Lessons of the Ukraine war

[mindlight]

What are the key takeaways? What can the West do to improve its military effectiveness?

1) Mass matters - you need the bulk to endure a war of attrition. Both the key Western rivals of Russia and China have this bulk in basic weaponry, manpower and munitions. The West needs to think about how much force it could supply to a prolonged war

2) Drone warfare - Drones can overwhelm, and reconnoiter and are a significant force multiplier allowing asymmetric attacks on naval assets for example. They provide new and innovative attack vectors and defensive strategies

3) It is hard to mass for an attack - precision weaponry at a distance means that massing forces can be quickly annihilated.

4) Air supremacy matters and neither side achieved this in Ukraine, this would not be the case in a shooting war with NATO.

5) West is best - Russian technology has proven inferior but they have more of it.

6) We know what they are thinking - Russian military secrets are on display on the battlefield and can be analyzed and countered with previous-generation Western weaponry while we develop the next-generation kit.

7) Force combination and overview of the battlefield matters. You need the overview provided by good surveillance and communication technologies.

What are the key military lessons of this war? How can the West improve its own military effectiveness as a result of what has been learned?

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

5) West is best - Russian technology has proven inferior but they have more of it.

Quantity has a quality of its own. The Russians choose to make less technologically sophisticated weapons because they are cheaper, require less training, and are easier to operate under less-than-ideal conditions.

 

[mindlight]

Quantity has a quality of its own. The Russians choose to make less technologically sophisticated weapons because they are cheaper, require less training, and are easier to operate under less-than-ideal conditions.

Gulf War 1 and 2 showed what happens to a technologically inferior enemy in a shooting war with NATO. The Iraqi army was annihilated in a matter of weeks. In that case the Coalition had absolute air supremacy and battlefield intelligence.

The Ukraine war has become a war of attrition because neither side commands the skies. That cannot change without NATO involvement but in that case there is the fear of a quick escalation to the nuclear option by a Russia outclassed in conventional warfare and feeling a threat to its existential existence

The Russian war machine is gearing up to the basics in part because Western sanctions deny it access to advanced chips, in part because it is fighting a war of attrition akin to WW1 trench warfare and partly because it is trapped in a certain mentality.

Putin gambled many of his best troops early in the war in the hope of a quick grab of Ukrainian territory. He acted on faulty intelligence regarding Ukrainian feelings about Russia. Many of these well trained troops died then or in the grind that followed. So new recruits operating basic equipment is his only option really.

 

[Gene2memE]

War has entered the surveillance age - drones and cheap thermals have made it almost impossible to hide on the modern battlefield

Precision and directed fires matter - Russia has been firing off somewhere between 6 and 8 times the volume of artillery of Ukraine, for somewhere between 1/2 and 1/3 of the effective casualties.

Static defenses work - Both Russia and Ukraine have shown that cheap, dense minefields backed up by fixed defensive positions are sufficient to blunt attacks enough for a response from artillery, drones and infantry/armour

Innovative tactics and use of equipment produce results - Best examples are Ukraine going mobile with Patriot to shoot down Russian C2 aircraft and the use of sea drones to sink Russian ships.

 

[mindlight]

War has entered the surveillance age - drones and cheap thermals have made it almost impossible to hide on the modern battlefield

Precision and directed fires matter - Russia has been firing off somewhere between 6 and 8 times the volume of artillery of Ukraine, for somewhere between 1/2 and 1/3 of the effective casualties.

Static defenses work - Both Russia and Ukraine have shown that cheap, dense minefields backed up by fixed defensive positions are sufficient to blunt attacks enough for a response from artillery, drones and infantry/armour

Innovative tactics and use of equipment produce results - Best examples are Ukraine going mobile with Patriot to shoot down Russian C2 aircraft and the use of sea drones to sink Russian ships.

I am interested to see how the British laser interceptor works out.

DragonFire: UK laser could be used against Russian drones on Ukraine front line

The defence secretary said the laser could be used to take down Russian drones as early as 2027.

www.bbc.co.uk

The recent Iranian attack on Israel shows that drones launched from too far a distance can be intercepted quite easily if you have full battlefield intelligence and visibility. I guess swarming, speed, and stealth capabilities are the next steps in drone evolution but that will probably add to their expense.

The war in Ukraine seems very much like a WW1 war of attrition. It is waiting for either a technological breakthrough, a diplomatic solution, or a surge of resources on either side to break the stalemate.

 

[Estrid]

What are the key takeaways? What can the West do to improve its military effectiveness?

1) Mass matters - you need the bulk to endure a war of attrition. Both the key Western rivals of Russia and China have this bulk in basic weaponry, manpower and munitions. The West needs to think about how much force it could supply to a prolonged war

2) Drone warfare - Drones can overwhelm, and reconnoiter and are a significant force multiplier allowing asymmetric attacks on naval assets for example. They provide new and innovative attack vectors and defensive strategies

3) It is hard to mass for an attack - precision weaponry at a distance means that massing forces can be quickly annihilated.

4) Air supremacy matters and neither side achieved this in Ukraine, this would not be the case in a shooting war with NATO.

5) West is best - Russian technology has proven inferior but they have more of it.

6) We know what they are thinking - Russian military secrets are on display on the battlefield and can be analyzed and countered with previous-generation Western weaponry while we develop the next-generation kit.

7) Force combination and overview of the battlefield matters. You need the overview provided by good surveillance and communication technologies.

What are the key military lessons of this war? How can the West improve its own military effectiveness as a result of what has been learned?

I doubt any of that is a new lesson

 

[mindlight]

I doubt any of that is a new lesson

That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun. Ecc 1:9

Except Solomon never knew anything about drones, aircraft cyber warfare, missiles and satellite surveillance - so I guess the guy was wrong in the main. The political configurations are aöways changing also.

 

[Estrid]

That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun. Ecc 1:9

Except Solomon never knew anything about drones, aircraft cyber warfare, missiles and satellite surveillance - so I guess the guy was wrong in the main. The political configurations are aöways changing also.

The Solomon thing is lacking
in wisdom.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

That the West is no longer hegemonic and can be countered. That US hegemony is beggining and thankfully starting to fade.

 

[Estrid]

That the West is no longer hegemonic and can be countered. That US hegemony is beggining and thankfully starting to fade.

You think it will be replaced by something
better?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

You think it will be replaced by something
better?

I don't know. But I would prefer a more anarchic order which allows for the possibility of good regimes or better ones, to the one promised by the USA at this moment.

 

[Estrid]

I don't know. But I would prefer a more anarchic order which allows for the possibility of good regimes or better ones, to the one promised by the USA at this moment.

I'd say beware of getting what you wish for

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I'd say beware of getting what you wish for

Of you would. You believe in the current US Hegemonic system. I do not.

 

[Estrid]

Of you would. You believe in the current US Hegemonic system. I do not.

I'm hardly an American or their apologist.

And the old saying applies always,whether or
it suits you..

Who do you think has the capacity,to
take on the job?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I'm hardly an American or their apologist.

And the old saying applies always,whether or
it suits you..

Who do you think has the capacity,to
take on the job?

Insofar as you are suggesting regret at the loss of the American Empire, you are acting as an apologist for it.

As to who should take on the job of world hegemon. I don't want any one nation to be world Hegemon. Multipolarity seems preferable to me, much more so than American domination.

 

[Estrid]

Insofar as you are suggesting regret at the loss of the American Empire, you are acting as an apologist for it.

As to who should take on the job of world hegemon. I don't want any one nation to be world Hegemon. Multipolarity seems preferable to me, much more so than American domination.

Point #1, no.

Point #2 Perhaps. Depends.

 

[mindlight]

Insofar as you are suggesting regret at the loss of the American Empire, you are acting as an apologist for it.

As to who should take on the job of world hegemon. I don't want any one nation to be world Hegemon. Multipolarity seems preferable to me, much more so than American domination.

Historically such times of uncertainty are characterised by devastating wars. Given our potential for destruction, the transition is not a good thing. It is better that there is a clear order and the Western nations together led by the USA give that.

You seem indifferent also to the fact that the Chinese, Russian and increasingly the Indian regimes are totalitarian ones in which freedom of worship is restricted (though less so in Russia than in the other two). Also in the context of this thread, the fact that the USA and Europe support Ukraine is the major reason for its survival as a nation. In other words, sticking up for each other can strengthen the sovereignty of weaker nations rather than undermine it. NATO supports sovereignty rather than undermines it.

I guess it is fortunate that it is not your choice right now who rules the world. Effectively that choice lies in the hands of the American people at the next election. It is a choice between
1) isolationist decline and global instability/war
2) internationalism and an uneasy peace.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Historically such times of uncertainty are characterised by devastating wars. Given our potential for destruction, the transition is not a good thing. It is better that there is a clear order and the Western nations together led by the USA give that.

No, it's not, especially if the order the USA is establishing is going to be a bad one and based on it's trajectory I see the current order established by the USA to be a bad one. Thus I don't wish for it's preservation and while that may be chaotic I would prefer that the current Leviathan as represented by Washington.

You seem indifferent also to the fact that the Chinese, Russian and increasingly the Indian regimes are totalitarian ones in which freedom of worship is restricted (though less so in Russia than in the other two). Also in the context of this thread, the fact that the USA and Europe support Ukraine is the major reason for its survival as a nation. In other words, sticking up for each other can strengthen the sovereignty of weaker nations rather than undermine it. NATO supports sovereignty rather than undermines it.

Except when you go against the USA, the USA will simply invade you and kill you. I don't treat Russia or China as Pariahs and nor do i see going to war with them in order to keep them below the USA to be worth it. We are entering a multipolar world and the USA is simply failing to maintain it's status as hegemon. It deserves then, to lose it. The USA will not be able to stop Russia and I don't care. Ukraine becoming another Western Nation is not a good thing, it will become less Orthodox, it will become less Ukrainian and even more corrupt.

I guess it is fortunate that it is not your choice right now who rules the world. Effectively that choice lies in the hands of the American people at the next election. It is a choice between
1) isolationist decline and global instability/war
2) internationalism and an uneasy peace.

I think it's cute that you think the President is in charge of the world instead of the system itself. I don't think Trump or Biden will be able to preserve American hegemony and that's a good thing.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Also in the context of this thread, the fact that the USA and Europe support Ukraine is the major reason for its survival as a nation.

It survives only as a puppet regime, and a vicious and bloodthirsty one at that.

I guess it is fortunate that it is not your choice right now who rules the world. Effectively that choice lies in the hands of the American people at the next election. It is a choice between
1) isolationist decline and global instability/war
2) internationalism and an uneasy peace.

It's not a question of whether US hegemony will weaken, it's a question of how much carnage Washington will inflict on the world trying to hold on to it.