Not sure if already posted but looking very positive on the dnipro in Kherson region. This is the stepping stone to Crimea.
7 Likes
Indeed, very well managed. Had they gone to strong too soon, the Russians might not have diverted forces to the Novoprokopivka area, Klishchiivka, or started attacking in Avdiivka, or Kupyansk area. Now they are attrited and committed over there. Had they had more reserves, it would be too easy to push them back across the river.
The corssings are still very precarious and don’t have much heavy resources on the left bank. Transport is by rafts or landing crafts to get tanks and heavier guns in there and expand to eventually bring across a breakout force.
So, not too jubilant yet, but awesome work.
I think this was a key element in addition to air defences near the river:
A “combined electronic warfare unit of the Marine Corps neutralized 135 (Russian) FPV (kamikaze strike) drones and 5 operational-tactical (long range reconnaissance) UAVs,” the statement said.
5 Likes
Elmo Muskovy is at it again
3 Likes
3 Likes
1 Like
No English but interesting nonetheless.
1 Like
flexing its power
Russian losses per 18/11/23 reported by the Ukrainian General Staff
+620 men
+7 tanks
+9 APVs
+14 artillery systems
+1 MLRS
+1 AD system
+17 UAVs
Overnight a fairly large attack on Ukraine happened with Shahed drones. A total of 38 Shahed’s were launched of which 29 were destroyed. The Shaheds flew in several waves to various regions.
2 Likes
3 Likes
1 Like
Bump
1 Like
Thanks Sweatyman!
“Clausewitz’s observations on Russia’s conduct in these campaigns: Russia’s political purpose lacked clarity, vacillating between conquest of Crimea and simply weakening it by devastating its territory; Russia was initially overconfident of success; Russian logistics were poorly organised; and Russia accepted very heavy casualties in return for minor territorial gains. Burns also notes that, while the campaigns were ineffective, Russia learned lessons that stood it in good stead in subsequent wars.[xiii]”
Hmm looks like they’re going to have to re-learn those same lessons that they learned in the 19th century in the 21st century.
3 Likes
Reinforces the proverb “Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it”. But then history is always forgotten/erased eventually in the furnace of time, that is why the same patterns repeat and human history becomes circular/cyclical.
1 Like
2 Likes
Good article but I don’t agree with the premise of the author. To me strategy is what you do before bullets start flying; includes the formulation of political objectives and the design of the force to execute the tasks required if the diplomatic efforts fail.
Thinkers like him have divorced the military establishment from the political/diplomatic circles and have resulted in the American inability (of late) to turn political objectives into outcomes (Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya). For example, American generals have been too focused on the enemy’s power in terms of their armed forces; so their emphasis has been on the kinetic destruction of the en forces - they have totally ignored the political aims and the steps required to achieve them as well as the REAL centre of gravity of the opponent - same with Vietnam actually.
Totally ignores wide concepts of what is required to win a war, not just one battle. Makes me angry that such ppl actually make a living writing such nonsense, trying to justify it and then finding excuses for why a campaign failed.
7 Likes
Morning
Great critique. I haven’t read all of Clausewitz, but I can understand Owen’s pseudo-argument that strategy is the part of the actual beating of people over the head with a stick to achieve a policy objective, everything else is policy serving politics. You’re right though - this divorce (and subsequent mismatching of views) between the policy and military establishments has been the Achilles heel and bane of governments and certain political systems throughout history in most nations. Maybe that is why, in historically simpler times, military despotic leaders such as Alexander, Napoleon Bonaparte et al. who were the policy makers and strategists in the one person and thus fused politics with military means into one package, were so successful.
Yep. Military and civilian journals and are full of these articles. Definitely not everyone’s cup of tea. You must have read a fair few in your time. I’m no military strategist but I do hold the rank of armchair general so for me it is required reading lol. I suspect that if you had to read and write these types of articles to get passed out of Duntroon or promoted up the chain of command then I can see how a large amount of waffle would be penned lol…
1 Like