3 ms·

I 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

I 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.

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.