Sunday, March 20, 2022

Lessons learned in blood and fire

I've been kicking this around for a while, and wanted to get it down before I wander away from it.

What have we learned from what's been happening in Eastern Europe over the past month or so?

 
1. Thucydides is still correct: the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

We like to think, we pampered wealthy white Americans, that there is a "justice" that transcends simple brute force. If we're Christian we like to think that there's a "God" (and his kid) who cares about people and sort of wants them to do justly and love mercy.

And then comes something like Ukraine, where the ugly reality is impossible to hide.

So no. There's no arc of history that bends towards justice. If people want justice, they need to defend it, by force at times, with their lives if they must.

That lesson is bolded by the actions of Russia in Ukraine. But it should resonate with us here, since we have steadfastly refused to take action against those who have already attempted once to use force to "do what they can" thinking that they were the strong and we are the weak. If we do not, then we ARE the weak, and they will do with us what they can.

Putin isn't the only leader of authoritarian goons in the northern hemisphere.


2. When someone tells you what they are, believe them.

Vladimir Putin has said one thing consistently since loooong before he was Donald Trump's mancrush; that the devolution of the USSR was the Worst Thing EVAH and that if he could he would get the band back together.

Well, because the successor state to the Soviet Union looked like a shitshow and its' dictator seemed full of shit like many other dictators, a lot of us got complacent about how serious he was.

Ask the resident of Kyiv how serious.

If I was a Latvian or and Estonian right now I'd be hugging everyone who insisted that the Baltics scurry into NATO as soon as the Сове́тский флаг came down.

Now the NATO countries - including the U.S. - need to accept that those former Soviet republics are all on Putin's list. That means taking Article 5 seriously. Is Riga worth Manhattan? We might find out sooner than we like, because...

 
3. The Russian military is proving what a bad fucking idea personal autocracy is.

We in the Western militaries listened to and, often, believed the tales the Russian media and government told about the modernization and professionalization they'd done with the successor to the old Soviet Red Army.

I'm not sure if they were fooling us, or themselves, or both, but boy fucking howdy were they full of shit.

Turns out that the Russian conventional forces are bad. Reeeeally bad. "Iraqi Army" bad.

It's hard to imagine that Putin kicked off this war knowing that Saddam's Republican Guard made his regulars look like an anime goon squad. So I suspect he's been fed the diet of bullshit and flattery that people who can kill you whenever they please tend to get. His military advisors told him what he wanted to hear, not what he needed to hear.

"Dictatorships foster oppression, dictatorships foster servitude, dictatorships foster cruelty; more abominable is the fact that they foster idiocy." ~ Jorge Luis Borges

But the bottom line is that modern warfare is goddamned hard to do, and the Russians are no better at it than you'd think given the open kleptocracy and brutal autocracy that permeates Russia the country.

That's...actually kind of a Bad Thing for us as well as for them.

Because if the Russian armed forces would get waxed in the first 48 hours of combat with a Western military?

All Putin has to swing is his nukes.

And that should worry all of us at least a little bit.

Update 3/21: Someone named "Kamil Galeev" has an interesting thread discussing one of the main reasons that the Russian ground force is so damn bad; it's designed that way. It's a feature, not a bug. Long read but worth a look to think about why a putative Great Power would want to handicap its military in the way we've seen in Ukraine.


4. Smedley Butler is still right, too; war was a racket and still is.

No matter the outcome in Ukraine, everyone involved is likely to be the worse for it. Obviously the dead, but those wounded, or homeless, the refugees, the prisoners, those impoverished by war or sanctions or economic collapse. Those who have lost family, friends. The citizens of Russia's "near abroad", who must now fear that success in Ukraine will make them next in line for death and mayhem.

Of course, the Russian leadership is likely to be insulated from all that. War "leaders"  -unless they make the mistake of losing war and being captured by the victors - are seldom punished, no more than the "leaders" here that committed the identical war crime of waging aggressive war in 2003 were punished. 

It's always the "ordinary" people who suffer when the Great and the Good amongst us choose to use force to get - or try and get - what they want.

So, like most rackets, it's the bosses that profit and the footsoldiers - military and civilian - that die.

I wish I had a happier conclusion.

But, just like Ukraine today, there is no lightness; only ruin and hatred, the strong doing what they can and the weak, well, suffering.

12 comments:

  1. " Long read but worth a look to think about why a putative Great Power would want to handicap its military"

    That does not really make sense. Many coupes in Africa are done by the military forces which are in many cases much worse than the Russian. To plot requires time and social networking, an army not training war has time at hand.

    Or look at the German army during WW2, one serious attempt to kill Hitler by officers late in the war. I could propose the opposite working hypothesis. :-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah...F makes the point that immediately came to my mind; no, it doesn't make sense and yet, yes, the Russians/Soviets have done it before, and have paid for it in blood.

      The danger of praetorian treason is one huge reason that dictators have to tread very carefully along a line of competence. Your officers get too competent and they start eyeing you and all your goodies.

      Delete
  2. Well, the ghost of Tukhachevsky might have a comment or two on whether czars (and all rulers of Russia seem to be czars, whether that's their official title or not) care for competent militaries.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I've always said, Russia's military is a rolling shit show of ineptitude, draftee's, and partying.

    A professional military it is not, nor will ever be.

    Que every military adventure since the 80's.

    They have nukes, and basic gear cleverly put together to sell to other countries for hard currency, but lack their own military to use it effectively.

    And Kamil is right!

    Russia assumes immediate capitulation of what they consider to be their territory...so of course, the locals will fall on their bellies, and good, wholesome Russian boot stomps them...as it should be...

    So that is why their troops and the beginning of the circus had riot gear...because...they were assuming Ukraine would capitulate as soon as glorious Mother Russia Appears with boom-boom tank, and lots of stomping boots.

    What they weren't expecting

    and what happened was the Russian military ran into a legit Western style and influence military and is getting their heads handed to them, literally.

    And that...is where shit went sideways for the world

    Putin is pissed...because nothing, absofuckinglutely nothing undermines the image his untouchable authoritarian image like getting publicly pantsed by an upstart peasant!

    Putin is pissed because the world is watching his eunuchs get eununched a second time...and by association, he's, himself, is being eununched as well by a scalpel wielding Ukraine going, "lets cut some more off!"

    Putin relies on his carefully crafted image of him being a cold, calculating, psycopathic Ivan the terrible, who buggers definition, and is a infinite multi-level chess player.

    and not some soft, weak, and yielding submissive dog rolling on his back for scritches.

    so, in my opinion, Putin wasn't as dangerous before as he is now...now, he's got a crisis of image and ego...which is why he keeps tossing out, "I have not ruled out nukes."

    No shit, bitch!

    and oddly enough, neither has the U.S. or NATO...but for everyone else understandably it, "oh god, oh mercy, will he go cray-cray and nuke us all?!? Oh heaven's mercy, do what he says, do what he says!"

    And that is what Putin wants...and he's not getting it.

    so the question needs to be asked...when Putin says he hasn't ruled out nukes, does he mean he will nuke Europe and the US?

    Or...is he referring to Ukraine?

    So, let us ask that question, then: Would Putin nuke Ukraine.

    Me? I would give odds that is exactly what he is intimating.

    He wants one of two things...Ukraine back under his thumb

    or

    If he can't have Ukraine, no one can have Ukraine, and he would nuke it.

    He's that childishly pathetic...

    so...here's the real conundrum for us, the West...

    Would NATO use nukes if Putin Nuked Ukraine?

    and/or

    Would the US use nukes if Putin Nuked Ukraine?

    I think the answer is no, NATO wouldn't, and neither would the US...would we bury Russia in a blockade of crippling economic solitude?

    You betcha!!!

    !!!BUT!!!

    then, we are right back where it all ended in 92...and I suspect...that would be fine with Putin.

    sheerahkahn

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Makes me wonder two things: First, whether RAND is going to run more wargames to update the conclusions so often cited in their reports on the Baltics. Second, will Russia commit to internal reforms (perhaps similar to those tried after the Soviet-Finland war) in the wake of this? Or will they just allow a couple of drafts of conscripts to seal over the personnel losses and carry on with business as usual?

      Delete
    2. "...will Russia commit to internal reforms..."

      Given that Putin is acting like the former Stalin in that keeping everyone, including the vaunted military subpar keeps him safe. I remember in one of my MilHist classes the Professor was talking about the Malta Conference, 1945 that the only way they could get Stalin to come to it if it was close to Russia, like, less than a day's flight.

      Stalin was afraid that if he was gone too long, he would be overthrown by his subordinates.

      I think...Putin has that same fear.

      So...I don't see one reform, and I think you have stated the likely out come...

      "...Or will they just allow a couple of drafts of conscripts to seal over the personnel losses and carry on with business as usual?"

      sheerahkahn

      Delete
  4. Sven O has a good post on this same subject over at Defense and Freedom.

    https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2022/03/lessons-from-ukraine-war-1-3.html

    1 of 3 he calls it so I'm waiting for his next thoughts on the subject.

    For me the most important lessons to be learned are:

    Get rid of those spam-in-a-can IFVs during movement to contact. Go back to basics using skirmishers on foot in the van and on the flanks.

    And secondly UAV defense, not just counter-UAV weapons/systems, but tactics and a review of camouflage and concealment policy. Use history to develop those tactics, how did WW2 Wehrmacht or the Taliban adapt to enemy air. The NVA used the "grab them by the belt buckle" method I recall.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He's right about the battle taxis, but at the same time it just points back to the whole problem the Russian ground forces are facing; modern combined arms warfare is hard. It takes good small-unit leaders and shit-tons of training. Russia's maneuver units don't have the first and haven't done the second. It's easy to SAY "scouts out"; it's damn deadly difficult to train those scouts to do that effectively.

      Poorly led, poorly trained troops tend to cluster around things that make them feel "safe"; vehicles, heavy weapons...it takes a lot of hard, patient training to get them to spread out and actually fight.

      So Sven is absolutely right...and in so being he just points back to Clausewitz's (drink!) maxim that in war everything is easy, and that even the easiest things in war are really difficult...

      Delete
  5. "modern combined arms warfare is hard. It takes good small-unit leaders and shit-tons of training. Russia's maneuver units don't have the first and haven't done the second. It's easy to SAY "scouts out"; it's damn deadly difficult to train those scouts to do that effectively."

    I'm going to quote that elsewhere. Hope you don't mind. I'll attribute it to my favorite first shirt.

    By the way, recent vids of new Rus troops moving towards Kharkiv and Izium show the infantry riding on top instead of inside their APCs. Apparently they have learned some lessons too.

    Any thoughts on Kramatorsk?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have no problem with that. It's not like it's some kind of revelation, tho. Like I said in the piece, the real surprise came when those of us who bought the Russian line about the work they'd put in upgrading their forces saw how truly bad they are, bad as in "third-world-army-bad".

      Kramatorsk being the train station that got leveled in Donetsk? Hadn't heard until just now, so, no. But given the Russian record in Chechnya, the idea that they're randomly blowing shit up in cities isn't exactly surprising. Cities suck for infantry. They're traps loaded with shit that'll kill you. If you don't give a shit about the civilians your best bet is to level the place - I've read stories of Patton's Third Army loading trolley cars with explosives, rolling them down the street, and nuking whole building blocks with them. So I have no idea whether the strike was part of that or not, but it doesn't shock me. Bill Sherman was precisely right.

      Wat DOES shock me is reading people saying that Biden needs to "get tougher" with Putin and basically dare him to sling a nuke. Now THAT's insane; as I said above, the awful quality of the Russian conventional forces already make it more likely that STAVKA (or whatever the Russians are calling Putin's HQ now...) would resort to going nuclear in desperation. To get all dick-wavy about that is really remarkably stupid, and I'm very happy the Western and NATO leadership hasn't gone there.

      Delete
  6. An interesting read about Ukraine's Armed Forces Commander in Chief:

    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/08/ukraines-iron-general-zaluzhnyy-00023901

    The more I read as time goes on, the more I see that Ukrainian military efforts had as much to do with stymying the Russians as the poor performance of the Russians themselves. It seems the Ukrainians learned from their Donbas losses and welcomed new ideas from the West. With 8 years to learn and practice, they've shown how much they've improved. From tactics like shoot-and-scoot to identifying priority targets like fuel trucks they've become a quite capable and formidable military.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wourm -

      Thanks for that interesting link on Zalushnyy. Him being at Debaltseve as the article says he must have learned some hard lessons.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Debaltseve

      Hopefully he can apply those lessons and this time keep Ukrainian troops from getting kettled.

      Delete