Not sure Mr. Ryan has all the facts from the conflict since Russia decided to up the ante and mobilize. The Ukrainians had 600-700 troops at the beginning of the conflict - they're now organizing their third army - not sure I buy the Russia is adapting thesis. The Russians have held a massive artillery superiority since they went full beast mode with their war of attrition strategy. The body count has been in their favor for months - around 7:1 - Ukraine has lost +/-200K KIA and another 300K MIA/wounded/captured. It's not even close. Ukraine spent 9 years building fortification in eastern Ukraine - nothing your going to run through in a few weeks let alone a few months. Ukraine has no air force or navy or air defense, are running out of everything including trained, battle ready troops - Bottom line, I'm not buying Mr. Ryan's analysis.
I love reading Western commentaries on warfare. The hubris that drips out is off the chain. Hubris and arrogance derived from last winning a war 80 years ago. That the SOVIETS actually won in real, big boy combat, not tap-dancing around the periphery until the Nazi war machine was exhausted. What the Western military leader is best at is LOSING wars that kill a lot of innocents and cost a boat-load of money, the latter being the actual point, since this enriches the real beneficiaries, the military industrial complex. At best, the West occasionally gets a stalemate but usually a loss, like Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq (Iran won this), etc. Low-intensity conflicts against light infantry and farmers with an odd RPG or mortar. Not big boy combat like in Ukraine. What has been lost in Ukraine is Western military prestige. The world sees that NATO, the US and all its European lackeys are paper tigers, with small militaries, empty armories and hollowed-out industrial bases. As on a prison yard, when the purported bully is proven weak, this will precipitate a feed-back loop that is sub-optimal for the bully. Sad, given what America and the West once were. Now, if the US was a football team, they'd be the Detroit Lions. World-beaters in the 1940s, haven't won a championship ever since.
Excellent article. I agree that the Russian forces have made some important adaptations and pulled off a few noteworthy actions such as the Kherson withdrawal. However I wonder if the decimation of their senior NCO’s and Lt’s hasn’t had a more significant effect resulting in further debacles such as at Vuhledar. In addition, the Ukrainians have recognized the importance to the Russians of the Wagner forces(even if their MOD sometimes seems not to) and have decimated them at Bakhmut. In addition, the gutting of their Airborne and spetsnaz units could have a major impact on Russian forces ability to blunt the upcoming Ukrainian offensive.
Ryan is a typical dead ender loser that couldn't get a real job so joined the US controlled Australian army. He is lost in an echo chamber of neocon bullshit.
Conflict management 101 - never underestimate your enemy.
Ryan presumes a level of competence to judge the Russian performance that I find difficult to accept. Given he is a senior Australian army officer I ask when he has ever had direct personal experience of a conflict like the one in Ukraine? Frankly he sounds as incompetent to judge as David Petraeus has proven to be in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Ukraine is a tragedy, a failed neocon geopolitical play, but one that is nonetheless being fully exploited by NATO to test their weapons and tactics and to try to understand how to beat the Russians in a land war. They are failing miserably. So far the actual Russian army has had relatively little involvement in the war and until recently the SMO forces significantly outnumbered by the Ukrainian army.
The recent Russian mobilisation and the massive Ukrainian casualty count have fundamentally changed that calculus. Until now most of the combat has been conducted by Donbass militias, Chechens and Wagner. So far, apart from the initial Russian thrusts a year ago, the Russian regular army has had minimal involvement.
Ryan speaks highly of the Ukrainian air defenses - now known to be almost fully degraded as was admitted in the recent classified US document leaks - which were mostly Russian S300 and Buk systems. Russian integrated air defense systems are recognised to be the best in the world.
This article is just more anti-Russian propaganda intended to mislead the reader into having a false understanding of the situation in Ukraine.
The Ukrainians are suffering casualties at a 7:1 ratio, the Russians have 10 times the artillery and despite constant statements in western media that the Russians are running out of stuff they inevitably prove that they are not. Ukraine on the other hand has had three armies destroyed, their economy is a basket case, they are totally reliant on NATO and western charity for everything and the level of corruption there is off the scale.
Contrast the Russian economy which is healthy and growing, Putin enjoys popularity at over 80%.
Put simply it is the Ukrainians who are desperate, not the Russians. They are conducting a war of attrition - one they had tried to avoid since 2014 - on their own terms.
The author is, as so many people in the west are, either deluded, suffering from cognitive dissonance, or both.
Thanks for the work, but constructive feedback: Didn't think the article really delivered.
First, there's a lot of prologue/fluff like the book plug or the strategic/operational/tactical or the aviation/navy/ground remark (when your article, and expertise is all on the ground part). And not that much development of your thesis with detail (very few examples and no real connection of the earlier mistakes to later success--since they were done by different people and for very different objectives, I think it's a stretch to connect them as some sort of general learning.
Second, it seems like all your examples are still at the very large limit of "tactical". Nothing about how to clear a minefield or better target artillery or whatever it is that ground forces do. Maybe you are still technically "tactical" not strategic/operational (whatever some turgid joint manual defines that to be). But as a general reader it was a little jarring, how large scale your examples of bad/good were.
I think your topic is interesting. And I have zero problem with a contrarian hypothesis (and your really isn't, is...."measured"). I just wanted better.
So many comments with similar narratives, almost as of there was a concerted info ops campaign. However, as there are some good points made on both sides, I'll just this and then make a prediction.
If the RF/SMO did not make any adaptations, that would be truly worrisome and alarming. Why, because it meant the Russian MoD was so inept or paralysis by indecision that it could not change course, to win or at least fight to a draw. By neutralizing some of the early wins of Ukraine (i.e. targeting Bayraktar (TB2) drones, keeping their MiGs at bay with SUs, having far more supply of shells and conscripts to throw at the line, etc) Russia is attempting to blunt the momentum of the AFU. Russia has even moved nuclear arms to Belarus, to provide more dilemmas to it's adversaries.
In the long run, however, it all comes down to will to fight, skill in battle, and combined arms maneuver warfare. Ukraine has become an expert in the latter, having trained with NATO for years, and seen great success on the battlefield as a result. As for skill, the Ukrainians who have trained and are being trained on western anti-air and armored platforms in the US, UK, Germany, Poland, and elsewhere have all received the same verdict: they are quick learners and will skillfully use their new western tools to crush Moscow's troops. Finally, any Ukrainian Soldier fighting for their homeland and way of life, to evict an unwanted occupier, will have much stronger motivation and a desire for victory than any Russian conscript, living in fear and motivated by financial incentive.
So here's my prediction, a blazing fast and surprising attack will distract the MoD, while the real main effort goes and gets into a place to destroy the Kerch Strait bridge. Crimea will be at a loss of supplies and morale, and with new western tanks and other support, Ukraine will make steady headway towards pushing out the invaders. Mass defections and surrenders will speed things along.
Some ambassador recently said a new age of empires is at hand. Sure - why not, but Russia won't be among them.
Timeline? Soon. How soon? It's being reported that Ukrainian forces are already on the other side of the Dnieper River. Online footage shows Ukrainian troops half a kilometer north of Oleshky, a town in Ukraine. Ukrainians can adapt too, and I believe they are better at it than the Russians.
Interesting take on learning and adaptation. It almost seems that the RU learning has been driven catastrophic defeats, crumbling logistic support, and an economy that cannot keep up with losses. In contrast, the AFU learning is punctuated by innovation and the use of new technologies, mobility, decentralized initiative.
The contrast is jarring. RU learning is borne of desperation and started from a place of poor training, planning, and tactics. AFU learning while starting perhaps for desperation as well, had a solid foundation in better training, planning, and tactics. And had been enhanced by the back of the economic power of the EU, UK, US, CAN, AUS. those initial conditions put the two forces in very different trajectories of learning.
Not sure Mr. Ryan has all the facts from the conflict since Russia decided to up the ante and mobilize. The Ukrainians had 600-700 troops at the beginning of the conflict - they're now organizing their third army - not sure I buy the Russia is adapting thesis. The Russians have held a massive artillery superiority since they went full beast mode with their war of attrition strategy. The body count has been in their favor for months - around 7:1 - Ukraine has lost +/-200K KIA and another 300K MIA/wounded/captured. It's not even close. Ukraine spent 9 years building fortification in eastern Ukraine - nothing your going to run through in a few weeks let alone a few months. Ukraine has no air force or navy or air defense, are running out of everything including trained, battle ready troops - Bottom line, I'm not buying Mr. Ryan's analysis.
Amazing insights. I really hope Ukraine can find some weaknesses to exploit in the coming push!
I love reading Western commentaries on warfare. The hubris that drips out is off the chain. Hubris and arrogance derived from last winning a war 80 years ago. That the SOVIETS actually won in real, big boy combat, not tap-dancing around the periphery until the Nazi war machine was exhausted. What the Western military leader is best at is LOSING wars that kill a lot of innocents and cost a boat-load of money, the latter being the actual point, since this enriches the real beneficiaries, the military industrial complex. At best, the West occasionally gets a stalemate but usually a loss, like Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq (Iran won this), etc. Low-intensity conflicts against light infantry and farmers with an odd RPG or mortar. Not big boy combat like in Ukraine. What has been lost in Ukraine is Western military prestige. The world sees that NATO, the US and all its European lackeys are paper tigers, with small militaries, empty armories and hollowed-out industrial bases. As on a prison yard, when the purported bully is proven weak, this will precipitate a feed-back loop that is sub-optimal for the bully. Sad, given what America and the West once were. Now, if the US was a football team, they'd be the Detroit Lions. World-beaters in the 1940s, haven't won a championship ever since.
Excellent article. I agree that the Russian forces have made some important adaptations and pulled off a few noteworthy actions such as the Kherson withdrawal. However I wonder if the decimation of their senior NCO’s and Lt’s hasn’t had a more significant effect resulting in further debacles such as at Vuhledar. In addition, the Ukrainians have recognized the importance to the Russians of the Wagner forces(even if their MOD sometimes seems not to) and have decimated them at Bakhmut. In addition, the gutting of their Airborne and spetsnaz units could have a major impact on Russian forces ability to blunt the upcoming Ukrainian offensive.
Thanks, Mick.
Perhaps there is a minor typo?
IN
the Ukrainians have also been quick studies in modern war. Indeed, since the
FOR studies
READ students
Ryan is a typical dead ender loser that couldn't get a real job so joined the US controlled Australian army. He is lost in an echo chamber of neocon bullshit.
Around 50 nations against Russia, and Russia is winning. Russia must not be the stupid one.
Conflict management 101 - never underestimate your enemy.
Ryan presumes a level of competence to judge the Russian performance that I find difficult to accept. Given he is a senior Australian army officer I ask when he has ever had direct personal experience of a conflict like the one in Ukraine? Frankly he sounds as incompetent to judge as David Petraeus has proven to be in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Ukraine is a tragedy, a failed neocon geopolitical play, but one that is nonetheless being fully exploited by NATO to test their weapons and tactics and to try to understand how to beat the Russians in a land war. They are failing miserably. So far the actual Russian army has had relatively little involvement in the war and until recently the SMO forces significantly outnumbered by the Ukrainian army.
The recent Russian mobilisation and the massive Ukrainian casualty count have fundamentally changed that calculus. Until now most of the combat has been conducted by Donbass militias, Chechens and Wagner. So far, apart from the initial Russian thrusts a year ago, the Russian regular army has had minimal involvement.
Ryan speaks highly of the Ukrainian air defenses - now known to be almost fully degraded as was admitted in the recent classified US document leaks - which were mostly Russian S300 and Buk systems. Russian integrated air defense systems are recognised to be the best in the world.
This article is just more anti-Russian propaganda intended to mislead the reader into having a false understanding of the situation in Ukraine.
The Ukrainians are suffering casualties at a 7:1 ratio, the Russians have 10 times the artillery and despite constant statements in western media that the Russians are running out of stuff they inevitably prove that they are not. Ukraine on the other hand has had three armies destroyed, their economy is a basket case, they are totally reliant on NATO and western charity for everything and the level of corruption there is off the scale.
Contrast the Russian economy which is healthy and growing, Putin enjoys popularity at over 80%.
Put simply it is the Ukrainians who are desperate, not the Russians. They are conducting a war of attrition - one they had tried to avoid since 2014 - on their own terms.
The author is, as so many people in the west are, either deluded, suffering from cognitive dissonance, or both.
Thanks for the work, but constructive feedback: Didn't think the article really delivered.
First, there's a lot of prologue/fluff like the book plug or the strategic/operational/tactical or the aviation/navy/ground remark (when your article, and expertise is all on the ground part). And not that much development of your thesis with detail (very few examples and no real connection of the earlier mistakes to later success--since they were done by different people and for very different objectives, I think it's a stretch to connect them as some sort of general learning.
Second, it seems like all your examples are still at the very large limit of "tactical". Nothing about how to clear a minefield or better target artillery or whatever it is that ground forces do. Maybe you are still technically "tactical" not strategic/operational (whatever some turgid joint manual defines that to be). But as a general reader it was a little jarring, how large scale your examples of bad/good were.
I think your topic is interesting. And I have zero problem with a contrarian hypothesis (and your really isn't, is...."measured"). I just wanted better.
So many comments with similar narratives, almost as of there was a concerted info ops campaign. However, as there are some good points made on both sides, I'll just this and then make a prediction.
If the RF/SMO did not make any adaptations, that would be truly worrisome and alarming. Why, because it meant the Russian MoD was so inept or paralysis by indecision that it could not change course, to win or at least fight to a draw. By neutralizing some of the early wins of Ukraine (i.e. targeting Bayraktar (TB2) drones, keeping their MiGs at bay with SUs, having far more supply of shells and conscripts to throw at the line, etc) Russia is attempting to blunt the momentum of the AFU. Russia has even moved nuclear arms to Belarus, to provide more dilemmas to it's adversaries.
In the long run, however, it all comes down to will to fight, skill in battle, and combined arms maneuver warfare. Ukraine has become an expert in the latter, having trained with NATO for years, and seen great success on the battlefield as a result. As for skill, the Ukrainians who have trained and are being trained on western anti-air and armored platforms in the US, UK, Germany, Poland, and elsewhere have all received the same verdict: they are quick learners and will skillfully use their new western tools to crush Moscow's troops. Finally, any Ukrainian Soldier fighting for their homeland and way of life, to evict an unwanted occupier, will have much stronger motivation and a desire for victory than any Russian conscript, living in fear and motivated by financial incentive.
So here's my prediction, a blazing fast and surprising attack will distract the MoD, while the real main effort goes and gets into a place to destroy the Kerch Strait bridge. Crimea will be at a loss of supplies and morale, and with new western tanks and other support, Ukraine will make steady headway towards pushing out the invaders. Mass defections and surrenders will speed things along.
Some ambassador recently said a new age of empires is at hand. Sure - why not, but Russia won't be among them.
Timeline? Soon. How soon? It's being reported that Ukrainian forces are already on the other side of the Dnieper River. Online footage shows Ukrainian troops half a kilometer north of Oleshky, a town in Ukraine. Ukrainians can adapt too, and I believe they are better at it than the Russians.
Interesting take on learning and adaptation. It almost seems that the RU learning has been driven catastrophic defeats, crumbling logistic support, and an economy that cannot keep up with losses. In contrast, the AFU learning is punctuated by innovation and the use of new technologies, mobility, decentralized initiative.
The contrast is jarring. RU learning is borne of desperation and started from a place of poor training, planning, and tactics. AFU learning while starting perhaps for desperation as well, had a solid foundation in better training, planning, and tactics. And had been enhanced by the back of the economic power of the EU, UK, US, CAN, AUS. those initial conditions put the two forces in very different trajectories of learning.