How to Beat Russia [pdf]
globsec.org
globsec.org
Looks like Russia mobilized over half a million soldiers so far (while officially stating 300K). Their military factories are working on 3 shifts 24/7. When they produce enough equipment and weapons no doubt they'll do a new wave of mobilization. Long term Russia can mobilize more soldiers than Ukraine, so NATO has to compensate by supplying Ukraine with big amount of artillery, tanks, fuel, equipment and most importantly ammo.
NATO has large stocks of 155mm shells. But they can also buy them because it's become a standard outside of the non Russian influence world. South Korea has a huge production and stock that is under negotiation.
Numbers around mobilization are really iffy. I watched an opposition Russian politician yesterday saying no more than 200,000 had been drafted, so your number is the opposite direction to his. I bet even the Kremlin doesn't know the true number due to the way the regions were instructed to draft.
Even if they had all that, they are outranged by NATO missiles, so all ammo dumps have to be very far away from the front (90+ km). Munitions and supplies must be moved in small and uneven batches on poor roads and with overworked crews and equipment over multiple days.
UA forces share some of these issues, but not as badly.
Do you have a source for that. The last part (especially) is pretty unbelievable. I would assume that the techniques for pouring flat concrete isn't new, and even if they didn't have it, they could just make forklifts with bigger wheels or something. For instance, here's a US military forklift driving on gravel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forklift#Counterbalanced_forkl....
I do understand the Russians are much more focused on rail for military transport compared to the US, which then let them make design choices that have made it hard to switch to truck transport.
1. You can point to a source with some authority talking about the lack of a thing. Which shouldn't be too hard, since, unless you're ex-Russian Army logistics, you must have learned those claims from somewhere.
2. You can point to a source talking talking about Russian Army logistics, that shows them "moving things by hand" when forklifts would be more appropriate.
3. You can point to a source talking about how all forklifts require really flat concrete, and not all countries can make it because [reasons]. However, you probably can't do that because that would contradict the example I gave of a forklift operating on gravel.
Most of my evidence here is fueled by what I've been seeing and hearing via the internet, so take it with a grain of salt. I'm, thankfully, not in theater. That said, these sources do seem to be 'experts' of some sort or another behind their own fog of war:
War on the Rocks, podcast and online
Foreign Policy Magazine, online edition
Washington Post, print and online
New York Times, print and online
Philips P O'Brien, publications and twitter
Trent Telenko, interviews and podcasts and twitter
ChrisO_wiki, twitter
Go ahead and look in the older work if you're curious to find more out about the logistical mountain that RF is facing. The concrete thing, though a bit curious, does seem to bear out in photos of their ammo dumps and RF's inability to cure a pad before rebar is stolen (WaPo, NYT, and ChrisO_wiki are good on this issue). Gravel isn't going to work for such repeated use in wet conditions. To move those loads you'd need very large tires to distribute the weight, something like a JCB. Something that RF also seems to be without. Like, they really do seem to be that corrupt and incompetent.
> The concrete thing, though a bit curious, does seem to bear out in photos of their ammo dumps and RF's inability to cure a pad before rebar is stolen (WaPo, NYT, and ChrisO_wiki are good on this issue).
However, the reasoning you give here makes the claim more credible, since it makes clear the problem is corruption not technology.
That's not true: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/05/us/politics/cruise-missil...:
"Weapons investigators in Kyiv found that at least one Russian Kh-101 cruise missile used in widespread attacks there on Nov. 23 had been made no earlier than October."
> ...whereas those are available to NATO, and we've seen those be a lot more effective than the dumb artillery.
They are, but I'm under the impression that NATO/the US would also quickly use up their cruise missile stockpiles in the event of a hot war.
> NATO has large stocks of 155mm shells. But they can also buy them because it's become a standard outside of the non Russian influence world. South Korea has a huge production and stock that is under negotiation.
South Korea isn't allowing any of their equipment or ammunition to be exported to Ukraine. The best that enables is for Western countries to play musical chairs and give Ukraine a greater share of their stockpiles/production from other sources.
Musical chairs indeed but pretty direct ones:
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/11/politics/us-artillery-sou...
I mean that's pretty much just throwing the chair at someone.
> Evidently, Ukraine will prevail.
> The report is based on open-source intelligence information and a series of 20 extensive interviews with combat-experienced Ukrainian commanders and soldiers.
> This report pursues two simple questions throughout ten dimensions: What are the Ukrainians doing particularly well? And what can we in NATO, the EU, and beyond learn from them?
Interesting research although it seems a little subjective.
Also, if you need to write "evidently", then it's probably not that evident.
1 in an evident manner : clearly, obviously
2 on the basis of available evidence
(It can be used ironically for whatever that word means, but, ironically every word can be)
(From Merriam-Webster)
The only "seed of doubt" they throw in is that to win territory, Ukraine will have to pivot from small-unit warfare to brigade-level operations, and they will find that pivot difficult. It will require not just lots of armour and ammunition, but a big change in training and command. I think the authors may have understated that problem.
I also thought the authors might be in danger ot urging NATO commanders to "fight the last war", i.e. the Ukraine war. The Ukrainian doctrine might be applicable in the defence of e.g. Baltic states; but Ukrainian terrain and conditions are rather particular.
The observation that NATO should drastically accellerate the development cycle for weapons systems, build less huge, expensive weapons and lots of cheap, simple disposable weapons is bang on. NATO's weapons systems aren't designed for use by a mobilized population; they're designed to enrich big arms companies. By contrast, Ukrainians are building weapons from off-the-shelf drones and homemade grenade release mechanisms.
Wide open spaces and cold weather aren't unique to Ukraine, and their impact on large offensives was well documented going back to Napoleon. The WW2 Germans wrote extensively about the challenges there.
> NATO's weapons systems aren't designed for use by a mobilized population; they're designed to enrich big arms companies
Who do you think will be manufacturing these cheap, simple, disposable weapons? This means instead of shipping expensive systems now contactors go for bulk sales.
NATO systems are complex but highly effective at fighting large, combined arms wars. Mobilizing population means you're desperate.
> By contrast, Ukrainians are building weapons from off-the-shelf drones and homemade grenade release mechanisms.
Artillery and high-end spotting drones, not crappy DFI quadcopters and grenades', are still the #1 killer by a long shot. HIMARS -- long range missiles -- were a serious game changer. Shit-tier drones aren't going to with the war; ACATMS and Excalibur shells might.
Indeed we learned that WW1 style trench warfare is still a thing, so you need cannon fodder, howitzers and shells.
Alternatively, one might try diplomacy like Bismarck (who was fired by the emperor before WW1 and replaced by neocon equivalents).
I'd add "put a lot of anti-missile defence around your power plants" as trying to break civilians seems to be Putin's favorite ploy.
This works both ways, though, as Ukrainian AA is also very effective.
Also, despite "...with combat-experienced...", it feels like no skin in the game.
> Provide basic military training and basic medical training to large parts of society
as an opening recommendation. Are they serious? Why would we bother? It is obvious that the Russian army can't challenge the NATO army as it stands.
But stories are just that, stories. And the war is not being decided in the information space.
- Denys Davydov (Ukrainian, most frequent updates, also has telegram channel which has a lot more battleground details than what youtube allows to show)
- Jake Broe (US army veteran mostly providing American perspective)
- Arthur Rehi (Estonian providing decent summaries)