcooperxx.substack.com/
And why don't the servants still use such relevant and obvious vocabulary?
Ask something easier:
Why was General Zaluzhny and his entire team removed?
Why was Chongar demined?
Why Wagnergate?
Should we continue?
No. No need. So, don't the citizens of ... Ukraine and the EU understand this?
Read above.
Of course. How to do it? Who can do it?
Those MPs who travel abroad.
Not from the servants, of course, but ours.
The Council of Europe, the OSCE, Ramstein, US senators and congressmen, the UN, etc.
These are the platforms where you need to speak with politically correct vocabulary.
And encourage Europeans (and the world) to use politically correct language.
And the faster, the better.
Glory to Ukraine!
Thank you for the update. It is very hard and frustrating to read. Your analysis is detailed, supported by data and understandable. As well as uncomfortable. (I get suggestions here of unbiased, but I don’t feel that’s the right.) I see the gradual loss of the war here, but of course I don’t really see and know the Russian problems. But Ukraine must stop the slow grinding forward. Because it emboldens Putin, dishearts the Ukrainian soldiers and external supporters. Even if we say it’s small, just symbolic, trading land for soldiers etc it must be stopped. So Ukraine either needs some serious serious drone warfare break through, or some upgrade of its Army. I think actually the first is the most likely. Painful to watch and being powerless. Ok, onto the Ricsaws then. Only useful support.
Ukraine can't. It won't happen. Russia will continue to grind forward for years; realistically, it doesn't matter. No matter how disheartened we may be, Putin will accept no less than complete destruction of Ukraine and nobody will agree to that.
What we can is to influence public opinion to accept the long war and plan European budgets accordingly - grow mil-industrial complex.
The overall situation isn't without hope, the tide is slowly changing with the biggest problems on the ground, but those can be solved too. For this the decision makers need enough insight.
This war will decide the fate of Ukraine and still the outcome is not yet decided.
"What is with other 100+ brigades and independent battalions….?"
For a media president that is not important as there is no coverage by media, especially Western media. So it simply doesn't matter.
Just look back to Afghanistan. There were only glorious reports about how great and winning full everything is. If you left the space of statewide noticed media you got to independent reporting like yours, that displayed a different picture. A YouTube video named "this is what winning looks like" actually showed in 2012 all the problems that will lead to the eventual downfall.
Funny, how your reporting about Syrski reminds me of my former teacher for practical pomology. While grading how the pupils cut the trees (needs to be done annually in winter), he called those, that were only cosmetic and not changing the root of the problem of the tree, the "I don't dare" cut.
That was not ment to embarrass people, but to give them confidence to do the necessary stuff that needs to be done as the consequences of your actions won't vanish, but haunt you.