Ukraine-invasion-part-15

[Ijsbear]

Next part.

@TheHateIsNotGood Sorry but i'd prefer any number of wanker western leaders to Putin, who since he came to power has murdered and destroyed his way around Russia, Ukraine, the middle east & now is threatening our very existence.

The fine line of NATO, which has served us all well for many decades, may well need rethinking. Currently we have an impasse, because if any NATO members send 'forces' to Ukraine it is considered as an Act of War against Russia.
That is technically not true. Countries can decide to send their own peacekeeping missions, under their own flags, they just need a request from the government of the receiving country. Exactly what Putin has done in Syria, there actually was a direct conflict between Russia and some NATO countries.
And I think this is exactly what Poland and some other countries (roughly those who voiced their support for the no-fly zone) will do.

Marsha - do not think I appreciate Putin as a friend - 'appreciation' does not equate to 'like'; it means that even as an adversary I appreciate that I am up against a serious opponent that might even defeat me.

Mark Hertling @MarkHertling
Today's thread, a deeper dive on the current discussion of what a Theater Commander (CDR) does....

This is a followup to the excellent article published yesterday by @ZcohenCNN and @KatieBoLillis

KatieBo's & Zach's article reports the Pentagon is stumped about who is leading RU's effort in Ukraine.

Is that important? From my perspective, yes. Knowing "who" provides us insight into that commander's background, potential actions & ways he might conduct a campaign.

Several people posit there may be no overall theater commander...that the Combined Arms Army Commanders (several 3 star Col-Generals) are coordinating amongst themselves. If true, that also provides insight into how RU forces are acting, why there's dysfunction.

Early in this campaign, I spoke to @brikeilarcnn about the Principles of War. One of those is UNITY OF COMMAND. As defined: UNITY OF COMMAND requires a single commander with authority to direct ALL forces in pursuit of a unified strategy.

IOW, CDRs drive the MISSION.

So what kind of "Mission" drive? It's what emanates from the political strategy?

Roosevelt's guidance to Eisenhower for D-Day is an example of a perfect mission, based on desired strategic ends. Short, sweet, w/ few details. It requires the CDR to analyze & plan.

Now, I have no idea of Putin's mission to the Theater CDR, but it might be something like:
1. Execute regime change in Ukraine
2. Control of Black/Azov Sea Ports & land bridge to RU
3. Destroy Ukraine's Army
3. Subjugate Ukraine's population
4. Further Divide NATO/US
If those - or something like those - were Putin's words, it is his political strategy.

And the Theater Cdr must translate this into operational action. He analyzes with staffs & subordinate CDRs to determine essential missions they must accomplish together.

Things like...
-The Forces required
-The Intelligence needed
-A logistics execution plan
-Analysis of terrain/weather
-Tasks subordinate cdrs MUST accomplish (when, where & why)
- The coordination of other service commanders (air, navy, artillery, cyber, etc)

And hundreds of other things.

And that's just the PLANNING. As we all know, no plan survives first contact with the enemy...or, as a famous boxer once said: "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth!"

After planning, a Theater CDR is responsible for overall mission execution.

He must:
-Place Forces
-Synchronization all actions
-Distribute intelligence
-Guide Subordinate CDRS' execution
-Conduct Resupply Operations
-Synchronize other services (navy, air force, etc)

As I told @ZcohenCNN: "Unity of Command means 1 person is in charge— to coordinate fires, direct logistics, commit reserve forces, measure the success (and failure) of different 'wings' of the operation, synchronize the entire joint force, & adjust actions based on that."

In effect, A Theater CDR is the "Operational Artists" of a campaign, blending science with art.

They know the political strategy, and they plan the sequence and execution of the operations so that the tactial battles achieve the political strategy.

What was the operational plan?

Here's my guess:
1.Main Effort (ME): Attack Kyiv from N & E (regime change)
2.Secondary Effort (SE) 1: Attack E & W from Crimea (to establish land bridge to Odesa (& beyond?))
3. (SE) 2: Envelop & Annihilate UKR's Donbas army.

Here are SOME issues with this plan:
1. RU deployed 190k troops...UKR's army has 240+k & territorials. Force mismatch
2. RU force training is substandard; leadership at all levels is poor.
3. Terrain & weather known, but ignored
4. Intelligence on UKR forces poor
5. Naval amphibious landing dependent on ground force reaching Odesa.
6. Air Force poorly trained, Navy not synchronized
7. Communication plan disconnected
8. Troop-to-task requirements excessive
9. No massing of long range fires (rocket, missile, artillery)

Critically important to a theater campaign plan: Logistics support.

A War College Maxim: "If you forget logistics...you'll lose." Russia did not adequately plan or execute logistics.

Russia has "Exterior Lines," UKR has "Interior Lines." Here's what that looks like:

forinborin and I think they will do too. And hope they do so soon.

@elephantmarchingin

I have to say, I agree with you.

A further war will just cause many, many more deaths on a larger scale.

I watched a video from Jeremy Corbyn basically saying that the rich elites send other people’s children to war. It’s always been the same.
Even if NATO intervened in Ukraine and it stayed conventional and not nuclear, the body bags would still be coming back to the UK, US, France, Germany of soldiers who have been killed.

There are no winners in war.

I don’t know what the answer is in Ukraine at the moment, I really don’t. I thought some negotiations were going to come to fruition, but it seems not. So I guess the fighting will just continue until either Putin does something drastic. Because he’s not going to willingly ‘lose’ whatever happens.
It’s a nightmare situation and I feel desperately sorry for the civilians caught up in all this.

Elephant I agree. Why want's a war

I think the difference in many heads is, between this head and heart struggle is that there is a 10% chance Putin would order some sort of Nuclear strike.

Small probably.

But there is a 90% chance that if NATO went into Ukraine it would actually push back Putin extremely quickly, and end the conflict and suffering.

No war would reach anyone's else except for where it is already.

The problem in reality is all the unknown variables, would China join Putin? Who else?

I think many people when they want intervention think a short one would follow.

If Poland, Denmark etc went in, maybe it wouldn't be so swift, but still able to push Putin back.

Agnes ,we would be in if it wasn't for the nuclear threat.

Even if NATO intervened in Ukraine and it stayed conventional and not nuclear, the body bags would still be coming back to the UK, US, France, Germany of soldiers who have been killed

Russia would withdraw if Nato/US got involved but that has a possibility that Putin would see it as the excuse to use nuclear.

We don't need to "go in" directly, we need to arm the Ukrainians far better.

Also need to stop giving Putin millions per day in $ for their gas, this is funding the deaths of civilians and prolonging the war.

Agnes many heir's and landed family's lost people in both world war's

• every woman has a birth plan until they go into labour

*The US assisted, in the end. As I recall from real life back then, the US did not unconditionally back the UK's position in the first couple of weeks, but then it changed its own position from neutral to supporting the UK to eject Argentinian forces.

The key difference between winning and losing was not due to US assistance on the intelligence front. I will never agree with you on that. The British strengths were down to well-trained NCOs with experience in combat present (Northern Ireland) and past. The UK has a certain knack of being able to pass battle know-how through successive intakes of personnel. Largely because British forces have been involved with wars every decade for centuries. The senior NCOs were and still are pivotal to that success. The other factor was the Argentinian mandate for war. There simply wasn't one against the background of Argentina as it was then. Argentinian soldiers were mostly conscripts with no battle experience and some had lost fingers to frostbite before they were able to fire a gun in anger. Whatever morale there was crumbled quickly.*

Yes, thank you.

This US is the father of the world is frankly bullshit. They may have a huge military force but tactically they don't match the UK in any shape or form, hence why they needed us in Iraq and Afghanistan for the intricate stuff. Shock and awe is yank gung ho crap. Uk military is well trained through hundreds of years of experience in every position thinkable, be it urban warfare, in the air, sub zero warfare, jungle warfare, the lot. I remember my fellow comrades coming back from op telic 1 in Iraq saying they were shot at more by the US than the iraq army.

Pile of shite.

The Europeans need to do their own thing

have always appreciated Putin and how he made most Western Leaders look like wankers

@TheHateIsNotGoodshowing … you’re some interesting thought processes and values there. His love for democracy? His tolerance for diversity? His capacity for harnessing collective decision making? How respectful he is towards those who hold a different perspective than his?

Be really interesting to know what values you appreciate…

Then there is the current, alternative situation where the Russian military bombards cties and towns to rubble, making millions of people homeless with those that survive having no home to go back to.

Hardly any agriculture so not only do Ukrainians starve but many in the 3rd World will do too as grain prices rocket. Etc, etc, etc

I really think things have moved on from...Discuss.

@RTB Today I've been seeing multiple reports of stuff like repeatedly trying to cross a river in the same place and putting helicopters in a disputed area to the point that its become a widely known joke within Ukraine. Its hard to see that there is an overall commander. And if thats the case and they still haven't rectified that, its hard to see how going forward things will improve either in terms of operational effectiveness. They will just burn through what they have^

Could there be a more effective commander or two that they will send out? Or is the poor communication between the air force, army and navy entrenched to the point it will never work?

@PaperTyger

Agnes ,we would be in if it wasn't for the nuclear threat.

It is very understandable. I mean it seriously, not mocking.

Can you answer this - how and why the nuclear argument changes if, after capturing Ukraine, Putin decides to 'liberate' Russian speakers in a small NATO country that he also sees as a part of his empire? Say, Latvia (ethnic Russians comprising a quarter of population)?

Would you be prepared to risk an all-out nuclear war in this case?

Every time I hear Hunter Biden

I think 🐿

actually I think Putin did make Western leaders look ... pathetic.

Gerhard Schroder the German Chancellor and driving force on the West side for Nordstrom2?

Trump?

Bojo and Farage?

catch up Blackbird, understanding/appreciating that a person (eg: Putin) can still turn the world on it's head, and the world taps its feet, pouring tea from the sidelines - does not mean I think or am like Putin at all.

Maybe you prefer cut and paste comments

actually I think Putin did make Western leaders look ... pathetic.

I can’t grant him that

I think everyone, not just leaders, make him look like a massively violent.. expletive

I have zero good things to say after this destruction he alone has launched upon the world, mostly the innocent people of Ukraine

I'm not understanding how Putin has made world leader's look pathetic?

Bush? Blair? Brown? Obama? Merkel? Trump? Cameron? Etc etc?

The Kyiv Independent
@KyivIndependent
·
27m
⚡️Zelensky to join NATO summit on March 24.

President Volodymyr Zelensky will give a virtual address to the NATO summit participants. He will speak about the need to stop Russia’s war crimes by closing the sky above Ukraine or supplying the country with air defenses.

NY Times
Russia has withdrawn most of its helicopters from a strategic airport in Kherson, Ukraine, according to satellite images analyzed by The New York Times, in what experts said could be a sign of Russian military setbacks in the south of the country.
twitter.com/nytimes/status/1506375679515971585?t=2UZp55EVjHw8r3Zl4lWGAA&s=19

Forin borin.

Isn't this the question that everyone is asking!
How on earth would I know the answer.

Answer me that.

Answer me this: if NATO didn't intervene if Putin decided to take a small NATO country, would NATO still exist at all from that point.

@Ijsbear

@RTB Today I've been seeing multiple reports of stuff like repeatedly trying to cross a river in the same place and putting helicopters in a disputed area to the point that its become a widely known joke within Ukraine. Its hard to see that there is an overall commander. And if thats the case and they still haven't rectified that, its hard to see how going forward things will improve either in terms of operational effectiveness. They will just burn through what they have^

Could there be a more effective commander or two that they will send out? Or is the poor communication between the air force, army and navy entrenched to the point it will never work?

I think my thought isn't about who they could put in.

Its why they weren't in the first place thats my question. That answer has to be something to do with Putin's paranoia. And if thats the case, I honestly can't see him changing his mind on that either. He is terrified of the army having a leader who could turn on him. If he has the army divided each section of the army all have to turn at the same time.

To put it another way; he sees the risk to himself from the army as greater and more important than the risk to his army from not having proper leadership. He values his own life and position more than up to 50,000 men.