3 ms·

Russia is following Clausewitzian principles pretty assiduously. They've got a set of 3 clear objectives and their tactics on the ground, e.g. * prioritizing

by pydry 1y ago

Russia is following Clausewitzian principles pretty assiduously. They've got a set of 3 clear objectives and their tactics on the ground, e.g. * prioritizing attrition over the capture of territory. * avoiding urban fighting where possible (e.g. a multi-year avoidance of zaporizhia and kharkiv). * minimizing civilian casualties. Reflect not only the objectives, but the desire to avoid a lot of the "messiness" the author referred to. The fact that Ukrainian civilians fear busification more than drone strikes is a testament to that. None of the other parties (Ukraine, Hamas, Israel) appear to follow clausewitzian logic, though.

wolvesechoes 1y ago
You cannot say something that can be considered even sligthly positive about Russia and its strategy.
psunavy03 1y ago
If this was remotely true, they'd have won the war already. Russian operational and strategic decision-making has been a bonfire of blazing incompetence since the beginning, which is what led to things breaking down into WWI-style attritional warfare. Leaving the moral dimension aside, this entire war has been basically two JV teams going at it since the beginning. NATO would have wiped the floor with the Russian military based on their performance so far, and it's surprising considering what a juggernaut everyone claimed the Russian military was pre-war.
- pydry 1y ago
  >If this was remotely true, they'd have won the war already. They're invading the largest country in Europe armed by a military bloc constituting 60% of world military spending. Which part of that screamed quick to you? >Russian operational and strategic decision-making has been a bonfire of blazing incompetence They somehow managed to achieve a body bag exchange ratio of 44:1 and an extreme busification crisis in Ukraine with a volunteer force. It's a more impressive showing than Iraq. >led to things breaking down into WWI-style attritional warfare. Putin announced the strategy of attritional warfare in March 2022 after the land bridge was secured, so one could hardly argue that this wasnt the plan. Ukraine has done a good job of playing into their hands by trying to cling on to land long past the point where it becomes defensible and getting enveloped in cauldron after cauldron. Hence the issue where Ukrainian civilians are now more afraid of their own government's roving kidnapping gangs than living under Moscow's rule. That part is probably going to be the real kicker in the end.
  - psunavy03 1y ago
    I suppose if you've completely swallowed Ruscist propaganda, this all tracks.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Which part of that screamed quick to you? Congratulations, you’ve shown superior strategic capability than Putin’s entire pre-war military brass. > where Ukrainian civilians are now more afraid of their own government's roving kidnapping gangs than living under Moscow's rule Was this written by AI?
    - pydry 1y ago
      >Congratulations, you’ve shown superior strategic capability than Putin’s entire pre-war military brass. Congratulations on deluding yourself into believing he's losing this war against all of the evidence I guess. >Was this written by AI? Have you used it so much that you cant distinguish it from real life any more? Try talking to some Ukrainians some time - ones that live there.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > he's losing this war against all of the evidence He’s not winning on the timelines his military brass originally predicted. Putin and Ukraine are in a stalemate. That takes Russia off the table as a near peer to the U.S. > Try talking to some Ukrainians some time I have. They’re not on that part of TikTok.
        wolvesechoes 1y ago
        > Putin and Ukraine are in a stalemate. That takes Russia off the table as a near peer to the U.S. Ukraine, with currently most capable and experienced military in Europe, supported by western countries, is losing. Slowly and while making Russia pay, but losing nonetheless. And if you consider demographics, it kinda lost already. Most people that escaped west won't get back, and many men that were forced to stay will leave soon after they will be allowed to. For last few decades US victories were even less clear and made against countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.
- wolvesechoes 1y ago
  > NATO would have wiped the floor with the Russian military Considering my interests and those of my country I would like to believe, but reality do not provide much support for such hopes. > and it's surprising considering what a juggernaut everyone claimed the Russian military was pre-war. It is true, but they improved immensely during 3 years of intense conflict (the same for Ukraine). On the other hand NATO has most experience in bombing people in Africa and Middle-East. War with Russia wouldn't be the same as battle of Timbuktu.
  - psunavy03 1y ago
    > Considering my interests and those of my country I would like to believe, but reality do not provide much support for such hopes. Having served in the US military for 20+ years active and reserve, the level of synchronization and coordination NATO can bring to the fight dwarfs what Russia and Ukraine have been able to achieve. The situation has degenerated into what it is because neither side could effectively coordinate action at scale, or integrate air, land, and naval power tightly. The West can. I've seen it. > It is true, but they improved immensely during 3 years of intense conflict (the same for Ukraine). On the other hand NATO has most experience in bombing people in Africa and Middle-East. You don't seem to understand the scenarios the US trains to. First off, there is so, so much more to counterinsurgency than just "bombing people" that it's a whole nother post. And frankly if someone describes military action as just "bombing people," it's a tell they're not speaking from a position of expertise on the issue. The US has maintained the ability to fight a major theater war since 2003; it just hasn't had to exercise it. There is a reason that in conventional combat, the US and allied militaries stomped the Iraqi military flat twice in 15 years. The failures afterward were largely at the political and strategic level from lack of clear direction or unrealistic objectives from the civilian leadership. There is one military that could credibly challenge the US and NATO allies today, and it's not Russia, it's China.
TiredOfLife 1y ago
> minimizing civilian casualties Russians target civilian objects - apartment complexes, hospitals, metro entrances, passenger trains. Constantly do a second strike when emergency crews arrive. They use drones to hunt civillians who live near frontline.
- pydry 1y ago
  Gazan civilian casualties eclipsed Ukrainian within about two weeks. Militaries routinely use civilian objects for military purposes, so that these objects are targeted isnt meaningful in and of itself - like the time a pizza restaurant was targeted and it later emerged that the restaurant hosted a rather large military gathering.
  - TheCoelacanth 1y ago
    Obviously because Gaza is virtually defenseless and Israel has roughly one active duty soldier for every seven adults in Gaza. It's less of a war than just a massacre. Ukraine and Russia on the other hand are relatively evenly matched, so killing civilians is much harder.
  - TiredOfLife 1y ago
    Ukraine doesn't.
    - pydry 1y ago
      No, they do. They used to shell Donetsk routinely.
weregiraffe 1y ago
[flagged]
tim333 1y ago
I think you can explain Russia's poor performance somewhat from Clausewitzian principles: "primordial violence, hatred, and enmity" - weren't really there - most Russians viewed Ukrainians as their brethren. "Chance and Probability" - the Russians have proved pretty inflexible. I mean after they failed to take Kyiv in three days they could have gone home and saved a lot of bother, maybe keeping some lands in the south. "Reason and Policy" - didn't make much sense. Few Russians wanted to go to war so Putin could lord it over the Ukrainians as well as the Russians. This looks more like a political move by Putin to keep power. If Russia had actually had a clear objective to annex Ukraine they could have mobilised and knocked them out in no time but instead we have a mess and kind of stalemate which to me seems to be moving in Ukraine's favour as they can now hit most targets inside Russia.

by pydry 1y ago

wolvesechoes 1y ago

You cannot say something that can be considered even sligthly positive about Russia and its strategy.

psunavy03 1y ago

If this was remotely true, they'd have won the war already. Russian operational and strategic decision-making has been a bonfire of blazing incompetence since the beginning, which is what led to things breaking down into WWI-style attritional warfare. Leaving the moral dimension aside, this entire war has been basically two JV teams going at it since the beginning. NATO would have wiped the floor with the Russian military based on their performance so far, and it's surprising considering what a juggernaut everyone claimed the Russian military was pre-war.

pydry 1y ago
>If this was remotely true, they'd have won the war already. They're invading the largest country in Europe armed by a military bloc constituting 60% of world military spending. Which part of that screamed quick to you? >Russian operational and strategic decision-making has been a bonfire of blazing incompetence They somehow managed to achieve a body bag exchange ratio of 44:1 and an extreme busification crisis in Ukraine with a volunteer force. It's a more impressive showing than Iraq. >led to things breaking down into WWI-style attritional warfare. Putin announced the strategy of attritional warfare in March 2022 after the land bridge was secured, so one could hardly argue that this wasnt the plan. Ukraine has done a good job of playing into their hands by trying to cling on to land long past the point where it becomes defensible and getting enveloped in cauldron after cauldron. Hence the issue where Ukrainian civilians are now more afraid of their own government's roving kidnapping gangs than living under Moscow's rule. That part is probably going to be the real kicker in the end.
- psunavy03 1y ago
  I suppose if you've completely swallowed Ruscist propaganda, this all tracks.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > Which part of that screamed quick to you? Congratulations, you’ve shown superior strategic capability than Putin’s entire pre-war military brass. > where Ukrainian civilians are now more afraid of their own government's roving kidnapping gangs than living under Moscow's rule Was this written by AI?
  - pydry 1y ago
    >Congratulations, you’ve shown superior strategic capability than Putin’s entire pre-war military brass. Congratulations on deluding yourself into believing he's losing this war against all of the evidence I guess. >Was this written by AI? Have you used it so much that you cant distinguish it from real life any more? Try talking to some Ukrainians some time - ones that live there.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > he's losing this war against all of the evidence He’s not winning on the timelines his military brass originally predicted. Putin and Ukraine are in a stalemate. That takes Russia off the table as a near peer to the U.S. > Try talking to some Ukrainians some time I have. They’re not on that part of TikTok.
      - wolvesechoes 1y ago
        > Putin and Ukraine are in a stalemate. That takes Russia off the table as a near peer to the U.S. Ukraine, with currently most capable and experienced military in Europe, supported by western countries, is losing. Slowly and while making Russia pay, but losing nonetheless. And if you consider demographics, it kinda lost already. Most people that escaped west won't get back, and many men that were forced to stay will leave soon after they will be allowed to. For last few decades US victories were even less clear and made against countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.
wolvesechoes 1y ago
> NATO would have wiped the floor with the Russian military Considering my interests and those of my country I would like to believe, but reality do not provide much support for such hopes. > and it's surprising considering what a juggernaut everyone claimed the Russian military was pre-war. It is true, but they improved immensely during 3 years of intense conflict (the same for Ukraine). On the other hand NATO has most experience in bombing people in Africa and Middle-East. War with Russia wouldn't be the same as battle of Timbuktu.
- psunavy03 1y ago
  > Considering my interests and those of my country I would like to believe, but reality do not provide much support for such hopes. Having served in the US military for 20+ years active and reserve, the level of synchronization and coordination NATO can bring to the fight dwarfs what Russia and Ukraine have been able to achieve. The situation has degenerated into what it is because neither side could effectively coordinate action at scale, or integrate air, land, and naval power tightly. The West can. I've seen it. > It is true, but they improved immensely during 3 years of intense conflict (the same for Ukraine). On the other hand NATO has most experience in bombing people in Africa and Middle-East. You don't seem to understand the scenarios the US trains to. First off, there is so, so much more to counterinsurgency than just "bombing people" that it's a whole nother post. And frankly if someone describes military action as just "bombing people," it's a tell they're not speaking from a position of expertise on the issue. The US has maintained the ability to fight a major theater war since 2003; it just hasn't had to exercise it. There is a reason that in conventional combat, the US and allied militaries stomped the Iraqi military flat twice in 15 years. The failures afterward were largely at the political and strategic level from lack of clear direction or unrealistic objectives from the civilian leadership. There is one military that could credibly challenge the US and NATO allies today, and it's not Russia, it's China.

TiredOfLife 1y ago

> minimizing civilian casualties Russians target civilian objects - apartment complexes, hospitals, metro entrances, passenger trains. Constantly do a second strike when emergency crews arrive. They use drones to hunt civillians who live near frontline.

pydry 1y ago
Gazan civilian casualties eclipsed Ukrainian within about two weeks. Militaries routinely use civilian objects for military purposes, so that these objects are targeted isnt meaningful in and of itself - like the time a pizza restaurant was targeted and it later emerged that the restaurant hosted a rather large military gathering.
- TheCoelacanth 1y ago
  Obviously because Gaza is virtually defenseless and Israel has roughly one active duty soldier for every seven adults in Gaza. It's less of a war than just a massacre. Ukraine and Russia on the other hand are relatively evenly matched, so killing civilians is much harder.
- TiredOfLife 1y ago
  Ukraine doesn't.
  - pydry 1y ago
    No, they do. They used to shell Donetsk routinely.

weregiraffe 1y ago

[flagged]

tim333 1y ago

I think you can explain Russia's poor performance somewhat from Clausewitzian principles: "primordial violence, hatred, and enmity" - weren't really there - most Russians viewed Ukrainians as their brethren. "Chance and Probability" - the Russians have proved pretty inflexible. I mean after they failed to take Kyiv in three days they could have gone home and saved a lot of bother, maybe keeping some lands in the south. "Reason and Policy" - didn't make much sense. Few Russians wanted to go to war so Putin could lord it over the Ukrainians as well as the Russians. This looks more like a political move by Putin to keep power. If Russia had actually had a clear objective to annex Ukraine they could have mobilised and knocked them out in no time but instead we have a mess and kind of stalemate which to me seems to be moving in Ukraine's favour as they can now hit most targets inside Russia.