WW III

Interesting article by a retired French general, Dominique Delawarde.

"Difference In Leadership Of The Russian And NATO Armies On The Ukrainian Front".

Machine translation from French:

« Response to Mr Myard, on the US-Russia confrontation in Ukraine.
(...) I would like to come back to the sentence: "The intelligence provided by the Americans was decisive in countering the Russian advance, whose army proved incapable of adapting, due to military concepts from another age."

As a former head of the Situation-Intelligence-Electronic Warfare Division of the Joint Operational Planning Staff, I do not agree at all with this part of the analysis, which is based on an inaccurate "assessment of the situation" and which is, in fact, the conclusion of a biased Atlanticist position, aimed at making the Ukrainians believe that Russia is weak, in order to push Ukraine to resist to the end and to let it envisage, with Western help, a victory. Here is my argument:

Until proven otherwise, Russia has not declared a partial, let alone general, mobilisation of its forces to conduct this "special operation". In Operation Z, it has so far used only 12% of its soldiers (professionals or volunteers), 10% of its fighter planes, 7% of its tanks, 5% of its missiles and 4% of its artillery. Everyone will observe that the behaviour of the Western ruling elites is, until now, much more feverish and hysterical than the behaviour of Russian governance, which is calmer, more placid, more determined, more sure and more in control of itself, its actions and its discourse. These are facts.

Russia has not put its immense reserves to work (reserves that hardly exist in the EU). It has much more than a week's worth of ammunition, as it demonstrates every day on the ground. We are not so lucky in the West where the shortage of ammunition, the obsolescence of major equipment, their insufficient maintenance, their low DTO (Technical Operational Availability), the absence of reserves, the lack of training of personnel, the sample nature of modern equipment and many other elements do not allow us to seriously consider, today, a NATO military victory over Russia. That is why we are content with an "economic" war in the hope of weakening the Russian bear.


Let's turn to the quality of the Russian side's military leadership and compare it to that of the "Western coalition".


On 24 February, the Russians embarked on an emergency pre-emptive "special operation", preceding an assault by Kiev forces on the Donbass by a few days.
This operation was special because the bulk of the ground operations would take place in a sister country and in areas where a significant part of the population was not hostile to Russia (the Donbass). It was therefore not a classic high-intensity operation against an intractable enemy, but an operation in which the Russian steamroller technique, crushing opposing forces, infrastructures and populations with artillery (as in Germany during the Second World War) was impossible to envisage. This operation was special because in the Donbass it was more an operation to liberate a friendly population that had been held hostage by Ukrainian-Nazi reprisal battalions and martyred for 8 years, an operation in which the civilian population and infrastructure had to be spared as much as possible.
This operation was therefore truly special and particularly difficult to conduct with the constant conflicting demands of achieving victory by advancing and occupying the terrain, while sparing the civilian population and infrastructure and the lives of its own soldiers.
Moreover, this operation has been conducted, so far, at a numerical disadvantage (almost one to two), whereas the ratio of forces on the ground required for an offensive is 3 to 1, and even 5 to 1 in urban areas. Moreover, the Kiev forces have perfectly understood the advantage of entrenching themselves in the towns and using the Russian-speaking and Russian-loving civilian population as a human shield...
I observe that, on the ground, the Russian forces continue to advance, day after day, slowly but surely against a Ukrainian army that has achieved its general mobilisation, that is helped by the West, and that is supposed to fight for its land...
To question the quality of the Russian leadership, engaged in a very complex military operation, carried out in numerical inferiority, in which everything must be done to avoid excessive collateral damage, seems to me to be a huge error of appreciation. The Russians are also too often given intentions or war aims that they never had, just to be able to say that these objectives were not achieved.


It is true that NATO has never been embarrassed to bomb the civilian populations of the countries it has attacked (...) in the most total indifference of Western public opinion.


Before coming to the examination of Western leadership, for comparison with Russian leadership, let us note that it took NATO 78 days of bombing and 38,000 air sorties to force small Serbia to ask for an armistice. Remember that Serbia is 8 times smaller than Ukraine and 6 times less populated, and that it was being attacked by NATO, without a UN mandate, in a ratio of more than ten to one. Did anyone in the West wonder about the quality of NATO's leadership, which took 78 days to defeat its Serbian adversary with such a power ratio? Has anyone questioned the legality of this action launched under a false pretext (false massacre of Racak) and without a UN mandate?

I know well, having measured it myself in the US for several years, the quality of US leadership, which is also that of NATO and which, let's be frank, is not good, with a few exceptions. To try to assess the quality of their leadership and the chances of victory in a possible conflict, the US uses two methods:


1 - For high-intensity warfare, assessments are conducted at a large military camp in Nevada: Fort Irwin.
All the mechanised and armoured brigades of the US Army spend time at regular intervals in this camp for training and monitoring. I had the privilege of attending many of them. After three weeks of intensive training in this camp, with all the major equipment, there is a full-scale exercise to conclude the period, before the brigade returns to its garrison town. The brigade is pitted against a small regiment equipped with Russian equipment and applying Russian military doctrine. It is called OPFOR (Opposing Force).
Statistically, by the admission of the commanding general of the camp and director of these high-intensity military exercises, the US brigade loses 4 out of 5 times against the Russian OPFOR. Few US brigade commanders can claim victory over "Russian OPFOR" at Fort Irwin.
When asked about this strangeness, the camp commander always told us: "It's not serious, the brigade commander learns from his mistakes and will not repeat them in a real situation". One can always dream...
From my perspective as an outside observer, the failures of US brigade commanders were simply related to their training to follow patterns and regulations to the letter and never deviate from them, even when the situation lends itself to taking initiative and/or taking actions of opportunity, outside the rules. The "precautionary principle" or "zero defect philosophy" paralyses leaders, delays decision-making, cuts off momentum, and very often leads to disaster in high-intensity combat.
At Fort Irwin, this catastrophe is observed in 80% of the cases to the detriment of the US brigades. This is a fact.


2 - To train the staffs and try to evaluate the chances of success in a possible conflict, high-level staff exercises (war games) are organised every year. These wargames are also, in effect, rehearsals of military actions that are being considered. At the end of the chain, there are units of the three Armies to materialise the decisions taken by the US Staffs.


It should be noted that all the wargames envisaged against China were lost by the US camp, which perhaps explains the caution of the USA in their relations with China.
I myself took part in one of these wargames in the spring of 1998, which was none other than a rehearsal, before its time, of the 2003 Iraq war.
It should also be noted that wargames against Iran were lost by the US side, notably the 2002 wargame Millennium Challenge. That year, Marine Corps General Van Riper, who commanded the Iranian OPFOR, sank an entire US carrier group (19 ships) and 20,000 men in a matter of hours, before the US leadership realised what was happening (...)
In conclusion, I would say that one must be careful before evoking the insufficiencies of the Russian leadership. Perhaps it would be better to remove the beam that obstructs the eyes of the Western leadership before evoking the mote that can be found in the eye of the Russian leadership (...)

https://stratpol.com/comparatif-du-leadership-des-armees-de-russie-et-de-lotan/

https://tribune-diplomatique-internationale.com/jacques_guillemainrussieukraine/
 
Van_der_Voort_4 said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1523328107893215233

Russia’s top-secret nuclear-powered satellite
More...

Shit shit shit. Russia is going to have an “Advanced” satellite for electronic warfare in 2025?
Holy bucket of sand, Batman! Time to allocate more of my saved potatoes towards vodka production!

Arguably, nuclear weapons are only fifth most scary weapon for WWIII between major powers.

https://arstechnica.com/information...nes-are-giving-ukraine-an-unprecedented-edge/

The article above is merely a hint of things to come. Emerging technology exists for more durable, lower cost methods of surveillance, counter-surveillance, delivery systems, and weapon systems. Combined with soldier behavior analysis, the cost to destroy assets drops considerably. There is the possibility US defense contractors are accelerating “Product” life cycles because of Russia’s most recent invasion of Ukraine. Military and R&D spending for NATO members are increasing greatly while Russia’s economic capacity is decreasing. The emerging generation of US military capabilities, not that new capabilities are even needed at the present time, will leave Russia even further behind NATO. Love those hypersonic missiles, though. How is inventory replacement going for those?

It is a mistake to think US performance in Viet Nam and Afghanistan is an indicator of potential NATO performance against Russian forces. The difference is the US would not need spend nearly as much resources on determining friend or foe against Russia. Further, while the US has improved its tactical performance capabilities, the US excels at strategic warfare because of their large quantity of advanced weapons systems, fluid combined force operations, and very well trained volunteer military personnel, where only the most qualified applicants are chosen. Russia’s combined force operations in comparison is, how shall I say, basic. Now imagine if European NATO countries were to arm and train many of their citizens of military age, like currently seen in Switzerland and Israel. Then again, not even that would be needed for Ukraine to prevail. There are two million Ukrainians in Russia, may of whom could perform sabotage deep within Russia, especially if they were to receive appropriate resources, including training. In addition, there are over a million recently displaced Ukrainians in NATO countries, some of whom have already stated their desire to return to Ukraine. Imagine if some of them were armed and trained before returning to Ukraine.

Russia as plenty of WMDs that can certainly change the landscape. However, the geopolitical cost of even a warning airburst of a tactical nuclear weapon in a remote area would likely increase resolve that Russia is a mortal enemy and may give pause to Russia’s allies. Certainly Western powers would increase pressure on Russia’s allies and Ukrainian anti-Russian sentiment would reach new heights.

In conclusion, Russia will continue to lose in Ukraine on many levels no matter what adjustments Russia makes. The question is, is Putin willing to die for Ukraine and take Ukraine, Russia, the West, and perhaps the rest of the East with him? Putin is wrong for invading Ukraine again. The West is right supporting Ukraine. It seems to me, there are better alternatives to annihilation. Anyone want to seriously discuss peace, yet?
 
Lukashenko thinks he is Putin.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1524073327911972865

581911201_OhWaitYoureSerious.jpg.60083f7b4cf9a40f681b355c6e73147c.jpg
 
gwb-trading said:
Lukashenko thinks he is Putin.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1524073327911972865

581911201_OhWaitYoureSerious.jpg.60083f7b4cf9a40f681b355c6e73147c.jpg
More...

Lukashenko game playing and posturing.

He owes his existence to Putin who propped him when he was about to fall out of power.

But the Belaruse people are not in favor of going into Ukraine, or at least many are not. So Vlad is pissed at Lukashenko for not sending in troops after Putin saved his arse. Yet, Lukashenko fears his own people and additional sanctions.

So he is trying to strike a balance by running around and doing lots of scary stuff. All short of going into Ukraine which is a one way trip. Not to forget that the Belaruse people saw all those whipped, sorry-arsed and many wounded Russian soldiers when they retreated from Kviv and back into Belaruse on their way to the Donbass to die. To make things worse or maybe more laughable, even the Belaruse know they are not as well trained as the Russian soldiers.

Fuck em. Send em all down to Ukraine. The Ukrainians have been using the lessened conflict period in the Kviv area to dig in harder, establish defense trenches and beef up supplies in that area. Cmon down. I am not getting cocky. I am just saying that it is established now that the Ukrainians need to show high kill counts everywhere to get bargaining power, and the Belaruse are 100% qualified to be canon fodder. Not much more. When Putin loses, at least, loses the western part of Ukraine, he plans to put more missiles and nukes into Belaruse to just hover over Kviv and be a prick. The Ukrainians should give them a lesson early on if they threaten Ukraine which will cause the people to move Lukashenko out. They tried that already but prick Putin intervened and sent Russian troops in. He is getting so he does not have the troops for some of that now.

Ditto for Karzakistan. Putin propped up the government there but he is pissed because he asked them to send troops to Ukraine and they refused too. Putin be like- "WTF? I thought I owned you guys."

Lukashenko needs to go. Except on even numbered days he seems like such confused and whipped little pussy that he might be okay where he is. He is more scared of his people than Putin now and is sort of on probation.
 
Putin's invasion of Ukraine only serves to drive away former Soviet states that were allies. This will only increase Putin's motivation to send his military over their borders as well -- basically a backfiring of his intent in invading Ukraine -- which to demonstrate Russian military capabilities in order to force these former Soviet states to comply with Putin's dictates.

Former Soviet States Are Distancing Themselves From Their Old Imperial Master
The war in Ukraine is prompting countries from Kazakhstan to Moldova to reexamine their colonial past and seek diplomatic allies beyond the Kremlin.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/05/1...lonialism-ukraine-kazakhstan-georgia-moldova/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top