Military history writer Big Serge has published an excellent essay that explains much of what has puzzled observers of the conflict in Ukraine—why does Russia appear to be hanging back, what happened to that much touted offensive, and some other matters as well.
Big Serge is an amazing commentator. For anyone else interested in the dynamics of force generation in modern armies, I'd like to suggest writings from the 1920's, such as John Dickinson's "The Making of an Army," for American parallels. Essentially, the US Army had the same problem as the Russians in 1903-1917, when the law and Constitutional interpretation decreed that the National Guard could not be sent out of United States Territory, which created a dilemma for planners on how to use it as an effective reserve or nucleus for a large volunteer army. Plans for Corps or Divisions that called for a mixture of Regular and NG units couldn't be counted on for mobilizing to fight in WWI because the NG units might not volunteer. The Declaration of War and Selective Service Acts solved that problem by just drafting the existing Guardsman into the new National Army. Putin apparently either does not want to do something similar or lacks the legislative support to pass a law permitting the outright drafting of its mobilized reservists into its regular army formations. It's a fascinating inversion of the Russo-Soviet mobilization system that existed in the last century, which finds the Russian military in similar straights to the dilemma's US law placed on US Army planners in the lead up to WWI.
With the current casualty ratio (10 to 1), and the constant pressure / advances from Russia, why should the Russians change tactics? It's destroying the Ukrainian Military, including their reserves and equipment, at a steady rate. The Ukrainian Actions, such as the terrorist attack, seem to be getting more and more disparate.
And the changes in technology, NATO / US Supported Battlefield Surveillance that direct Ukrainian fire, that make mass concentrations of forces into mass casualty events due to precise targeting, are also impacting the Russian Strategy.
That "All-Seeing Eye" piece was just fascinating, the first I'd ever read from Simplicius when it came out a few weeks back. He really does have a knack for putting the military aspects in perspective...have been reading his 'Stack since, even if much of it goes over my head.
Schryver's going BIG and literal with the general rope-a-dope vibe I was noting below. Continuing along that theme, perhaps the "Whoopass in the Donbass"? 😉
The fact Simplicius noted US forces take an hour to get fire on target astounded me, compared to 5 minutes in WW2.
And that Russia has delegated fire authorization to a Lieutenant, compared to the US Bureaucracy.
I’ve read lots of stories of US forces that could not get fire authorization, which resulted in US casualties. Of course nobody’s career gets destroyed for saying no for a call for fire support, but an enemy accusation of innocents killed has killed careers, and even has the potential of jail time.
Inasmuch as may be more-attributable to Russian structural/organizational limitations than anything strategic or intentional, the unfolding of this conflict seems to have all the makings of a slow motion rope-a-dope. While we in the West are flailing away by emptying our stockpiles and treasuries (Ukrainian pensions, anyone?) and backing ourselves into extreme rhetorical positions, our "on the ropes" opponent has yet to throw any of its big punches. Every day we wait to come up with serious proposals to end this, our negotiating position weakens. Not being defeatist, but real...nobody wants what's best for legitimate American interests more than I do.
On the topic of BTGs, I saw this from Simplicius76 the other day. While no expert in matters of military strategy myself, I did find it an interesting primer:
Hmmm. I think the Russians need to get things sorted out now in Ukraine. This is dragging on too long. Sure, they are bleeding the Ukrainian military (and Nato) dry, but at some point, if this continues, the neocons are going to do something really stupid.
Lots of what is coming through the fog of war is explained pretty well with Serge's conclusions, but one (main?) thing still doesn't add up: the 4 new regions are after the referenda and subsequent admission by Duma part of Russian Federation, therefore deploying any number of conscripts to these territories should be legally covered. Yet it is not happening - either by lack of will or strength, or some decision making paralysis, as if some internal battle in the very top of Russian leadership needs to be resolved first.
This painful pedantic following of law is going to be perdition of Russia, US certainly does give a FF about following any of its own laws - first and foremost Congress authorization of war, as by any rational metric US has been in constant war on many fronts since at least 9/11.
Good question/observation, but I think that Mark's post contains the answer(s). For example,
"...The incorporation of several formerly Ukrainian oblasts into the Russian Federation has obviated some of the legal difficulties, but the organizational problems are still being worked through..."
In other words, conscripts are (now) legally in the oblasts in Ukraine that have been legally incorporated into the Russian Federation.
The other "answer" is found in Big Serge's analysis, and has two points: (1) the conscripts are still not optimally trained; and (2) the structure of the BTGs is not conducive for the type of warfare that is now required to make a big, effective push to demilitarize Ukraine.
As a well-known Twitter author says, "Time will tell..." (see Geroman on Telegram, as he is blocked on Twitter now).
Thanks for this explanation. The Russian Federation remains my only hope for ending my enslavement to the US weapons industry. Why doesn't anyone else try to stop 70+ years of US attempts to overthrow other governments? "Whatever the sympathy we may have for the people of the United States, their country is still the main predator of humanity. We can in no circumstance claim to share their “values.“” July 2019, Manlio Dinucci, Italy
As always, thank you for gathering and summarizing the best news sources you can find! It's hugely helpful, because you take the time to ones that are trustworthy, which are unfortunately scarce in this day and age.
Big Serge is an amazing commentator. For anyone else interested in the dynamics of force generation in modern armies, I'd like to suggest writings from the 1920's, such as John Dickinson's "The Making of an Army," for American parallels. Essentially, the US Army had the same problem as the Russians in 1903-1917, when the law and Constitutional interpretation decreed that the National Guard could not be sent out of United States Territory, which created a dilemma for planners on how to use it as an effective reserve or nucleus for a large volunteer army. Plans for Corps or Divisions that called for a mixture of Regular and NG units couldn't be counted on for mobilizing to fight in WWI because the NG units might not volunteer. The Declaration of War and Selective Service Acts solved that problem by just drafting the existing Guardsman into the new National Army. Putin apparently either does not want to do something similar or lacks the legislative support to pass a law permitting the outright drafting of its mobilized reservists into its regular army formations. It's a fascinating inversion of the Russo-Soviet mobilization system that existed in the last century, which finds the Russian military in similar straights to the dilemma's US law placed on US Army planners in the lead up to WWI.
With the current casualty ratio (10 to 1), and the constant pressure / advances from Russia, why should the Russians change tactics? It's destroying the Ukrainian Military, including their reserves and equipment, at a steady rate. The Ukrainian Actions, such as the terrorist attack, seem to be getting more and more disparate.
https://substack.com/inbox/post/106033577
And the changes in technology, NATO / US Supported Battlefield Surveillance that direct Ukrainian fire, that make mass concentrations of forces into mass casualty events due to precise targeting, are also impacting the Russian Strategy.
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/all-seeing-eye-can-russia-break-through
Another view by William Schryver is Russia is letting the Ukrainian's mass for an offensive, so they can be wiped out:
https://substack.com/inbox/post/106123881
That "All-Seeing Eye" piece was just fascinating, the first I'd ever read from Simplicius when it came out a few weeks back. He really does have a knack for putting the military aspects in perspective...have been reading his 'Stack since, even if much of it goes over my head.
Schryver's going BIG and literal with the general rope-a-dope vibe I was noting below. Continuing along that theme, perhaps the "Whoopass in the Donbass"? 😉
Hmm…
The fact Simplicius noted US forces take an hour to get fire on target astounded me, compared to 5 minutes in WW2.
And that Russia has delegated fire authorization to a Lieutenant, compared to the US Bureaucracy.
I’ve read lots of stories of US forces that could not get fire authorization, which resulted in US casualties. Of course nobody’s career gets destroyed for saying no for a call for fire support, but an enemy accusation of innocents killed has killed careers, and even has the potential of jail time.
Inasmuch as may be more-attributable to Russian structural/organizational limitations than anything strategic or intentional, the unfolding of this conflict seems to have all the makings of a slow motion rope-a-dope. While we in the West are flailing away by emptying our stockpiles and treasuries (Ukrainian pensions, anyone?) and backing ourselves into extreme rhetorical positions, our "on the ropes" opponent has yet to throw any of its big punches. Every day we wait to come up with serious proposals to end this, our negotiating position weakens. Not being defeatist, but real...nobody wants what's best for legitimate American interests more than I do.
On the topic of BTGs, I saw this from Simplicius76 the other day. While no expert in matters of military strategy myself, I did find it an interesting primer:
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/the-btg-is-dead-long-live-the-btg
Yes, I found it very interesting, too.
Simplicius just gave you a (well-deserved) shoutout alongside Mercouris, Larry Johnson and The Gateway Pundit.
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/5k-subs-milestone-thank-you-and-whats
Oh my! How nice!
Hmmm. I think the Russians need to get things sorted out now in Ukraine. This is dragging on too long. Sure, they are bleeding the Ukrainian military (and Nato) dry, but at some point, if this continues, the neocons are going to do something really stupid.
The Duran guys were agreeing the other day that this development with China may be the signal that both want to get this done.
They certainly know what the price of inaction will be.
Lots of what is coming through the fog of war is explained pretty well with Serge's conclusions, but one (main?) thing still doesn't add up: the 4 new regions are after the referenda and subsequent admission by Duma part of Russian Federation, therefore deploying any number of conscripts to these territories should be legally covered. Yet it is not happening - either by lack of will or strength, or some decision making paralysis, as if some internal battle in the very top of Russian leadership needs to be resolved first.
This painful pedantic following of law is going to be perdition of Russia, US certainly does give a FF about following any of its own laws - first and foremost Congress authorization of war, as by any rational metric US has been in constant war on many fronts since at least 9/11.
Good question/observation, but I think that Mark's post contains the answer(s). For example,
"...The incorporation of several formerly Ukrainian oblasts into the Russian Federation has obviated some of the legal difficulties, but the organizational problems are still being worked through..."
In other words, conscripts are (now) legally in the oblasts in Ukraine that have been legally incorporated into the Russian Federation.
The other "answer" is found in Big Serge's analysis, and has two points: (1) the conscripts are still not optimally trained; and (2) the structure of the BTGs is not conducive for the type of warfare that is now required to make a big, effective push to demilitarize Ukraine.
As a well-known Twitter author says, "Time will tell..." (see Geroman on Telegram, as he is blocked on Twitter now).
For an extensive examination of the structure of the BTG and how the Russians are apparently changing it, see
https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/the-btg-is-dead-long-live-the-btg
Definitely worthwhile.
Excellent. I'd come to rely on him.
Thanks for this explanation. The Russian Federation remains my only hope for ending my enslavement to the US weapons industry. Why doesn't anyone else try to stop 70+ years of US attempts to overthrow other governments? "Whatever the sympathy we may have for the people of the United States, their country is still the main predator of humanity. We can in no circumstance claim to share their “values.“” July 2019, Manlio Dinucci, Italy
As always, thank you for gathering and summarizing the best news sources you can find! It's hugely helpful, because you take the time to ones that are trustworthy, which are unfortunately scarce in this day and age.
AGREED!!
Makes me wonder if someone altered the weather
The "John Kerry" influence in the war...
Thanks. Serge has some very good stuff on offer.