I’m still waiting for someone to propose a credible plan by which Ukraine can prevail on the battlefield against Russia. Most of the plans along those lines call for us to send the Ukrainians weapons we can’t produce to be employed by soldiers the Ukrainians don’t have.
The most recent alternative I’ve seen is “the Danish model”, described by the Wall Street Journal’s Jillian Kay Melchior:
The West’s options to mitigate Russia’s resource advantage also have battlefield implications. For procurement, Kyiv has been promoting the Danish Model, a plan pioneered by Copenhagen to supply Ukraine with weapons. Western partners including Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Canada and Norway make financial donations and the EU sends interest from frozen Russian assets to pay for Ukraine to make its own weapons. Russia also has about $300 billion in reserves in the West, which Europe could confiscate, turning the money over to Ukraine to ramp up production.
Ukraine has figured out how to make some weapons less expensively, and it benefits from breakthroughs like Shahed-intercepting drones. But Russia’s aerial attacks can still overwhelm air defenses, leaving high-value targets vulnerable. Ukraine has made its command and logistics centers mobile, but weapons manufacturing is less flexible. For the Danish Model to work, the West would need to provide air-defense systems that Ukraine can’t produce to protect weapons-manufacturing facilities and the energy infrastructure that supports them. Western nations could team up with Ukrainian arms developers to establish production facilities elsewhere in Europe. In June Copenhagen announced an agreement for one such $78 million project in Denmark.
I could support such a plan with some provisos. The first is it needs to oversight to work, something I suspect both the Europeans and Ukrainians would oppose. Without serious oversight there’s no guarantee that the funds will actually go to producing munitions. Those villas in Spain and Malta don’t buy themselves, you know.
The second proviso is that the Europeans must be willing and able to provide the “air-defense systems” proposed above.
The third proviso is that Russian attack on those systems being transported into Ukraine would not be construed as triggering NATO’s Article 5 mutual defense.
I can see how such a plan would be attractive both to the Europeans and to the Ukrainians. It doesn’t require the Europeans to fork over any money of their own and it doesn’t require them to furnish troops. It provides the Ukrainians with maximum flexibility in how the money is spent. Whether such a plan would be sufficient to allow the Ukrainians to prevail in the field I couldn’t say.
I don’t remember whether I’ve told this joke before. A woman is walking down the street and sees a store with clocks in the window. She thinks “I’ve got my husband’s watch and it needs report. Maybe they’ll do it here.”
When she’s inside she sees a man at the counter. She shows him the watch and asks if he’ll repair it. The man says “We don’t repair clocks here, lady. I’m a mohel.”
The woman is flabbergasted. “But the clocks in the window!” The man says “What do you want me to put in the window?”
The picture at the top of this post is, of course, a Danish model.
I know it is sexist, but if Ukraine put forward more hot babes supporting them, they would garner much more support.
When Israel shows off their female soldiers, most of them are hot babes. Is it really genocide when hot babes are slaughtering Palestinians?
I may be shallow, but the hot babe you included made me think, “hey, this just might work.”
IIRC Ukraine was a center of production for a sizable portion of Soviet arms so they do have a strong history of arms production. It’s a fair question whether they can expand it further while at war and do it in time.
As to winning the war I think it’s hard to predict. Historically, the larger country didnt always win against the smaller one. However, militaries and warfare have changed so while you would favor Russia it’s not a 100% thing.Certainly the incompetence of Russia in prosecuting the war is a big factor.
Steve
I DO NOT “favor Russia”. I think that reality on the ground favors Russia.
Your observation about “the incompetence of Russia” is from an American point-of-view not a Russian one. If you look at Russian experience throughout its history they’ve shown a lot of “incompetence” culminating in Russian victory.
What is absolutely true is that the Russians look at war differently than we do–what I refer to as the “Russian way of war”. Guess what? The Ukrainians wage war in very much the same way that the Russians do. They just do it with far fewer soldiers to sacrifice.
The Russian military is mostly worthless. (There may be some units that are useful. During the Cold War, we were told that the Spetsnaz exceptional.)
The “Russian way of war” is used by all autocratic regimes. Modern warfare tactics require small unit leadership with the autonomy to adjust the battle plan in response to changing conditions. To an autocratic government, leadership skills and autonomy are more dangerous than the enemy – see – Yevgeny Prigozhin.
The Ukrainian military is far more tenacious than their Russian counterparts, but they use the same tactics for the same reason. (The Ukrainian are like rabid pit bulls, and the Russian are like a rottweiler.) This is why the Russians need them to expand Russia.
With the same number of troops and equipment, the US would “wipe the floor” with the Russian military. Quality can be overcome with quantity, but for Russia, they would need to mobilize the entire army.
With 10 to 20 years the Ukrainian military could learn to effectively use modern tactics, and in less than 5 years, they could be an auxiliary to the US military. This would require an actual democratic government.
I have no idea of their manufacturing capacity, but they have a lot of natural resources.
The United States has been using that model since the American Civil War. It works for us but I’m not convinced it would work as well for other countries and cultures. In other words I’m skeptical that the Ukrainians could adopt our model in five years or ten years or twenty-five years without significant changes in their society.
Indeed, I’m concerned that we’re moving away from the sort of society from which the American way of war evolved.
And I believe you are precisely right: the Russians and the Ukrainians are using substantially the same approach.
Steve, I have a question for you. This:
is quite right. However, Finland recovered no territory during the “Winter War” (which is one of the examples of a smaller country prevailing against a larger one). Indeed, it lost significant territory and maintained a neutral status for 80 years. That would seem the closest analogy. Is that what you’re advocating?
Ho Chi Minh’s victories against the French and the U. S. other examples but it does not appear to be a really comparable situation. For one thing the Russians’ supply lines aren’t 8,000 miles long.
If you’re not thinking of Finland, what comparable are you thinking of? In other words what’s an example of a smaller country trouncing and ejecting a larger neighboring country?
Israel vs the Arab States is the most recent I can think of. If you dont want to count Vietnam vs the French then you should probably count Russia vs Afghanistan. Going further back in history there are quite a few but my favorites would probably be Athens vs Sparta, Persians vs Greek and since IIRC you have Swiss heritage Swiss vs Austria in the 1300s, with the Battle of Morgarten providing a good example. If you are a history buff it’s interesting as it may have been the first time halberds were used in war. Also interesting as while historians argue about the size of the respective armies the Swiss were basically farmers going up against the professional Austrian army.
Steve
As it works out one of my ancestors (at least) took part in the Battle of Morgarten. It’s also not comparable. Switzerland’s terrain is to say the least rugged. Switzerland prevailed because it’s hard to make war there. Ukraine is flat.
Israel had prevailed through air supremacy. Every example you provide is an illustration of why Ukraine is highly unlikely to be victorious rather than an illustration of how it can be (let alone will be).
I have read a fair bit on the Israeli victory. It was actually quite a bit more than air superiority. The Arabs states armor and infantry were not well coordinated and not especially well trained. Israeli intelligence was far superior. Israeli leadership and planning was far superior. The initial air strikes which took out the Arab air forces was the result of the latter two elements. I would also note that in recent wars having air superiority did not result in victory for Russia over Afghanistan and didnt win the war for us in Korea. Even in Iraq we actually still had to fight the war.
I have already agreed with you that Russia has the advantage here. It should win. However, the larger country doesnt always win is my fist point and my second is that war is, as always, changing so I dont think we can its a sure thing for Russia. Note that at the start of the war the consensus was that Russia would roll over Ukraine. Few people, including the Russians, realized how awful there army was. It looks like they are learning so they now have the advantage.
Steve
I don’t believe I expected the Russians to “roll over” the Ukrainians easily. As I’ve been saying for some time, they both use the same military doctrine. As TastyBits noted, by U. S. standards their military doctrine is awful. I think he overestimates Germany, France, and the UK a bit.
What I expected was along the lines that John Mearsheimer suggested. The Russian objective would be to “wreck” Ukraine.
Given how the Russians fight, wouldn’t the outcome be that they would wreck Ukraine regardless of intent? Once their initial attempt at moving straight into Kyiv failed it was going to turn into the Russian way of war which is throwing lots of troops at the enemy and destroying everything possible. For some reason you found that statement insightful but to me it just seemed inevitable. Even if Ukraine somehow wins and Russia pulls out what it leaves behind will be destroyed. They have also stolen part of another younger generation of Ukrainians.
Steve
While maneuver warfare has been used throughout history, it has not been, typically, a doctrine applied to an entire army. For the US and possibly the UK, it was inspired by Germany during WW1. By WW2, tanks, radio communications, and vertical assaults, modern maneuver warfare was able to be employed by most of the military.
There is another component to modern maneuver warfare – logistics and the ability to resupply. A tank must have fuel to maneuver. For WW2, the US could out-manufacture Germany.
(I would not underestimate Germany. They still have Prussian blood.)
Ukraine is attempting to change military doctrines on-the-fly. Under ideal conditions, it would require several turn-overs of officers and NCO’s. (It takes time for the change to disseminate throughout the organization.) Furthermore, the junior officers and NCO’s need to believe that taking the initiative will not have a negative result.
Israel’s military is far superior to Ukraine’s, and the Arab armies are even more worthless than Russia’s. Like Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, the use of guerrilla tactics, they were able to wear-out the enemy. A Ukraine loss will not end with a peace treaty.
Again, this is not a new development in the Russian-Ukraine relationship. In the end, they are Slavs, and the West will abandon them.
What distinguishes the American way of war from that of our allies and prospective foes alike is the role of non-commissioned officers in the platoon system. Everybody uses maneuver warfare in one form or another. The Prussians developed “modern maneuver warfare” late in the 19th century.
We adopted the platoon system following the Civil War based on the South’s experience.
Among NATO members at this point the only militaries with the ability to do their own logistics are the U. S. and France. It used to be France, the U. S., and the U. K. Now I’m beginning to worry about France.