What scares me out of all of this is the "what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger" effect.
Russia was defeatable with what Ukraine had and quick issue of what the West had on hand and ready to send. They could have defeated Russia, or at least driven them out of mainland Ukraine and cut them off in Crimea-- any time from the first day of the full invasion to the completion of the Surovikin Line (100s of miles of defenses covered with 100,000s of mines.).
But no, Biden and Jake Sullivan were deterred by Putin's words.
So since then, even the idiots in Russia have begun to learn lessons. This is where a centralized system that is horrible on the battlefield pays dividends in the rear. They were able to ramp up war time production, change enough operationally and tactically, (While hiding behind the Surovikin Line) to stay in the fight. Long enough to change the calculus. Because a "man" in Russia is just as expendable as a mortar shell, they figured out that all they needed to do was be patient. Then they could also keep parts of Ukraine and test the west to see how they would react to another incursion, this time in a NATO country.
They confirmed that the west will act by committee. Deliberate, blame, talk tough, campaign, in-fight long enough for a bridge/beach head to be established in Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania. They will then stop Russia, allow Russia to keep its gains, and sue for peace in exchange to "save lives". In short, the west has given a master class in how to invite a future invasion. They have shown how slow they are in arming allies, how sanctions don't work, how to use our democratic systems against us.
If I were in the Baltics or in Taiwan, I would be scared. Very very scared. War by committee is what Putin was counting on. He was right.
Sure... he thought he would be in Kyiv in 3 days. But he also had played out other scenarios to make sure the invasion was a win-win even if it didn't meet its original objectives.
Just like a virus or bacterial infection you don't completely kill, it has grown stronger. The next time you have to face it, it will be stronger still. It will be the devil you don't know, instead of the devil you do.
The only thing good that is happened is the US DoD procurement system has been scrapped. A new crop of defense contractors has been born. They are leaner, faster, and better equipped to iterate.
Poland, militarily, has taken the Russian threat seriously. As has the Nords and the Baltics.
If they are smart, they will create a sub group of NATO, a defense alliance, that relies only on each other if NATO fails to act or deter. From Ukraine to Finland. Then, and only then, will I be sure that we are learning lessons at least as fast as Russia.
(Thank you Peter. I originally said Balkans instead of Baltics. )
Now you begin to see why a catastrophic election in the USA that rips the country in half could ironically improve the situation.
Imagine the 60% of US GDP and military might controlled by the Blue States coupled to the power and will of the countries that are right next to russia and China. Unity is futile when it produces leadership by committee.
But hey, I'm from the West Coast, the part of the country that still innovates.
Andrew, I love your writing, but the prospect of th US splitting up is close to zero. It may be the best way to go, but it’s not happening. What will happen is paralysis from continuing political division due to a 240 year old, unchanging governmental structure. BTW, I live in Seattle. Let’s Go METS!
As was said of the USSR until it was suddenly gone. Structural kabooms happen, and the USA's institutions are outdated as hell. Paralysis in a federation eventually leads to separation.
A third of Americans already support their region seceding (brightlinewatch actually studied this), so give the current federal deadlock another decade or two to fester and *someone* is going to decide to play 1861 on some level. Even Americans dialects are diverging, and language increasingly correlates with politics. Add in The Big Sort, growing wealth imbalances between regions - might take until the Boomer generation is gone, but the USA is already in the process of dividing.
Could happen when political entropy creates political imagination as an answer. Already there’s talk in East of the Cascades Oregon joining Idaho, but where to buy pot if that occurs?!
This was never the case. The what if scenarios never include Russia moving to defensive and calling a mobilisation în March instead of September after NATO sends all its weapons to Ukraine.
This is an industrial war and battles are not decisive. Industrial production of weapons is the key to victory.
I think you're talking about the Baltics here, not the Balkans.
I think it's too late for Russia to learn its lessons. People are too trusting to take Russian statements about their military production and general economy at face value. It was never Russian military production that scared the world, it was their inherited USSR stockpiles. With those almost spent Russia can't outproduce Germany, let alone the entire EU. I only hope Ukraine holds out long enough to see the fruits of their disposal of said stockpiles.
Thank you for your correction! That's what I get for writing in between classes instead of at my desk.
I think you are right. But what worries me is Russia becoming China's proxy trouble maker. Oil revenue plus becoming a full client of China means they could rearm very quickly.
Remains to be seen. But during this war it became quite obvious quality and volumes of modern Russian military tech is not up to standard. They're predominantly using USSR-built T-72, planes and artillery, and producing USSR-designed T-90 and Iskanders and re-labeled Chinese drones. They already have a war economy, full employment and secret Chinese funding, and they still barely manage to arm 10-20% of their army with Soviet tech from 1990, the rest being older stuff pulled out of stockpiles. I don't see the case for rapid rearmament, they're building too few stuff and too old stuff to be taken seriously.
Still the Nordics, Baltics, Poland and the Balkans have everything to gain from Russian defeat as that would make Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Kazakhstan and maybe even Belarus and Russia into proper trading partners. While a Russian victory will start a 2nd cold war where everyone outside the EU and NATO is too scared to confront Russia and can be strong-armed into being a Russian vassal. Russia will never have a fighting chance even agasints the EU, let alone NATO, but it's still capable of doing enough damage to make fighting them too costly to be worth it. And I imagine it has similar implications for Chinese neighbours being bullied even if not invaded.
(Have been taught that's the right reaction by readers here on this very blog, few weeks ago... so, don't blame me. I mean: alone the use of words 'Trump' and 'understands' in the same sentence is almost as good as any of good old Tom & Jerry cartoons...)
Trump is a f***ing moron [allegedly according to Rex Tillerson] who understands only his need for self-gratification. Toxic narcissist. IMHO he shares many charactistics with Adolf Hitler even if he is not (yet) a Jew killer.
Trump and Hitler? Don't talk nonsense. Trump is not a right-wing politician by any of the parameters, and even more so a nationalist. Idiot Trump and his team of idiots fighting for ordinary workers, for workers' power, isolationism, populism and incompetence makes him look more like the leaders of communism of socialism. It seems that the idiot Trump does not know that the structure of the economy has long changed and the simple worker no longer plays such an important role as before. That is why this idiot was constantly bankrupt, because he could not think strategically and only the money of the Kremlin gave him another chance to rise from the bottom. By the way, despite all the propaganda of the West, Putin is not a right-wing politician either, but a left-wing authoritarian despot.
I associated Trump with Hitler because both are/were misfits. Both are/were narcissists. I was not strictly equating Trump's political ideology with 20th Century German fascism. I am not sure that he actually possesses a political ideology other than a personalist Trump-ism itself. Trump first, formost, and only Trump. Loyalty flows in his direction only. Loyalty does not flow fromTrump outward. This is a true narcissist. Trump and his followers, nonetheless IMHO, are a bunch of fascists pragmatically. I opine that it is also convenient to call Putin a fascist, not that this ideological moniker means much. Putin is the head of a kleptocracy and wishes to remain so, or so this is the way it seems to me.
Trump today is pandering to a certain segment of ultra conservative or just plain far right wing interests. IIRC, Trump used to be a Democrat, not necessarily ideologically, but due to the elites with whom he chose to associate. All that stuff about workers, the economy, populism, and isolationism are not on Trump's personal radar, but are good only for his pandering for supporters. The Trump of today is living his latest reality TV series only it is not on TV. It's in the public space and our national and world politics.
Again, Trump is not concerned with ideology, but he is strictly concerned about himself and his own self-gratification, privately and publicly . Oh and I was not exhausting all that has been said, studied, opined, etc. about Hitler. Hitler ruined a nation. Trump, at this point, is no Hilter in the sense of having the power to ruin what Hitler ruined, or so I hope. Nonetheless, Trump, if re-elected, can potentially do considerable damage to U.S. foreign policy, especially in its participation with NATO. He destabilized the U.S. Constitution over his election denial and in instigating the Jan 6, 2021 Capitol Hill protest, riot, insurrection (pick your own choice of descriptors). I am not sure if Trump does not understand truly the consequences of his actions (i.e., he is a total idiot) or that understanding is irrelevant to him. It is just that he doesn't care about the consequences (i.e., he's a narcissist . . . perhaps even a sociopath).
The philosophy of Trumpism is very simple - it's trading your country left and right, as well as looting money from all corners where you can steal something. This is also the policy of Kissingerism. That is, it is not even a policy of double or triple standards, but a policy of absolute deception. By the way, don't think that you are the only one. Our Ukrainian former president, and now MP Poroshenko (Waltzman), also has such an approach to life, only to steal and trade his country in all directions. And you know what's the funniest thing? And the fact that the Jew Poroshenko with the Kremlin wallet Firtash and the Jewish oligarch Kolomoyskyi interfered in the US elections precisely on the side of Trump. That is why the Democrats, or rather the corporations behind them, took Kolomoysko by the ass. That is why Zelensky had to send his sponsor to prison. In the era of self-deception and deception, in the era of total lies, in the era of post-lies, you will not get other leaders except such idiots and looters.
The problem with these conservatives like Johnson and Rute is that the see politics as kind of holy fight between conservatives and the rest, so are able to join with devil just when he says he is a conservative. (BTW. Putin says it so, too.)
Naive question, but I have to ask it any way. What the hell happened regarding all that equipment and weaponry destined for Ukraine after the U.S. Congressional approval of $60 billion in aid?
Second set of naive questions: Perhaps I am too much into Carl von Clausewitz, but what is the center of gravity of the Russian military in Ukraine? What does Ukraine have to do to topple that C of G? Other than its propaganda value, it seems to me that the Ukrainian invasion of the Kurst Oblast is a distraction. How does the Kurst invasion degrade Russian "special military operations" in Eastern Ukraine? If Ukraine has all those UAVs available --limitations of parts from China notwithstanding--wouldn't the bulk of those plentiful UAVs be better used to degrade Russian artillery (tube and rocketry) and SEAD in Eastern Ukraine? I am not suggesting that UAV attacks on Russian assets in Russia itself--e.g., air bases, oil/gasoline facilities, and weapons depots, etc.--are not appropriate. I am also not suggesting that UAVs represent an adequate substitute for more powerful weaponry: artillery, rockets, missiles [SAM, AAM, ASM] etc.
Also, one basic truth about the Ukraine War that I have concluded: nations with nuclear weapons don't get invaded by other nations. So much for the noble, but naive goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons!
This would suggest that the only way to defeat the Russian army is to get rid of Putin. A military planner, however, must also conceive of a military way of countering the army of invasion too. E.g., gain air supremacy to total air supremacy then destroying Russian defensive & offensive assets from the air without overly losing one's own boots-on-the-ground until the condition are ripe for an offensive attack on the ground. Oh, and lots of artillery assets. Russians (and Ukrainians?) seem to appreciate the god of war.
My choice (no, I am not an air warfare/land warfare expert or specialist) is gaining at least air supremacy (more than air dominance) , but I doubt that the West has the balls to assist Ukraine toward this goal.
The air war needs 5-10 years to build the air force and I suppose 6 months to gain air supremacy. Ukraine could never build the air force without triggering the invasion.
The Russian Army was and is artillery heavy. You can defeat it by bringing more and better guns.
Re the hit of the 67th Arsenal, are there any confirmations of the damage? Usually, there will be some satellite photos published but this time I havens seen any
BTW, I'm also 'unprofessional' when I criticise Israel - especially because of my sarcasm in this regards. Nice to see the list of such attributes is constantly growing, all the time - almost as fast as the list of all the 'intelligence services for which I'm "working"'.
>> Major-General Freuding, something like ‘official commentator for Ukraine’ of the German Bundeswehr, was very happy, yesterday. He announced that the increased production and supply of artillery shells to Ukraine have significantly improved the situation on the frontlines. He said, early this year, Russia enjoyed an advantage of 8.1 in this regards, now it’s 3:1.
- I believe I have seen the same numbers in Ukrainian news a couple of weeks ago, but with very different explanation - they pronounced that as the result of the recent Ukrainian strikes on the Russian ammo depots...
In regards to the first part of the post Tom I love ya but I gotta say it: I’ve been reading your blog every day since shortly after the Ukraine war started and the tone of your writing in that time has gone from sarcastic to bitterly sarcastic to hair on fire 3 page long rants before getting to the war news. I think you need a take a little vacation or at least make yourself a stiff drink or smoke a joint.
That said, The Middle East is something everybody has an opinion and the keyboard warriors will fight to the death to prove you wrong. I don’t tell people shit about my opinions on the Middle East because you’re guaranteed to piss at least 50% of people (probably more if you’re insufficiently on that person’s side)
Well, I would say, my updates on Ukraine are 'mirroring' what do I get to hear. People are fed up 'to death' of all the BS they're forced to endure, and is still dumped upon them every day. So, kill me: I'll care as little as the GenStab-U cares about how many ZSU troops get killed.
And, re Middle East: yes that's the problem that people are superimposing their unsubstantiated opinions. Problem: I do not care about opinions. And here are facts: https://substack.com/home/post/p-149611813
I don't see why China must stop exports of drone parts to Ukraine (or Russia). They are happy to sell millions of these to both sides, supposedly non lethal stuff.
Russians flying over Ukrainian territory uncontested- seems the Ukrainians have finally run out of Soviet era SAMs. NATO deliveries including Frankensams have clearly not been sufficient to replace the old Soviet stocks let alone improve coverage and density.
Regarding the S70. AFAIK it wasn't shot down over Konstantynivka, but over Horlivka(12-20km from frontline ) area in occupied territory. Video shows that air-to-air missle didn't cause fatal damage instantly. There is also other videos where the S70 falls, rotating, already on Ukranian territory. Hence, in this case, systems like Buks would have to be in very dangerous 20 km area to shot down the plane, that likely was heavily supported with hammers. Systems like Patriots could work even from relatively safer 90 km zone, but yet it was a singular case of high altitude fighter without UMPK. It looks like Ukranians don't want to risk their Sam's, because everyone except Patriot and small range like Mistral are pointless for static frontline, because they deal either with long range UMPK strokes or low altitude su-25, sometimes with hidden helis, that now can also be damaged with cheaper and less noticable FPV teams. Anyway, it could be simply singular high risk move(likely the plane has maximal jamming protection), but in case of repetition ZSU can decide that ambushing plane or two is worthy to risk
Not disputing anything you are saying but in this case we had two targets (S70 and Su-??) approaching Ukrainian airspace.
Surely a viable target for ZSU.
And OK maybe BUKs weren't that close. But S300 is primary long range system for ZSU (not rare Patriot).
Tom is also reporting Tu-22Ms doing dumb bomb runs on Ukrainian targets.
So would appear Ukraine is no longer able to cover most of front with SAMs and that most numerous S300/BUK systems have been used up. West has not supplied enough Patriot, IRIS-T, I-Hawk or FrankenSam conversions to make up shortfall.
Dear Tom, many people already expressed the opinion that ZSU needs to migrate to divisional structure to avoid existing management chaos. Here is again: https://t.me/ssternenko/34772
We see that IDF is using divisional sctructure. You mentioned 4 divisions entering Lebanon, and that it is 40K soldiers.
ZSU probably at the moment has 100+ brigades, varying in numbers from 1K to 5K probably. And then some separate battalions, regiments, etc.
We see ru army has divisional and even army structures. Though it does not save them from tossing units here and there, and fighting in bits and pieces.
What is your opinion on the matter considering your observation of multiple modern time wars?
Divisions can be based either on Brigades or Regiments. The ones based on Brigades are more powerful but the Regiment option is the easier one, but a lot more taxing on the Division's staff (for example: Battalion commander in a Regiment vs Battalion commander in a Brigade). NATO style Brigades and Divisions have a much larger staff than Russian ones and I don't think Ukraine has enough staff officers to copy that model. They don't even have enough for their current Brigades, let alone for the proposed Divisions. Keep in mind that Ukraine was in the middle of a huge transformation program when the war broke out and they weren't ever near the Division level. A lot of officers were considered untrustworthy after 2014 and were removed. And now you also have to add up the losses.
Could you explain more why division structure is more taxing in terms of officers? As of now a lot of officers are sitting in various command/co-ordinate structures, being nit assignent to any brigade.
Currently there are some well trained and equipped brigades and pooorly so. Why not make a better brigade commander a division commander, while adding poorly made brigades under their command?
- I said that a Division based on Regiments is more taxing on the Division's staff than one based on Brigades. Why ? Because the Regiment's staff is much smaller, the units it commands are fewer, so it can't cope with the same amount or level of tasks. The Division's staff have to do a lot more in this situation. I'll give you an example at a lower level so you can see the difference. A battalion commander, part of a Brigade, is responsible for it's battalion battle planning and he has an adequate staff to do it. A battalion commander in a Regiment does not have the same staff structure, so he can't do it's own battle planning, the Regiment has to do it for him. What does this mean ? You can get away with having a less capable battalion commander in a Regiment structure because the Regiment staff does a lot of it's work for him.
- " a lot of officers are sitting in various command/co-ordinate structures, being nit assignent to any brigade." Don't you need those structures ? Are they irrelevant ? Keep in mind you can't make a logistics, intelligence or signals officer a mech. or tank Brigade commander. He does not have the training for it or if he has it, he does not have the "habits" to command such a force. Secondly, General Staff officers don't make good field commanders. Once you go through the General Staff Academy, you kind of loose the skills of a field commander and gain new ones that help you in your new role. Practice makes perfect ! Once you don't exercise it daily, you loose it.
- "Why not make a better brigade commander a division commander, while adding poorly made brigades under their command?" In war you can do almost whatever you like, but usually you won't make a Division commander from a Brigade one with just the stroke of a pen, without some extra training. While your experience will help, commanding a Division is a different animal altogether. Secondly, one man does not make the Division, you also have a large staff you need to work with and be able to rely on them. You can't do everything yourself. You can be Napoleon reborn, if your Arty Brigade commander or your Operations officer are idiots, things will not go well. You can't do everyone's jobs for them, it's impossible. NATO manuals say that you need at least 3-4 months of training and exercises before the the Division's staff starts to work well together and 5-6 months for Army Corp. In war, you can probably get away with less time but the corners cutting will show eventually. Win some-loose some.
- the difference in the quality of equipment between units is normal, even in peacetime. You will never be able to achieve uniformity. Of course a newly formed unit, with their latest, complete and clean equipment will look like Gods to their colleagues, who have been fighting for more than 2 years.
It seems that most of major breakouts since early 2023 were hapenning with rotating units in and out. Or some new or less trained units losing the positions. Now as understand around 20 km front is responsibility of 1 brigade, but then it needs to be rotated in and out. I qm wondering if having say 50 km to 1 division, consisting of approximately 3 brigades, would allow parts of the division to be in rear, and rotate in and out much smaller units, that would not lead to any major changes. While constantly replenishing and training new recruits at the same time as fighting.
This all meant for defensive operations.
Currently there is multiple levels of command structures, where commanders are not having responsibility for their people. Just "general managers". What if instead only division comnand and General staff would exist. Like division commander, who is field commander, only one level away from CinC by say sector commander.
Because people that are not ditectly responsible for other people and results at the same time, tend to keep their head in the clouds.
For offensive operations, unlike defensive, another system can be used. ru army for example tends to have 1 division attacking and 1 in the rear, and then rotating when first is exausted.
Yes, 15-20 km length of front is usually the responsibility of a Brigade. Here, also, there are 2 ways of doing it, NATO and Soviet, with some differences between these 2 styles. Russians do it like this: 1st echelon (2 infantry battalions), 2nd echelon (1 infantry battalion) and logistics and reserve in the 3rd, 2 km between depth between the echelons. Tanks usually sit in 2nd echelon and are moved in the 1st line only if you are expecting a powerful attack or your own counter attack to exploit. NATO puts all the best units in the 1st echelon and leaves the logistics and the reserve in the 2nd.
Training and replenishment cannot be done in the depth of a Division's defensive perimeter, you need to do it much further back, at least 90-100 km behind the front line, but better 150 km + (Army level perimeter).
I have serious doubts that the Russians are attacking during rotation, because in that period of time you should have double the amount of troops in the same area (the ones going in and the ones going out). What you can do, if you find that exact moment, is to blast them with artillery. Most likely they are attacking right after the rotation is finished and after they are identifying the weakest unit in the area. This can be facilitated by the laziness or plain stupidity or lack of knowledge of different commanders: positions are not marked correctly or updated, daily missions are not comprehensive enough, mine fields are not marked correctly or updated, they don't know how to do cooperation the right way (with who is replacing them or with their left and right) etc. Sometimes, shit happens whatever you do, vegetation or other markers change because of past battles or passing of seasons, for example.
What scares me out of all of this is the "what doesn't kill you, makes you stronger" effect.
Russia was defeatable with what Ukraine had and quick issue of what the West had on hand and ready to send. They could have defeated Russia, or at least driven them out of mainland Ukraine and cut them off in Crimea-- any time from the first day of the full invasion to the completion of the Surovikin Line (100s of miles of defenses covered with 100,000s of mines.).
But no, Biden and Jake Sullivan were deterred by Putin's words.
So since then, even the idiots in Russia have begun to learn lessons. This is where a centralized system that is horrible on the battlefield pays dividends in the rear. They were able to ramp up war time production, change enough operationally and tactically, (While hiding behind the Surovikin Line) to stay in the fight. Long enough to change the calculus. Because a "man" in Russia is just as expendable as a mortar shell, they figured out that all they needed to do was be patient. Then they could also keep parts of Ukraine and test the west to see how they would react to another incursion, this time in a NATO country.
They confirmed that the west will act by committee. Deliberate, blame, talk tough, campaign, in-fight long enough for a bridge/beach head to be established in Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania. They will then stop Russia, allow Russia to keep its gains, and sue for peace in exchange to "save lives". In short, the west has given a master class in how to invite a future invasion. They have shown how slow they are in arming allies, how sanctions don't work, how to use our democratic systems against us.
If I were in the Baltics or in Taiwan, I would be scared. Very very scared. War by committee is what Putin was counting on. He was right.
Sure... he thought he would be in Kyiv in 3 days. But he also had played out other scenarios to make sure the invasion was a win-win even if it didn't meet its original objectives.
Just like a virus or bacterial infection you don't completely kill, it has grown stronger. The next time you have to face it, it will be stronger still. It will be the devil you don't know, instead of the devil you do.
The only thing good that is happened is the US DoD procurement system has been scrapped. A new crop of defense contractors has been born. They are leaner, faster, and better equipped to iterate.
Poland, militarily, has taken the Russian threat seriously. As has the Nords and the Baltics.
If they are smart, they will create a sub group of NATO, a defense alliance, that relies only on each other if NATO fails to act or deter. From Ukraine to Finland. Then, and only then, will I be sure that we are learning lessons at least as fast as Russia.
(Thank you Peter. I originally said Balkans instead of Baltics. )
Now you begin to see why a catastrophic election in the USA that rips the country in half could ironically improve the situation.
Imagine the 60% of US GDP and military might controlled by the Blue States coupled to the power and will of the countries that are right next to russia and China. Unity is futile when it produces leadership by committee.
But hey, I'm from the West Coast, the part of the country that still innovates.
Andrew, I love your writing, but the prospect of th US splitting up is close to zero. It may be the best way to go, but it’s not happening. What will happen is paralysis from continuing political division due to a 240 year old, unchanging governmental structure. BTW, I live in Seattle. Let’s Go METS!
As was said of the USSR until it was suddenly gone. Structural kabooms happen, and the USA's institutions are outdated as hell. Paralysis in a federation eventually leads to separation.
A third of Americans already support their region seceding (brightlinewatch actually studied this), so give the current federal deadlock another decade or two to fester and *someone* is going to decide to play 1861 on some level. Even Americans dialects are diverging, and language increasingly correlates with politics. Add in The Big Sort, growing wealth imbalances between regions - might take until the Boomer generation is gone, but the USA is already in the process of dividing.
Could happen when political entropy creates political imagination as an answer. Already there’s talk in East of the Cascades Oregon joining Idaho, but where to buy pot if that occurs?!
This was never the case. The what if scenarios never include Russia moving to defensive and calling a mobilisation în March instead of September after NATO sends all its weapons to Ukraine.
This is an industrial war and battles are not decisive. Industrial production of weapons is the key to victory.
I think you're talking about the Baltics here, not the Balkans.
I think it's too late for Russia to learn its lessons. People are too trusting to take Russian statements about their military production and general economy at face value. It was never Russian military production that scared the world, it was their inherited USSR stockpiles. With those almost spent Russia can't outproduce Germany, let alone the entire EU. I only hope Ukraine holds out long enough to see the fruits of their disposal of said stockpiles.
Thank you for your correction! That's what I get for writing in between classes instead of at my desk.
I think you are right. But what worries me is Russia becoming China's proxy trouble maker. Oil revenue plus becoming a full client of China means they could rearm very quickly.
Remains to be seen. But during this war it became quite obvious quality and volumes of modern Russian military tech is not up to standard. They're predominantly using USSR-built T-72, planes and artillery, and producing USSR-designed T-90 and Iskanders and re-labeled Chinese drones. They already have a war economy, full employment and secret Chinese funding, and they still barely manage to arm 10-20% of their army with Soviet tech from 1990, the rest being older stuff pulled out of stockpiles. I don't see the case for rapid rearmament, they're building too few stuff and too old stuff to be taken seriously.
Still the Nordics, Baltics, Poland and the Balkans have everything to gain from Russian defeat as that would make Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia, Kazakhstan and maybe even Belarus and Russia into proper trading partners. While a Russian victory will start a 2nd cold war where everyone outside the EU and NATO is too scared to confront Russia and can be strong-armed into being a Russian vassal. Russia will never have a fighting chance even agasints the EU, let alone NATO, but it's still capable of doing enough damage to make fighting them too costly to be worth it. And I imagine it has similar implications for Chinese neighbours being bullied even if not invaded.
New NATO boss Mark Rutte says that "Trump understands completely and agrees with me that this fight to Ukraine is not only about Ukraine, it's also about the safety and the future security of the United States." https://www.politico.eu/article/nato-boss-mark-rutte-dont-worry-about-trump/
Ha ha ha. (That was not me, but someone in Kremlin).
Muwuahahahahaa!
(Have been taught that's the right reaction by readers here on this very blog, few weeks ago... so, don't blame me. I mean: alone the use of words 'Trump' and 'understands' in the same sentence is almost as good as any of good old Tom & Jerry cartoons...)
Trump is a f***ing moron [allegedly according to Rex Tillerson] who understands only his need for self-gratification. Toxic narcissist. IMHO he shares many charactistics with Adolf Hitler even if he is not (yet) a Jew killer.
Trump and Hitler? Don't talk nonsense. Trump is not a right-wing politician by any of the parameters, and even more so a nationalist. Idiot Trump and his team of idiots fighting for ordinary workers, for workers' power, isolationism, populism and incompetence makes him look more like the leaders of communism of socialism. It seems that the idiot Trump does not know that the structure of the economy has long changed and the simple worker no longer plays such an important role as before. That is why this idiot was constantly bankrupt, because he could not think strategically and only the money of the Kremlin gave him another chance to rise from the bottom. By the way, despite all the propaganda of the West, Putin is not a right-wing politician either, but a left-wing authoritarian despot.
I associated Trump with Hitler because both are/were misfits. Both are/were narcissists. I was not strictly equating Trump's political ideology with 20th Century German fascism. I am not sure that he actually possesses a political ideology other than a personalist Trump-ism itself. Trump first, formost, and only Trump. Loyalty flows in his direction only. Loyalty does not flow fromTrump outward. This is a true narcissist. Trump and his followers, nonetheless IMHO, are a bunch of fascists pragmatically. I opine that it is also convenient to call Putin a fascist, not that this ideological moniker means much. Putin is the head of a kleptocracy and wishes to remain so, or so this is the way it seems to me.
Trump today is pandering to a certain segment of ultra conservative or just plain far right wing interests. IIRC, Trump used to be a Democrat, not necessarily ideologically, but due to the elites with whom he chose to associate. All that stuff about workers, the economy, populism, and isolationism are not on Trump's personal radar, but are good only for his pandering for supporters. The Trump of today is living his latest reality TV series only it is not on TV. It's in the public space and our national and world politics.
Again, Trump is not concerned with ideology, but he is strictly concerned about himself and his own self-gratification, privately and publicly . Oh and I was not exhausting all that has been said, studied, opined, etc. about Hitler. Hitler ruined a nation. Trump, at this point, is no Hilter in the sense of having the power to ruin what Hitler ruined, or so I hope. Nonetheless, Trump, if re-elected, can potentially do considerable damage to U.S. foreign policy, especially in its participation with NATO. He destabilized the U.S. Constitution over his election denial and in instigating the Jan 6, 2021 Capitol Hill protest, riot, insurrection (pick your own choice of descriptors). I am not sure if Trump does not understand truly the consequences of his actions (i.e., he is a total idiot) or that understanding is irrelevant to him. It is just that he doesn't care about the consequences (i.e., he's a narcissist . . . perhaps even a sociopath).
The philosophy of Trumpism is very simple - it's trading your country left and right, as well as looting money from all corners where you can steal something. This is also the policy of Kissingerism. That is, it is not even a policy of double or triple standards, but a policy of absolute deception. By the way, don't think that you are the only one. Our Ukrainian former president, and now MP Poroshenko (Waltzman), also has such an approach to life, only to steal and trade his country in all directions. And you know what's the funniest thing? And the fact that the Jew Poroshenko with the Kremlin wallet Firtash and the Jewish oligarch Kolomoyskyi interfered in the US elections precisely on the side of Trump. That is why the Democrats, or rather the corporations behind them, took Kolomoysko by the ass. That is why Zelensky had to send his sponsor to prison. In the era of self-deception and deception, in the era of total lies, in the era of post-lies, you will not get other leaders except such idiots and looters.
And that was the best damn description on Trumpty-dumpty I have ever read. Thanks mate.
An add-on... please, check this feature by Heather Cox Richardson:
https://substack.com/home/post/p-150042173
Abu Ivanka Al Amreeki bequeaths to treat coronavirus with sunlight and disinfectants. Trump himself is being treated with urinotherapy for prevention.
Yep, crooked totally, just can attract masses. (BTW. that's similarity to Hitler and other similar characters). And sold is soul to Russia years ago, already https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/trumps-businesses-are-full-of-dirty-russian-money-the-scandal-is-thats-legal/2019/03/29/11b812da-5171-11e9-88a1-ed346f0ec94f_story.html
The problem with these conservatives like Johnson and Rute is that the see politics as kind of holy fight between conservatives and the rest, so are able to join with devil just when he says he is a conservative. (BTW. Putin says it so, too.)
Trump is kgb asset
Naive question, but I have to ask it any way. What the hell happened regarding all that equipment and weaponry destined for Ukraine after the U.S. Congressional approval of $60 billion in aid?
Second set of naive questions: Perhaps I am too much into Carl von Clausewitz, but what is the center of gravity of the Russian military in Ukraine? What does Ukraine have to do to topple that C of G? Other than its propaganda value, it seems to me that the Ukrainian invasion of the Kurst Oblast is a distraction. How does the Kurst invasion degrade Russian "special military operations" in Eastern Ukraine? If Ukraine has all those UAVs available --limitations of parts from China notwithstanding--wouldn't the bulk of those plentiful UAVs be better used to degrade Russian artillery (tube and rocketry) and SEAD in Eastern Ukraine? I am not suggesting that UAV attacks on Russian assets in Russia itself--e.g., air bases, oil/gasoline facilities, and weapons depots, etc.--are not appropriate. I am also not suggesting that UAVs represent an adequate substitute for more powerful weaponry: artillery, rockets, missiles [SAM, AAM, ASM] etc.
Also, one basic truth about the Ukraine War that I have concluded: nations with nuclear weapons don't get invaded by other nations. So much for the noble, but naive goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons!
The Russian center of gravity is Putin. If Putin looses support from the Russian Tom, Jennifer and Mike Commons people than the army collapses.
This would suggest that the only way to defeat the Russian army is to get rid of Putin. A military planner, however, must also conceive of a military way of countering the army of invasion too. E.g., gain air supremacy to total air supremacy then destroying Russian defensive & offensive assets from the air without overly losing one's own boots-on-the-ground until the condition are ripe for an offensive attack on the ground. Oh, and lots of artillery assets. Russians (and Ukrainians?) seem to appreciate the god of war.
My choice (no, I am not an air warfare/land warfare expert or specialist) is gaining at least air supremacy (more than air dominance) , but I doubt that the West has the balls to assist Ukraine toward this goal.
The air war needs 5-10 years to build the air force and I suppose 6 months to gain air supremacy. Ukraine could never build the air force without triggering the invasion.
The Russian Army was and is artillery heavy. You can defeat it by bringing more and better guns.
Thanks Tom,
Re the hit of the 67th Arsenal, are there any confirmations of the damage? Usually, there will be some satellite photos published but this time I havens seen any
Haven't seen any clearly showing the damage - yet.
Yep, I thought that if it was hard hit, the flames will be there at least for a day and the satellite images will clearly show it.
There is satellite image. 2 hangars destroyed, looks like the storage was half empty. Anyway, looks like it will start simply empty
Isn't it fun how the Israel fans all use the same boring arguments? Anyone who criticizes Israel's policy is arrogant, a conspiracy theorist, so on.
Geopolitics as sports is great, isn't it? Especially when the fans aren't the ones who have to bleed.
Absolutely. Laughing all the day, already.
BTW, I'm also 'unprofessional' when I criticise Israel - especially because of my sarcasm in this regards. Nice to see the list of such attributes is constantly growing, all the time - almost as fast as the list of all the 'intelligence services for which I'm "working"'.
Makes me wonder what the characters in question would've done if I would have added this link: https://idf-tweets-gaza.airwars.org/
Of course, it's obvious that and we have to repeat:
A. Criticising Israel is not is not anti-Semitism.
But never forget to add:
B: Anti-Semitism is often hidden behind "just criticising Israel" nowadays.
So, be careful about those "B." type folks, too.
>> Major-General Freuding, something like ‘official commentator for Ukraine’ of the German Bundeswehr, was very happy, yesterday. He announced that the increased production and supply of artillery shells to Ukraine have significantly improved the situation on the frontlines. He said, early this year, Russia enjoyed an advantage of 8.1 in this regards, now it’s 3:1.
- I believe I have seen the same numbers in Ukrainian news a couple of weeks ago, but with very different explanation - they pronounced that as the result of the recent Ukrainian strikes on the Russian ammo depots...
Ah, that would be a classic of correlation vs. Causation or simply putting on someone else's feathers.
I hope the Patriot elements hit were not from the Romanian battery recently sent over. It was the latest version with the latest missiles, new.
In regards to the first part of the post Tom I love ya but I gotta say it: I’ve been reading your blog every day since shortly after the Ukraine war started and the tone of your writing in that time has gone from sarcastic to bitterly sarcastic to hair on fire 3 page long rants before getting to the war news. I think you need a take a little vacation or at least make yourself a stiff drink or smoke a joint.
That said, The Middle East is something everybody has an opinion and the keyboard warriors will fight to the death to prove you wrong. I don’t tell people shit about my opinions on the Middle East because you’re guaranteed to piss at least 50% of people (probably more if you’re insufficiently on that person’s side)
Well, I would say, my updates on Ukraine are 'mirroring' what do I get to hear. People are fed up 'to death' of all the BS they're forced to endure, and is still dumped upon them every day. So, kill me: I'll care as little as the GenStab-U cares about how many ZSU troops get killed.
And, re Middle East: yes that's the problem that people are superimposing their unsubstantiated opinions. Problem: I do not care about opinions. And here are facts: https://substack.com/home/post/p-149611813
I don't see why China must stop exports of drone parts to Ukraine (or Russia). They are happy to sell millions of these to both sides, supposedly non lethal stuff.
First time i am much more pessimistic than Tom. "Positive developments" looks like nothing to me. The will not there and will never be,it seems.
Perhaps the Ukrainians will soon be able to get their UAVs to target the Kremlin directly and hand Putin a greeting card in person...
It was targeted by one of the very first drones for no effect.
Let’s hope for the best—it doesn’t seem like the Iskander scored a direct hit. Although, with such behavior, sooner or later it will happen.
Russians flying over Ukrainian territory uncontested- seems the Ukrainians have finally run out of Soviet era SAMs. NATO deliveries including Frankensams have clearly not been sufficient to replace the old Soviet stocks let alone improve coverage and density.
Regarding the S70. AFAIK it wasn't shot down over Konstantynivka, but over Horlivka(12-20km from frontline ) area in occupied territory. Video shows that air-to-air missle didn't cause fatal damage instantly. There is also other videos where the S70 falls, rotating, already on Ukranian territory. Hence, in this case, systems like Buks would have to be in very dangerous 20 km area to shot down the plane, that likely was heavily supported with hammers. Systems like Patriots could work even from relatively safer 90 km zone, but yet it was a singular case of high altitude fighter without UMPK. It looks like Ukranians don't want to risk their Sam's, because everyone except Patriot and small range like Mistral are pointless for static frontline, because they deal either with long range UMPK strokes or low altitude su-25, sometimes with hidden helis, that now can also be damaged with cheaper and less noticable FPV teams. Anyway, it could be simply singular high risk move(likely the plane has maximal jamming protection), but in case of repetition ZSU can decide that ambushing plane or two is worthy to risk
Not disputing anything you are saying but in this case we had two targets (S70 and Su-??) approaching Ukrainian airspace.
Surely a viable target for ZSU.
And OK maybe BUKs weren't that close. But S300 is primary long range system for ZSU (not rare Patriot).
Tom is also reporting Tu-22Ms doing dumb bomb runs on Ukrainian targets.
So would appear Ukraine is no longer able to cover most of front with SAMs and that most numerous S300/BUK systems have been used up. West has not supplied enough Patriot, IRIS-T, I-Hawk or FrankenSam conversions to make up shortfall.
Russia still has 900 tactical aircraft.
The Russians counterattacked and gained up to 10 km in Kursk region https://meduza.io/feature/2024/10/11/rossiyskie-voyska-nachali-novoe-masshtabnoe-nastuplenie-v-kurskoy-oblasti
Not a good development...
Dear Tom, many people already expressed the opinion that ZSU needs to migrate to divisional structure to avoid existing management chaos. Here is again: https://t.me/ssternenko/34772
We see that IDF is using divisional sctructure. You mentioned 4 divisions entering Lebanon, and that it is 40K soldiers.
ZSU probably at the moment has 100+ brigades, varying in numbers from 1K to 5K probably. And then some separate battalions, regiments, etc.
We see ru army has divisional and even army structures. Though it does not save them from tossing units here and there, and fighting in bits and pieces.
What is your opinion on the matter considering your observation of multiple modern time wars?
Divisions can be based either on Brigades or Regiments. The ones based on Brigades are more powerful but the Regiment option is the easier one, but a lot more taxing on the Division's staff (for example: Battalion commander in a Regiment vs Battalion commander in a Brigade). NATO style Brigades and Divisions have a much larger staff than Russian ones and I don't think Ukraine has enough staff officers to copy that model. They don't even have enough for their current Brigades, let alone for the proposed Divisions. Keep in mind that Ukraine was in the middle of a huge transformation program when the war broke out and they weren't ever near the Division level. A lot of officers were considered untrustworthy after 2014 and were removed. And now you also have to add up the losses.
Could you explain more why division structure is more taxing in terms of officers? As of now a lot of officers are sitting in various command/co-ordinate structures, being nit assignent to any brigade.
Currently there are some well trained and equipped brigades and pooorly so. Why not make a better brigade commander a division commander, while adding poorly made brigades under their command?
Let's take things step by step:
- I said that a Division based on Regiments is more taxing on the Division's staff than one based on Brigades. Why ? Because the Regiment's staff is much smaller, the units it commands are fewer, so it can't cope with the same amount or level of tasks. The Division's staff have to do a lot more in this situation. I'll give you an example at a lower level so you can see the difference. A battalion commander, part of a Brigade, is responsible for it's battalion battle planning and he has an adequate staff to do it. A battalion commander in a Regiment does not have the same staff structure, so he can't do it's own battle planning, the Regiment has to do it for him. What does this mean ? You can get away with having a less capable battalion commander in a Regiment structure because the Regiment staff does a lot of it's work for him.
- " a lot of officers are sitting in various command/co-ordinate structures, being nit assignent to any brigade." Don't you need those structures ? Are they irrelevant ? Keep in mind you can't make a logistics, intelligence or signals officer a mech. or tank Brigade commander. He does not have the training for it or if he has it, he does not have the "habits" to command such a force. Secondly, General Staff officers don't make good field commanders. Once you go through the General Staff Academy, you kind of loose the skills of a field commander and gain new ones that help you in your new role. Practice makes perfect ! Once you don't exercise it daily, you loose it.
- "Why not make a better brigade commander a division commander, while adding poorly made brigades under their command?" In war you can do almost whatever you like, but usually you won't make a Division commander from a Brigade one with just the stroke of a pen, without some extra training. While your experience will help, commanding a Division is a different animal altogether. Secondly, one man does not make the Division, you also have a large staff you need to work with and be able to rely on them. You can't do everything yourself. You can be Napoleon reborn, if your Arty Brigade commander or your Operations officer are idiots, things will not go well. You can't do everyone's jobs for them, it's impossible. NATO manuals say that you need at least 3-4 months of training and exercises before the the Division's staff starts to work well together and 5-6 months for Army Corp. In war, you can probably get away with less time but the corners cutting will show eventually. Win some-loose some.
- the difference in the quality of equipment between units is normal, even in peacetime. You will never be able to achieve uniformity. Of course a newly formed unit, with their latest, complete and clean equipment will look like Gods to their colleagues, who have been fighting for more than 2 years.
It seems that most of major breakouts since early 2023 were hapenning with rotating units in and out. Or some new or less trained units losing the positions. Now as understand around 20 km front is responsibility of 1 brigade, but then it needs to be rotated in and out. I qm wondering if having say 50 km to 1 division, consisting of approximately 3 brigades, would allow parts of the division to be in rear, and rotate in and out much smaller units, that would not lead to any major changes. While constantly replenishing and training new recruits at the same time as fighting.
This all meant for defensive operations.
Currently there is multiple levels of command structures, where commanders are not having responsibility for their people. Just "general managers". What if instead only division comnand and General staff would exist. Like division commander, who is field commander, only one level away from CinC by say sector commander.
Because people that are not ditectly responsible for other people and results at the same time, tend to keep their head in the clouds.
For offensive operations, unlike defensive, another system can be used. ru army for example tends to have 1 division attacking and 1 in the rear, and then rotating when first is exausted.
Yes, 15-20 km length of front is usually the responsibility of a Brigade. Here, also, there are 2 ways of doing it, NATO and Soviet, with some differences between these 2 styles. Russians do it like this: 1st echelon (2 infantry battalions), 2nd echelon (1 infantry battalion) and logistics and reserve in the 3rd, 2 km between depth between the echelons. Tanks usually sit in 2nd echelon and are moved in the 1st line only if you are expecting a powerful attack or your own counter attack to exploit. NATO puts all the best units in the 1st echelon and leaves the logistics and the reserve in the 2nd.
Training and replenishment cannot be done in the depth of a Division's defensive perimeter, you need to do it much further back, at least 90-100 km behind the front line, but better 150 km + (Army level perimeter).
I have serious doubts that the Russians are attacking during rotation, because in that period of time you should have double the amount of troops in the same area (the ones going in and the ones going out). What you can do, if you find that exact moment, is to blast them with artillery. Most likely they are attacking right after the rotation is finished and after they are identifying the weakest unit in the area. This can be facilitated by the laziness or plain stupidity or lack of knowledge of different commanders: positions are not marked correctly or updated, daily missions are not comprehensive enough, mine fields are not marked correctly or updated, they don't know how to do cooperation the right way (with who is replacing them or with their left and right) etc. Sometimes, shit happens whatever you do, vegetation or other markers change because of past battles or passing of seasons, for example.
If I had to guess, the penetration of Ukrainian airspace by the big drone and interceptor is a step in the VKS F-16 liquidation program.