The Russians may figure they can win this war by not losing. That will lead them to take a low risk approach. If you surveyed experts, five years ago, how many of them would’ve said that we can learn valuable lessons for the largest ongoing contemporary war from General Petain? Zero, probably.
(I am reminded of the story of Charles DeGaulle, visiting a dying general Pershing in Walter Reed Army Hospital. Pershing was not entirely lucid, and at one point he asked general DeGaulle how his old friend Marshall Petain was doing. General DeGaulle, the embodiment of exquisite French tact, responded that the last time he saw the Marshall he was well.)
"Slow boil kettle" is good. With your permission, I will put it to good use. (I like the others as well. However, as I live in perpetual peril of sounding like one of the Katzenjammer Kids, I am reluctant to add another Teutonic expression to my active vocabulary.)
The patience shown by the Russians is impressive to say the least. They have more resources than Ukraine and support for the latter is slowly fading so a Russian “victory” seems to be a matter of time. Given this, a negotiated peace seems to be a sound and logical next step but I don’t see this happening. I read yesterday that England is sending troops to the fight. I haven’t verified this yet and I hope it’s not true. This would be a clear escalation and will make peace more difficult.
If you go back to WW1 , the Australians by 1918 were practicing “peaceful penetration*” tactics of infiltration behind the German positions then take them by surprise with little bloodshed.
This allowed the Australians over time to incrementally advance one bite at a time. This might have been less successful with the German troops of 1916, but they defensively peaked at the Somme per their own accounts and declined after that, simple exhaustion. In summary outposts and positions were taken from behind and infiltration and seeing it hopeless gave up, the Australians advanced this way entire front sectors.
> this would not have worked against infantry willing to die.
There is you see an argument for short wars after all…
*sarcasm, peaceful penetration was pre-war German term for their gradual expansion of African colonies.
The Russians may figure they can win this war by not losing. That will lead them to take a low risk approach. If you surveyed experts, five years ago, how many of them would’ve said that we can learn valuable lessons for the largest ongoing contemporary war from General Petain? Zero, probably.
(I am reminded of the story of Charles DeGaulle, visiting a dying general Pershing in Walter Reed Army Hospital. Pershing was not entirely lucid, and at one point he asked general DeGaulle how his old friend Marshall Petain was doing. General DeGaulle, the embodiment of exquisite French tact, responded that the last time he saw the Marshall he was well.)
The Russians do like slow motion envelopments.
Slow boil Kettles?
Kessel langsam kochen?
>langsamer Kessel< 👍🏻
need something catchy, this will happen again.
"Slow boil kettle" is good. With your permission, I will put it to good use. (I like the others as well. However, as I live in perpetual peril of sounding like one of the Katzenjammer Kids, I am reluctant to add another Teutonic expression to my active vocabulary.)
Rock it
Yes, anything I post is for use by others. Especially MIL, especially US. And you.
Maybe do Empty theater (it means everyone hides from drones ISR etc for the reader especially logistics)
Maybe empty theater would sound better in French?
No idea
This approach would certainly be better than the grignotage approach employed by Joffre and G.Q.G. circa 1915.
Good thinking.
The patience shown by the Russians is impressive to say the least. They have more resources than Ukraine and support for the latter is slowly fading so a Russian “victory” seems to be a matter of time. Given this, a negotiated peace seems to be a sound and logical next step but I don’t see this happening. I read yesterday that England is sending troops to the fight. I haven’t verified this yet and I hope it’s not true. This would be a clear escalation and will make peace more difficult.
zone de guerre vide
(Empty warzone)
Théâtre vide
(Empty Theater)
Guerre Vide
(Empty War)
Now watch, if the Russians win, Russian terms will get picked up and bandied as magic incantations in every direction.
If you go back to WW1 , the Australians by 1918 were practicing “peaceful penetration*” tactics of infiltration behind the German positions then take them by surprise with little bloodshed.
This allowed the Australians over time to incrementally advance one bite at a time. This might have been less successful with the German troops of 1916, but they defensively peaked at the Somme per their own accounts and declined after that, simple exhaustion. In summary outposts and positions were taken from behind and infiltration and seeing it hopeless gave up, the Australians advanced this way entire front sectors.
> this would not have worked against infantry willing to die.
There is you see an argument for short wars after all…
*sarcasm, peaceful penetration was pre-war German term for their gradual expansion of African colonies.
Here’s a Wiki. Best I can find.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peaceful_penetration