4 ms·
From the summary: > Evidently, Ukraine will prevail. > The report is based on open-source intelligence information and a series of 20 extensive interviews wit
by Gys 4y ago
From the summary:
> Evidently, Ukraine will prevail.
> The report is based on open-source intelligence information and a series of 20 extensive interviews with combat-experienced Ukrainian commanders and soldiers.
> This report pursues two simple questions throughout ten dimensions: What are the Ukrainians doing particularly well? And what can we in NATO, the EU, and beyond learn from them?
Interesting research although it seems a little subjective.
- m000 4y ago> Evidently, Ukraine will prevail. Also, if you need to write "evidently", then it's probably not that evident.
- andrejguran 4y agoEvidently has 2 meanings: "obviously" and "seemingly" here it was meant the second rather than the first you're referring to
- readthenotes1 4y ago2 meanings, yep: 1 in an evident manner : clearly, obviously 2 on the basis of available evidence (It can be used ironically for whatever that word means, but, ironically every word can be) (From Merriam-Webster)
- andrejguran 4y agoMerriam-Webster doesn't say anything about irony? Or you meant that the globsec report used the word ironically? It doesn't seems like it to me.
- orwin 4y agoI learned in my high school English lessons that evidently is kind of a false friend and that I should use 'obviously' rather than something that mean 'according to evidence'. It was Oxford's English though, so the meaning in real life might have changed now.
- m000 4y agoMy point is that there is a plethora of alternatives which would be more concise in conveying whatever the authors had in mind. "Evidently" is a weasel word in this case, and it's just leaving us readers to speculate and argue.
- andrejguran 4y agoalternatively, we can also read the report and stop the speculations and arguments
- m000 4y ago"Evidently" is used in the executive summary. If we need to read the report to disambiguate the executive summary, then that's just a shitty executive summary.
- joseftexas 4y agoDelusional research. Why not 20 similar interviews of French Foreign Regions? There are many Russians, Americans and French there that joined Wagner. Also, Russia has this at SMO level, meanwhile Americans had it at war level with Afghanistan, Vietnam and Iraq. All 3 concluded with American defeats especially humiliating with the recent Kabul flee. It is best the research higlights why this war shouldnt happen in the first place and analysed Minsk 1 and 2 failures by West (especially French and Germans to adhere to). Also, China is entering this war with military support (sending drones, equipments and mercs). Ukrainians will prevail...like Libya where many of its people suffering and participate in fresh trades. I dont think this is what we want how Ukrainian prevail.
- denton-scratch 4y agoI found the article to read like pro-Ukraine propaganda. The only "seed of doubt" they throw in is that to win territory, Ukraine will have to pivot from small-unit warfare to brigade-level operations, and they will find that pivot difficult. It will require not just lots of armour and ammunition, but a big change in training and command. I think the authors may have understated that problem. I also thought the authors might be in danger ot urging NATO commanders to "fight the last war", i.e. the Ukraine war. The Ukrainian doctrine might be applicable in the defence of e.g. Baltic states; but Ukrainian terrain and conditions are rather particular. The observation that NATO should drastically accellerate the development cycle for weapons systems, build less huge, expensive weapons and lots of cheap, simple disposable weapons is bang on. NATO's weapons systems aren't designed for use by a mobilized population; they're designed to enrich big arms companies. By contrast, Ukrainians are building weapons from off-the-shelf drones and homemade grenade release mechanisms.
- red-iron-pine 4y ago> but Ukrainian terrain and conditions are rather particular. Wide open spaces and cold weather aren't unique to Ukraine, and their impact on large offensives was well documented going back to Napoleon. The WW2 Germans wrote extensively about the challenges there. > NATO's weapons systems aren't designed for use by a mobilized population; they're designed to enrich big arms companies Who do you think will be manufacturing these cheap, simple, disposable weapons? This means instead of shipping expensive systems now contactors go for bulk sales. NATO systems are complex but highly effective at fighting large, combined arms wars. Mobilizing population means you're desperate. > By contrast, Ukrainians are building weapons from off-the-shelf drones and homemade grenade release mechanisms. Artillery and high-end spotting drones, not crappy DFI quadcopters and grenades', are still the #1 killer by a long shot. HIMARS -- long range missiles -- were a serious game changer. Shit-tier drones aren't going to with the war; ACATMS and Excalibur shells might.
- medo-bear 4y agowhat happens if ukraine begins to lose this war? does nato send in troops?
- The_Colonel 4y agoI think more probable would be NATO sending more powerful weapons (like much discussed ATACMS, cluster munition etc).