I’m passing along the link to this assessment of the war in Ukraine at Foreign Affairs by Liana Fix and Michael Kimmage somewhat reluctantly:
War is inherently unpredictable. Indeed, the course of the conflict has served to invalidate widespread early prognostications that Ukraine would quickly fall; a reversal of fortunes is impossible to discount. It nevertheless appears that Russia is headed for defeat. Less certain is what form this defeat will take. Three basic scenarios exist, and each one would have different ramifications for policymakers in the West and Ukraine.
Since I didn’t really learn much from it. The three scenarios outlined are
- Russia negotiates a settlement
- Russian failure amid escalation
- Russian defeat due to regime collapse
It did make me consider something. In 1989 William S. Lind laid the groundwork for an analysis of warfare in generations.
- First generation: massed manpower
- Second generation: trench warfare, artillery support, and more advanced reconnaissance techniques
- Third generation: maneuver warfare (industrial and attritional warfare)
- Fourth generation: post-modern warfare blurring the lines between war and politics
- Fifth generation: social engineering, misinformation, cyberattacks, etc.
How does the war in Ukraine fit into that framework? Clearly, there are a number of fifth generation factors at work as well as a number of fourth generation factors.
But what if what is going on is actually old-fashioned World War II-style industrial and attritional warfare? IMO events are showing that we aren’t prepared for that. Could Russia actually prevail under such circumstances?
“War is inherently unpredictable. Indeed, the course of the conflict has served to invalidate widespread early prognostications that Ukraine would quickly fall; a reversal of fortunes is impossible to discount. It nevertheless appears that Russia is headed for defeat.”
The lack of introspection is astounding. They acknowledge the early prognostications were wrong and the inherent uncertainty of war but nevertheless forge ahead with their own simplistic prognostications that aren’t objectively any better.
Yes, I refrained from pointing out the obvious: none of their scenarios includes the possibility that Russia might actually win.
And they’ve defined defeat as Russia not attaining its maximalist objectives. But, like the Winter War, Russia could come out of the war with concrete gains.
And that’s usually what happens – victory and defeat are rarely absolute.
First, I think maneuver warfare has changed with this war. Javelins, Stingers, etc have had much more of an effect than I think most people expected, especially if you dont have air superiority. HIMARS have been very effective it looks. Drones are here to stay.
Next, I dont think the 5th gen stuff has been as strong as a lot of us expected. Cyberattacks are way down and look like they have not had that much effect. I guess it takes a while to plan and carry them out so you can run low on them just like you can artillery shells. OTOH, misinformation has been about as good as it has ever been.
Steve
Russia has actually offered to negotiate a settlement three times, and recently offered a Christmas ceasefire. The US specifically rejected all three settlements: Minsk I, Minsk II, and the March ceasefire negotiated in Turkey. All of those settlements would have left the Donbas in Ukraine but with some autonomy. The US also rejected the Christmas cease fire.
The US forced rejection of the settlements, because the US wants a war with Russia, only a proxy war, not a direct war. Poland and the Baltics might be sacrificed as well as Ukraine. Our leaders think Russia is weak economically and militarily, has a bad military, and is on the verge of an uprising against Putin. They are wrong on every single count.
As a result of American refusals to negotiate, Ukraine is going to be partitioned. Poland, Romania, and Hungary are already maneuvering to recover “lost” territories.
The real danger is that America and NATO overreach, and the war spreads to Western Europe and North America. Russia is a Pacific Ocean power, and the war might spread there, too.
In the 30 years since the fall of the USSR, Russia has fought two wars, Georgia and Ukraine, three if you count Syria. The US has fought 251 interventions over the same period.
https://mronline.org/2022/09/16/u-s-launched-251-military-interventions-since-1991-and-469-since-1798/
It is past time that people realize that Washington is the problem, not Moscow, and not Beijing. The US is the Evil Empire. The US is the aggressive, expansionist colonial power.
There is no “generational” warfare. The way a war is conducted depends upon weapons, armaments, equipment, training and discipline, terrain, and political environment, among other things.
Massed manpower is an option with little or no cavalry and ranged weapons. The ancient Egyptian’s chariots and tactics were maneuver warfare, and the Mongolians were the equivalent of a mechanized army.
Heavy cavalry is the equivalent of modern tanks, and attack helicopters are the equivalent of tanks. Light cavalry is the equivalent of Airborne and Ranger units. Slings were replaced by archery. Archery was replaced by cannons. Cannons were replaced by artillery. Air bombing is simply a different method of delivering an artillery shell.
Attritional warfare is different name for siege warfare. While the Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Persians, and Romans did not have modern mechanized manufacturing, their defense suppliers were just as industrious as today’s.
Their superior weapons and training allowed for their tactics. The Roman Testudo Formation (shield wall and cover) was their Infantry Fighting Vehicle. Actually, all formations require extensive training to develop well-disciplined troops, and are quite effective. A “Braveheart charge” looks good on a movie screen, but it is rarely effective.
In warfare, simpler is better. High tech gizmos are great, until they aren’t. They are usually difficult to produce, and they require more training and more intelligent soldiers. Eventually, the enemy will develop countermeasures.
In a burning oilfield, drones will not do so well. During the First Gulf War, the “black smoke” was not just soot. It contained oil droplets that got on everything, and I am sure the camera lens on a drone is not exempt. Also, the best anti-drone tactic is to kill the operators or the communication satellites.
Regarding 4G warfare, Clausewitz wrote eight volumes on unblurring the lines between war and politics. Sun Tzu is banal, but he does cover all five. (“The Art of War” is profound for non-military people. Successful armies have been doing those things for thousands of years.)
Since WW2, the US has not fought an enemy capable of countering our weapons and equipment, but this does not mean they do not exist. I suspect that 5G warfare will lead to 3G, and we may find out sooner rather than later.
In the end, war is about gaining, holding, and controlling ground. If you kill enough people and break enough shit, you win. You can make it seem more complicated, but eventually, you will start killing lots of people and breaking lots of shit. (Drone warfare is no different, but it is easier to hide the death and destruction.)