Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Long-Term Lessons from the Ukraine War
A few very important lessons have been learned from the war so far:
1: Big dumb platforms are dead. Anti-tank weapons have shredded the most advanced tanks Russia had, and there is little evidence that Merkavas, Challengers, or Abrams would fare much better.
For tanks, APCs, or other large vehicles to survive, they need to get much smarter. They need electronic systems to foil the countless tank-killers that float in the air or mount on a shoulder. Even so, they would not survive the overhead drone dropping a small bomb directly on top. I am skeptical that the future battlefield will have tanks — they are analogous to suits of armor meeting firearms.
2: Manned fighters and bombers are done. There is almost nothing left in their purview that cannot be done as well by a drone, missile, or artillery shell. All the governments that spend and spend to keep the guy in the cockpit will have to abandon those programs.
The best way to defeat drones or missiles, on the other hand, is to blind or confuse them. This can be done directly or by intercepting/hacking their signals. Warfare is going to become ever more electronic.
3: Artillery, with drone spotters, work extremely well. There are countless videos of artillery shells achieving incredible hit rates on vehicles hiding in forests or next to high buildings.
Knowledge becomes ever more important. Whoever has – and can keep – a dominant edge in real-time surveillance can, with intelligent and motivated troops, outfox a larger enemy every time.
Thoughts?
Published in General
The long range stuff Russia is operating can do so as long as it is out of the Ukes’ artillery’s range because the Ukes are very good at counterbattery fire.
Someone may have helped them with that. Then again, they are pretty smart.
Jamming. Lasers. Other means are in the works.
Tanks are most vulnerable to hits from above, particularly Russian tanks due to design flaws.
If the drones are suppressed, the tanks are not as much at risk. Drones should be focused on tanker trucks and other logistics support.
I’ll take a Stryker brigade and a few Longbow Apaches over your anti-tank wielding infantry any day.
I strongly disagree. There is little in the arsenals of war that has gone extinct. For example, cutting edge blades remain relevant. I think it’s a case of “and”, not “or”. The drone tanks are coming soon. Tactics will change, and first world militaries will develop joint force approaches that utilize all of the above. Yes, there is clearly a revolution in war doctrine underway, but it’s more complicated than a simple replacement theory.
No. Shermans. I like tanks that are survivable for their crews. When hit, 80% of Sherman crews survived; only 18% of T-34 crews did.
The problem with the attempted coup de main was it got Russia’s elite formations trashed right at the beginning, apparently based on Putin’s self-delusion that the Ukrainians would fold / welcome them – take your pick. It’s been downhill ever since as far as destroying their best and most modern weapons and crews.
We appear to be at or just before Russia’s culmination point in the campaign. As of today, the Ukrainians managed to push the Russians back out of part of Severodonetsk that they took in the last few days, apparently with significant losses. Could be the Russians are out of gas (figuratively or literally), which has bigger implications, or that the Ukrainians sucked them into a giant kill box based on the Russian’s known anxiety to grab the city ASAP, which is a tactical error but with less broad implication.
When we hit culmination, we find out if this will settle down into a 21st century version of the Western Front, or whether Ukraine can generate the force necessary to take back territory. That Russia’s assets in Western media and political circles are suddenly talking about cease-fires and ‘pacification’ suggest that someone in Russia is also taking this view and would rather not find out the answer.
It would seem to point to the very real possibility that their nukes may very likely be in a poor state of repair as well.
This is my hope and it cannot be ruled out.
Minor seemingly ineffective efforts can become truly effective if combined correctly. I have no love for this Potemkin US administration, but so far I think our contribution is well done by and large. Plenty of missteps, but that’s the way things go.
Russkie na Xuy.
Unfortunately only a few need to work for it to be a really bad ugly result. Also if they launch the counter launch will pretty much insure a really ugly result. I agree though given the general state of their military there is no reason to think their nuclear forces are in better shape.
I have read that the M777 the US is starting to supply has about 2 miles more range than the Russian’s equivalent. I would assume that would seem even longer if you were under fire. Counterbattery really isn’t an option with that kind of advantage. What doesn’t make sense to me is why the Russians aren’t using their AirPower advantage to take out the artillery. Russia has had persistent logistics problems from the beginning. I saw an YouTube that suggested this may be due to pervasive corruption. If so they may be over a barrel.
They can’t. If they fly low enough for their dumb bombs to hit anything, they’ll catch a Stinger.
Or the goal, plainly stated by the propaganda organs pushing the Z narrative, building on years of sonorous Duginesque theorizing about Russia’s special messianic truths, was bringing Little Russia back into the fold.
Now, one could say that Putin the Admirable was using this deep narrative as cover for a crafty realpolitik maneuver, and he doesn’t really care at all about Russian exceptionalism; it’s just highfalutin’ talk for domestic consumption. Eh. I think when someone tells you who they are, you take them at their word.
Even if the goal was keeping Ukraine out of NATO, success would come with a remarkable price. At the very least he explained for the world why Ukraine would want to join NATO: to prevent an aggressive neighbor from invading, killing its people, demolishing its cities. The ancillary price is severing Russia from the global economy, because companies know it’s bad PR to associate themselves with countries whose armies are now regarded as rapist hospital-bombers.
Which, I know, is unfair to the Russian troops who are invading Ukraine but have not actually being rapist hospital-bombers. But hey, in for a kopek, in for a ruble.
What are the US war aims? I know we live in a world where our elites think of war as PR by other means, but surely there are real-world interests that will be advanced or retarded by the decisions that are being made.
(It is a pity that some see any attempt to have any discussion other than a chorus of “Putin is a poopyhead” as a moral failing. James’s comment above is unworthy of him.)
I think China is winning this war. Ukraine may evict Russia, Russia may achieve it’s strategic aims, but at the end both will lose. Whoever controls Ukraine at the end will control a decimated country. Russia’s military and military capability have been decimated. Many parents on both sides have lost their children.
Before the war, Biden appeared to be trying alternately to entice Russia into war ( If Russia does this, America and Nato certainly wouldn’t do that…. we will restrain ourselves ) or to humiliate Russia into attacking. Biden wanted this war, and succeeded in provoking it. The war is entirely Putin’s responsibility, but Biden is an utterly evil man in working to provoke the war.
I am being a little flippant here but not much, Why does the US need war aims here? It isn’t our war yet. We are an enabler of the Ukrainians, but we aren’t the ones risking blood yet. The stated aims of NATO is that Russia should not benefit from its attack on a sovereign nation. Unstated but readily apparent goal is to degrade Russian forces and make it less of a threat against an article 5 country. We would appear to be achieving that in some regards. The Biden administration is a bumbling mess, but really did we expect anything less? We are contributing 40 billion to the enterprise, which is a lot of money but not by US government standards. I doubt it will be spent wisely; however, if it keeps Russia occupied and from being aggressive toward NATO and gives China something to think about on Taiwan it is probably better spent than anything else that Biden and the Democrats could dream up. Would I prefer we spend money to shore up our own border, sure. It isn’t going to happen with grandpa Joe and the Democrats running the government.
Which makes sense from a western perspective. But loosing millions in armor and hundreds of men verses millions in aviation and dozens of men seems like a poor trade. It may make sense because training a pilot is more expensive than training a conscript to man Soviet era armor. Still it is hard to make the case that Moscow is willing to burn through men and materiel with frightening high casualties to achieve its war aims and not notice that the are being very spare with one of their true advantages.
They sell those airplanes. Having a Sukhoi-57 fireballed by a farmer with a MANPAD is bad for business.
Plus it makes the pilots cranky.
It appears our aim is to let Ukrainians die to defeat Russia. Leaders on both sides of the uniparty are calling for Putin to be removed from power. They want Russia destroyed.
Enabling isn’t the same as forcing. I do believe the Ukrainians have some say here. And I must have missed Vladimir’s l‘état, c’est moi speech. He no doubt thinks so, but he’s got to wonder if all of his henchmen think so too.
Putin ≭ Russia
This is like a mid-semester report card. Here’s my assessment:
China: A+ , they have discounts on resources and weakened rivals; the plan is working
Western Europe: F , they don’t pay much into the effort; have broken energy policies; tolerated civil war too long
Eastern Europe: B, they have managed refugees well and funneled in supplies without getting directly entangled
Africa: C, they are struggling with high prices for food and energy
Western Ukraine: A+, they have replaced Russian money stream with larger American money stream
Eastern Ukraine: C-, they have moved from simmering civil war to hot civil war and are more likely to fail than pass
Russia: C, they have nearly met stated objectives, but will struggle to sustain
America: D, they have used influence/power to provoke greater war not peace and billions will suffer; corruption problems.
You seem to be arguing over the tools, and not seeing the bigger picture. Putin seems to have forgotten the lesson from the Russian defeat of the Germans in World War II. That lesson was that if you invade a country with little or no provocation, you are awakening a sleeping giant, who will fight fiercely for his motherland. The Russians defeated the Germans on Russian soil in defense of their country. Putin was surprised by the Ukrainian response, when he should not have been, if he remembered Russia’s own history. The Ukrainians are just as possessive of their country as Putin is of his, perhaps moreso, due to Ukraine’s history of Russian occupation. Ukraine is defending its homeland like a mother bear defends her cubs. And even if Putin “wins”, he can never subdue the Ukrainian people, who will fight a continuing guerrilla war against the occupiers.
I agree with your #3. As to #1, these are Russian tanks, and not even the latest models. They have one serious flaw which has been exploited to great success. That doesn’t mean it carries to other tank designs. As to #2, in the end you have to take possession of territory. You still need boots on the ground. It’s no different than bombing cities to death, which has not completed the job ever.
It hasn’t even been anti armor technology that has destroyed the Russian tanks. They have a vulnerability spot between the turret and main body of the tank. And amazingly they store their ammo right under there. If you can get a projectile underneath the turret with explosive effect, you ignite the rounds and blow the top of the turret off. It’s been called a jack-in-the-box kill because the turret pops off like a jack-in-the-box. Of course it also kills everyone inside.
Just hitting the top of the turret can cause it too. Some of the drones are dropping finned anti-tank grenades.
Yes but some congressmen have said we’re in a proxy war with Russia and Russia must lose.
They’re probably evolving as the war evolves. Like Russia’s are.
The limits of sanctions becoming apparent are also part of the mix – and it’ll be interesting to see how the US responds to these. Europe is continuing to consume piped Russian oil but no longer shipped Russian oil – with a carve out that allows Greek shipping to take Russian oil from Russian ports to other countries (like India or China).
As more expensive oil hits the European economies, how solid is NATO going to be about maintaining sanctions?
As grain shortages impact US allies like Egypt, how solid will those alliances remain? How will Egypt perceive this alliance going forward if it’s associated not just with patronage but with hunger?
Speaking of wheat: Russia normally exports twice the amount that Ukraine does. But Ukraine’s exports are blocked, at the moment, and Russia banned the export of grains until the beginning of June. (I don’t know if they’ve started exporting yet or not.) So it’s become a sanction in reverse, which I believe was not expected.
And last but not least, the US used the ‘nuclear option’ when it kicked most Russian banks off SWIFT. Somehow Russia is still standing. I assume that’s causing something of a rethink in Washington, but it’s undoubtedly causing some rethinking in other parts of the world as well.
So the game now is to take the oil from Vladivostok to a private oil refinery in India on a Greek tanker. The paperwork is changed to say that it is Indonesian oil or whatever. A Greek freighter then transports the oil to Italy where it is offloaded and placed in the pipeline. Much more expensive. Achieves nothing other than enriching Indian oil refiners and Greek shippers.
This has been a large boost to China’s parallel system. The US has lost its ability to track financial transaction as China’s system is now ready for prime time.
Also, the Russian ruble is trading at much higher levels than before the war relative to the dollar, Euro and pound.
While Americans are believing the bull s**t in the media about the Russian economy being sunk because they can’t go to McDonald’s or Starbucks, Mcdonald’s and Starbucks are just under new management in Russia and still open. They’ve been expropriated. The high-end Beverly Hills stores are still closed. But who cares?
Americans think of Russia as being a technologically-backward country that is highly dependent on world trade. They aren’t. Russia invaded with fewer men than Ukraine had. When besieging defended positions the rule of thumb is 3-1. Russia did not have the 3-1 advantage. They created it. By killing Ukrainians. And have been taking Ukraine’s heavily defended positions. Russia has not been using its most advanced weapon systems in Ukraine? Why? Could it be they are expecting a Nato onslaught when Ukraine loses?
Ukraine has launched counteroffensives, but Ukraine can only conduct these at the battalion level. And the Kharkiv counteroffensive is being pushed back. Ukraine has launched another in the south and that is already faltering. Ukraine is doomed.
One of the things that conservatives should know best is that by providing huge amounts of aid to Ukraine as we are, we will be destroying Ukraine. Ukraine will become a new welfare recipient relying on Uncle Sam to do everything for him. Israel is smart. Keep Uncle Sam at arm’s length and rely on yourself. Ukraine’s elites are like Afghan elites. They will suck every last dollarout of UncleSam they can, and the Ukrainianpeople will be lefton the ash heap.
Oil, due to its characteristics, is not completely fungible – so some ‘re-named’ Russian oil will undoubtedly get to Europe this way (though so long as the Druzhka pipeline remains in tact, they are already getting a bunch via Hungary etc.). But to the extent that Russian oil can, it will likely replace oil from the Middle East in India – which will continue to import from the Middle East, refine, and ship to Europe? Unless it’s cheaper to refine in India I don’t know why the Middle East wouldn’t do that itself? In either case, Europe gets the oil it wants but it now pays a lot more for it.
It’s fair to say neither Russia not Ukraine are finding this a quick, easy fight.
I’m finding myself scouring the internet for alternative points of view, or better yet of information. I ran across the Duran Podcast – which seems to make a lot of sense and which is definitely not part of the consensus – but then they keep chatting with this guy Gonzalo Lira in Kharkiv – which is good, because right there, right? – who turns out to be Coach Red Pill of the manosphere – which (maybe unfairly?) makes me take it less seriously. There’s also Military Summary which is really fascinating and seems to be reasonably balanced – but who knows? It’s all still very fog of war.
Thought I’d link to a piece offering a cautionary note about assuming too much and too quickly about the future role of UAVs in warfare. Choice excerpt:
“Advances in UAVs will gradually alter the dynamics of warfare, but it is ridiculous to suggest that they are on the cusp of completely upending things. There are three principal reasons for this: the nature of combined arms, the economics of drone warfare, and the operational difficulties of drone strikes.”
https://globalsentinelng.com/drone-apocalypse-the-end-of-warfare-as-we-know-it/