Dec 23, 2022Liked by Bruce Ivar Gudmundsson, Bruce I. Gudmundsson
The difference is that unlike the French and Germans, the Ukrainians can't really reply. So it becomes a one-sided grind that risks few lives on the Russian side, while making progress on the overarching "demilitarization" war goal.
At the operational level, disabling electric infrastructure cuts enemy logistics mobility and threatens to weaponize waves of refugee immivaders westward.
At the strategic level, the slow speed prolongs their enemies' lock-in to economically and politically ruinous policies that widen societal fractures among their enemies.
The Russians appear to have the proper context for this approach. Tactical grind, operational disarticulation, strategic pin.
Except the Ukrainians can reply; they have a stock of Soviet-era heavy artillery, and NATO is testing their heavy guns and modern ammo in the conflict. HIMARS just happens to be the most high-profile.
Furthermore, Russia's artillery is hitting minute-of-city-block, while Ukraine has developed faster targeting systems to shoot back with. The Ukrainians are hitting minute-of-armored-vehicle. Who wins?
Disabling Ukraine's electricity is not going to cut their logistics mobility any more than it did in 1914. Modern armies don't plug into civilian power grids.
Strategically, the invasion has indeed exacerbated fissions between allies, but hardly to the breaking point. It is, however, telling China that they may suffer the same fate if they invade Taiwan in the near future.
Putin isn't an idiot, but this isn't him being particularly skillful either. He wanted a quick easy victory. Instead he lost 100,000 men, lots of equipment (to the point where it can reliably supply some units), and his armies are retreating and desperately trying to entrench to avoid losing their pre-invasion gains.
Show me any CNN news article that says any of that. If you can.
Or, better yet, disprove any of it! Show me military personnel using civilian electrical grids. Or how Ukraine is hitting minute-of-city-block with its HIMARS. If you can.
LOL, most of the western weapons are rusting, burnt out junk at this point. The few remaining HIMARS are overrated garbage and Russia regularly shoots down the rockets. A few batteries of "advanced" western "wunderwaffe" are not going to make a whit of difference when Russia has Ukraine outgunned 6:1 (or greater) and has guns and MLRS of equal or greater technological advancement.
The west is almost out of new arty to send as Russia increasingly deploys more, and more modern artillery. Ukraine is increasingly moving D-30 and D-20 guns out of storage as the US considers sending M114. As Russia is using more and more 152mm+ guns and 300mm+ rockets Ukes are regressing to 122/105mm guns and 122mm rockets. The disparity is getting greater and greater while the Russians have increasingly all-seeing ISR while the Ukes are having their nuked by a wall of Russian ECM.
I see you haven't actually shown any connection to CNN, you just pulled it (as well as many of your following arguments) out of your backside.
If you think the handful of tanks and APCs that got shot up several weeks ago is "most of the western weapons," then you clearly don't realize how much Ukraine actually has. The stocks are much larger than that.
Second, how are HIMARS overrated junk? Russia has done an excellent job of shooting down the rockets with their generals and command posts. Interceptors? Not so much.
Being outgunned 6:1 only matters if the 6 guns can hit what they shoot at. The Russians are not hitting what they shoot at nearly as often as the Ukrainians.
The west is not "almost out of artillery," and Russia is not fielding more modern pieces. The Russians' stuff is the same models they've had since the 1970s-80s, and they're importing ammo from North Korea and drones from Iran. Their own industrial base needs outside help, too.
The Russians' ISR is comprised of stuff you can buy on the cheaper end of the civilian market. Russian children are making trench candles because whenever the Russians try to use electrical lighting, the Ukrainians hit them with a single artillery shot that obliterates the bunker.
Also, the Russians' famed ECMs were not purchased by China because... they didn't actually work.
It's fun to pretend Russia is battle-hardened and doesn't waste resources on wunderwaffen, but it's all hype and PR. They keep losing to militia (Chechnya and Mariupol) and their increasingly bizarre attempts to overcome their institutional flaws is meme-worthy.
The difference is that unlike the French and Germans, the Ukrainians can't really reply. So it becomes a one-sided grind that risks few lives on the Russian side, while making progress on the overarching "demilitarization" war goal.
At the operational level, disabling electric infrastructure cuts enemy logistics mobility and threatens to weaponize waves of refugee immivaders westward.
At the strategic level, the slow speed prolongs their enemies' lock-in to economically and politically ruinous policies that widen societal fractures among their enemies.
The Russians appear to have the proper context for this approach. Tactical grind, operational disarticulation, strategic pin.
An elegant encapsulation, Joe. Well done!
Except the Ukrainians can reply; they have a stock of Soviet-era heavy artillery, and NATO is testing their heavy guns and modern ammo in the conflict. HIMARS just happens to be the most high-profile.
Furthermore, Russia's artillery is hitting minute-of-city-block, while Ukraine has developed faster targeting systems to shoot back with. The Ukrainians are hitting minute-of-armored-vehicle. Who wins?
Disabling Ukraine's electricity is not going to cut their logistics mobility any more than it did in 1914. Modern armies don't plug into civilian power grids.
Strategically, the invasion has indeed exacerbated fissions between allies, but hardly to the breaking point. It is, however, telling China that they may suffer the same fate if they invade Taiwan in the near future.
Putin isn't an idiot, but this isn't him being particularly skillful either. He wanted a quick easy victory. Instead he lost 100,000 men, lots of equipment (to the point where it can reliably supply some units), and his armies are retreating and desperately trying to entrench to avoid losing their pre-invasion gains.
Thanks for the encapsulation of what you just heard on CNN.
Show me any CNN news article that says any of that. If you can.
Or, better yet, disprove any of it! Show me military personnel using civilian electrical grids. Or how Ukraine is hitting minute-of-city-block with its HIMARS. If you can.
LOL, most of the western weapons are rusting, burnt out junk at this point. The few remaining HIMARS are overrated garbage and Russia regularly shoots down the rockets. A few batteries of "advanced" western "wunderwaffe" are not going to make a whit of difference when Russia has Ukraine outgunned 6:1 (or greater) and has guns and MLRS of equal or greater technological advancement.
The west is almost out of new arty to send as Russia increasingly deploys more, and more modern artillery. Ukraine is increasingly moving D-30 and D-20 guns out of storage as the US considers sending M114. As Russia is using more and more 152mm+ guns and 300mm+ rockets Ukes are regressing to 122/105mm guns and 122mm rockets. The disparity is getting greater and greater while the Russians have increasingly all-seeing ISR while the Ukes are having their nuked by a wall of Russian ECM.
Keeps updating me on what you see on CNN, bro.
I see you haven't actually shown any connection to CNN, you just pulled it (as well as many of your following arguments) out of your backside.
If you think the handful of tanks and APCs that got shot up several weeks ago is "most of the western weapons," then you clearly don't realize how much Ukraine actually has. The stocks are much larger than that.
Second, how are HIMARS overrated junk? Russia has done an excellent job of shooting down the rockets with their generals and command posts. Interceptors? Not so much.
Being outgunned 6:1 only matters if the 6 guns can hit what they shoot at. The Russians are not hitting what they shoot at nearly as often as the Ukrainians.
The west is not "almost out of artillery," and Russia is not fielding more modern pieces. The Russians' stuff is the same models they've had since the 1970s-80s, and they're importing ammo from North Korea and drones from Iran. Their own industrial base needs outside help, too.
The Russians' ISR is comprised of stuff you can buy on the cheaper end of the civilian market. Russian children are making trench candles because whenever the Russians try to use electrical lighting, the Ukrainians hit them with a single artillery shot that obliterates the bunker.
Also, the Russians' famed ECMs were not purchased by China because... they didn't actually work.
It's fun to pretend Russia is battle-hardened and doesn't waste resources on wunderwaffen, but it's all hype and PR. They keep losing to militia (Chechnya and Mariupol) and their increasingly bizarre attempts to overcome their institutional flaws is meme-worthy.
@bruce - apparently Dupuy’s Infantry as sensor was infantry finds the enemy, fixes, artillery/air destroys.
I would like to read what DuPuy wrote, all I can find are bios.
Did DuPuy say something about infantry being used as a sensor?