4 ms·

> Victory in this environment requires more than technological superiority. It demands clarity of purpose, coherence between means and ends, disciplined executi

> Victory in this environment requires more than technological superiority. It demands clarity of purpose, coherence between means and ends, disciplined execution, and moral restraint—the very fundamentals Clausewitz insisted upon. These are not optional in the urban century. They are decisive. If I learned anything from both Gaza and Ukraine, it's that its the complete opposite that's true. You go clearing from house to house, some AQB fighter is gonna pop-out of a tunnel and pop an IED into your Merkava tank. You do that enough times and your army's morale is going to be shot. You wanna win, you have to bomb dual use assets and only fight when its needed. If you can do a hunger siege, flood by bombing a dam or something else, then do that.

pjc50 1y ago
"make a desert and call it peace". There's still two million people in Gaza.
- jedimind 1y ago
  [flagged]
TheCoelacanth 1y ago
You are just giving an example of how lack of "coherence between means and ends" leads to failure. A military occupation (means) is not an effective way to achieve lasting control over the civilian population (ends) unless much of the population is already on your side, so it is foolish to try to use those means to achieve those ends. Russia has also been hurt quite badly by lack of moral restraint in the war against Ukraine (which in the context Clausewitz used it I believe means more whether you have rational control of your actions than whether your actions are "good" or "bad"). Attacking civilians is usually extremely ineffective at achieving anything other than making leaders feel good that they are hurting their enemies and usually just hardens the enemy's resolve to continue fighting.
- aerostable_slug 1y ago
  I think Russia has been quite restrained. I'm not defending them in any way, but many Ukrainians still have electric power, running water, and other trappings of modern society. If the present Russian regime chose otherwise I'm not sure that they would. It doesn't take a great deal of precision to mission-kill water works and other civil infrastructure that has survived in rear areas. It seems to me both sides have been sending signals with their respective attacks on 'homeland' targets, rather than going fully gloves-off. Agreed that it's not working out for the Russians.
  - AuthAuth 1y ago
    Russia targets Ukrainian Infra. It goes down and ukraine brings it back online. They also have air defense assets protecting key infra. Russia doesnt leave it up because of moral reasons, they're doing what they can to win and that includes attacking the grid.
    - noitpmeder 1y ago
      I think it's a bit insane to think that Russia couldn't completely and totally obliterate civilian central infrastructure in Ukraine if it wanted to. It's not like these locations are hidden or top-secret, or like Ukraine has the ability to completely and inevitably stop the attacks. However, whatever wins this achieved would probably instantly be overshadowed by the negatives. Think of mass famine, relocation, refugee-ism, ... Not to mention a destroyed infrastructure that the eventual owner needs to rebuild as a first priority. Not even to mention the increased levels of international condemnation due to such a targeted attack on a civilian population.
      - cyberax 1y ago
        > I think it's a bit insane to think that Russia couldn't completely and totally obliterate civilian central infrastructure in Ukraine if it wanted to. It really can not. > It's not like these locations are hidden or top-secret, or like Ukraine has the ability to completely and inevitably stop the attacks. You'd be surprised how much explosives you need to actually destroy the infrastructure. Russia simply doesn't have enough long-range rockets, and drones can't carry large charges.
EA-3167 1y ago
It’s essentially just this; in urban warfare with entrenched enemies you can choose who suffers, but not whether there’s suffering. The endeavor is inherently horrific, and that horror in both the cases of Ukraine and Gaza are dictated by the decision by one party to use the urban environment to maximize casualties. Whether it’s the Russians in Bucha or Hamas in tunnels under schools, both are fully aware of what they’re doing. Unfortunately the mentality of most people has been grossly oversimplified to the point of staging everything as a melodrama.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
ii41 1y ago
You can't learn these from either Gaza or Ukraine. Neither is over. Not even close to an end. Both are longer and the technologically superior side suffered more than expected.
- 4gotunameagain 1y ago
  > the technologically superior side suffered more than expected. In the case of Ukraine, it is unclear whether you are talking about Russia or the US ?

pjc50 1y ago

"make a desert and call it peace". There's still two million people in Gaza.

jedimind 1y ago
[flagged]

TheCoelacanth 1y ago

You are just giving an example of how lack of "coherence between means and ends" leads to failure. A military occupation (means) is not an effective way to achieve lasting control over the civilian population (ends) unless much of the population is already on your side, so it is foolish to try to use those means to achieve those ends. Russia has also been hurt quite badly by lack of moral restraint in the war against Ukraine (which in the context Clausewitz used it I believe means more whether you have rational control of your actions than whether your actions are "good" or "bad"). Attacking civilians is usually extremely ineffective at achieving anything other than making leaders feel good that they are hurting their enemies and usually just hardens the enemy's resolve to continue fighting.

aerostable_slug 1y ago
I think Russia has been quite restrained. I'm not defending them in any way, but many Ukrainians still have electric power, running water, and other trappings of modern society. If the present Russian regime chose otherwise I'm not sure that they would. It doesn't take a great deal of precision to mission-kill water works and other civil infrastructure that has survived in rear areas. It seems to me both sides have been sending signals with their respective attacks on 'homeland' targets, rather than going fully gloves-off. Agreed that it's not working out for the Russians.
- AuthAuth 1y ago
  Russia targets Ukrainian Infra. It goes down and ukraine brings it back online. They also have air defense assets protecting key infra. Russia doesnt leave it up because of moral reasons, they're doing what they can to win and that includes attacking the grid.
  - noitpmeder 1y ago
    I think it's a bit insane to think that Russia couldn't completely and totally obliterate civilian central infrastructure in Ukraine if it wanted to. It's not like these locations are hidden or top-secret, or like Ukraine has the ability to completely and inevitably stop the attacks. However, whatever wins this achieved would probably instantly be overshadowed by the negatives. Think of mass famine, relocation, refugee-ism, ... Not to mention a destroyed infrastructure that the eventual owner needs to rebuild as a first priority. Not even to mention the increased levels of international condemnation due to such a targeted attack on a civilian population.
    - cyberax 1y ago
      > I think it's a bit insane to think that Russia couldn't completely and totally obliterate civilian central infrastructure in Ukraine if it wanted to. It really can not. > It's not like these locations are hidden or top-secret, or like Ukraine has the ability to completely and inevitably stop the attacks. You'd be surprised how much explosives you need to actually destroy the infrastructure. Russia simply doesn't have enough long-range rockets, and drones can't carry large charges.

EA-3167 1y ago

It’s essentially just this; in urban warfare with entrenched enemies you can choose who suffers, but not whether there’s suffering. The endeavor is inherently horrific, and that horror in both the cases of Ukraine and Gaza are dictated by the decision by one party to use the urban environment to maximize casualties. Whether it’s the Russians in Bucha or Hamas in tunnels under schools, both are fully aware of what they’re doing. Unfortunately the mentality of most people has been grossly oversimplified to the point of staging everything as a melodrama.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

ii41 1y ago

You can't learn these from either Gaza or Ukraine. Neither is over. Not even close to an end. Both are longer and the technologically superior side suffered more than expected.

4gotunameagain 1y ago
> the technologically superior side suffered more than expected. In the case of Ukraine, it is unclear whether you are talking about Russia or the US ?