WORDS: 897 — The media has had their parade of retired generals and admirals and think-tank strategists for nearly a couple months now providing their insights at the conduct of the war, with of course the acknowledgment of the tenacity of the Ukrainian defenders in being critical in fending off the Russians. Given I am completely not qualified as a credible military strategist given my military service didn’t include War College or Pentagon service or having served as Supreme Commander of any theater of operations, I am offering some armchair input regarding just that.
Three weeks ago I was watching the news regarding the war and the events continuing to unfold in besieged Mariupol and I turned to my Better Half (given she’s the only one to tolerate my ramblings) and I mentioned that Ukraine has from the beginning been fighting a defensive war. Oh sure, there’s been some assertive regional defensive strikes to push occupying Russians out of towns and villages and essentially keep the Russians from gaining too much critical real estate. But there’s really been no organized offensive. Now, I mention this not to critique anything. It was simply an observation. Watching the rockets falling on Mariupol, like most folks who have some level of history knowledge, I uttered to my lady that “these folks need a Gen. Patton-type offensive in a focused thrust into the Russian position to relieve the beleaguered defenders of Bastogne.. ‘er, I mean Mariupol”. I mean, let’s face it, most everyone is comparing this war against World War II-style of fighting and strategy. I’m wondering where the parachute drops of ammunition and supplies are landing to aid their fighting. In fact, I am hoping no one sends the parachute cannisters loaded with worthless berets like in the film “A Bridge Too Far” (1977).
Well, of course the similarities to WW2 aside, the Ukraine war is far different. The Ukrainians don’t have dominance of the skies so air drops are pretty much out of the question… not to mention the logistics alone to organize such drops would be difficult to impossible due to irregular and vulnerable supply lines and airfields subject to missile attack. It’s been reported for weeks now that there are inherent delays in the distribution channels in country when the Ukrainians take charge of all that military aid at the western border. I would easily guess that such delays would all but make impossible organizing an offensive great enough to actually be effective. It’s not in the least about the Ukrainians not being willing… for surely they would if they could. The great effectiveness with the Allied effort in WW2 is that the Allies were comparable geniuses in creating distribution channels and logistical support. The Ukrainians have had a full plate simply defending, and to their great determination and credit they have kicked Russian ass well. But at some point the Ukrainian military, by my armchair assessment, is going to need to organize an offensive… very likely to include air strikes (planes and/or missiles) inside Russia, along border supply routes and installations, if for nothing else but to cause chaos and confusion (Exactly what MacArthur wanted to do in 1950-51 when he urged bombing into China across the Yalu River to strike at the Chinese supply lines supporting the North Korean Communists. China threatened entering the war, MacArthur didn’t believe the threats.. and Truman canned him.). Knowing history helps.
Recently I read a media article on CNN of an interview between CNN’s Peter Bergen and former commander of the US Special Operations Command in Europe, retired US Army Maj. Gen. Mike Repass. Never heard of this general… but he does come with some credentials and experience from being in that theater of operations. As Bergen reports….
Repass has advised the Ukrainian military for the past six years on a US government contract. Last month he visited Poland and western Ukraine to get a better feel for the trajectory of the war in Ukraine.
As it turned out, Gen. Repass’ general observations regarding Ukraine’s defensive posture to date were similar to mine… (or is that mine to his?) although he commands way more experience in means and methods and field warfare than I could even imagine. The General is suggesting the building up of a force of 40,000 Ukrainians to be trained by the allied countries as an offensive strike force. If you have any interest in the strategy of this war I recommend this article as it seems a really effective progression toward a possible Ukrainian victory. That means my armchair perception finds his strategy valid. Obviously any political ramification has not been addressed, but he’s a soldier offering up a winning strategy. I particularly find valid his take on a possible Chinese perception shift toward invading Taiwan.
BERGEN: Starting a war, that’s often the easy part. Wars have their own logic. Unfortunately, this war might go on for a year or even two years.
REPASS: I fear that you’re right. This will be a grinding, agonizing war if it lasts more than a year, and I think it’s going to last at least two years. But we can’t let it get into a stalemate. If it gets into a stalemate, Putin’s going to claim success followed by a brutal occupation of the Ukrainian territory that he controls.
I think he’s right. My armchair even thinks he’s right. The article is <HERE> .
I was thinking the same when the war started, and the Russians were stalled north of Kiev. I would have thought a decisive counter attack at that time could have given the Russians an even bigger shock than the stubborn resistance north of the capital and pushed them back across the borer with Belarus. I am not sure what the current state of the Ukrainian army is, but given they have enlisted thousands of barely-trained volunteers, it seems unlikely they have the calibre of troops left to mount any offensive in the south-east now.
Best wishes, Pete.
You and I are in agreement with the General it seems. To your thought that they might have started earlier on with an offensive… those things take a measure of advance planning as offensives are generally specifically targeted objectives, and the Russkies were invading on a diverse front. Yet they were anticipating for months.
Doug supposedly the US/NATO had been training Ukraine for a couple years…..why were they not better prepared? What were we training? I am sorry but most of these ‘experts’ are cheer leaders. I have made my thoughts known in many posts…..there is more going on in Ukraine than we are hearing. I try to give ‘other’ sources and let the reader decide….unfortunately most have already made up their minds…..be well chuq
Oh I’ve been keeping up with your posts, old chum…. and not sure I can fully subscribe to some of your conclusions, or your sources as they relate to money-induced moral or practical corruption, but one thing is for sure, I don’t think any of us have the full answers.. Lord knows I surely don’t. I do appreciate your anti-war stance though.
I can see no other reason that profit…..can you see the holes in the reporting? chuq
The “holes” I see are usually reports that are often followed with “unverified”. I suppose one can believe such reports outright at face value, and/or make other conclusions. Until such “unverified” reports become verified I will apply the “rule of reasonableness” to temporarily fill those “holes”. Doesn’t make me any more or less any more correct than anyone else.
Being a former businessman I don’t see “profit” as a bad thing… but then many folks will attempt to justify the villainy of “profit” with making a “fair profit”.. and the subjective there is how one defines “fair”.
Our free market capitalism is the single greatest contribution to our nation having become the greatest power in the history of the world. Yet if a company attempts to toy with policy by trying to manipulate events for profit.. (like Hearst is alleged to have done by blowing up the U.S.S. Maine in Havana Harbor simply to sell more newspapers) they should be held accountable.
But how can they when they own the Congress/presidency? Most people do not look past their favorite headline…..’unverified’ means nothing to them….as long as it fits their limited knowledge. chuq
I could be flippant here like the you are at my blog so I will keep it simple. This is a war with no purpose and if the US does not want to help Ukraine then they should shut up about it.
I thought the U.S. was helping.
I do not believe we are helping in a good way. I believe sending Pelosi and Schiff sends a bad message to Americans as most people do not think highly of either of them.
Pelosi and Schiff are the current power brokers in the House. I am not aware that anyone needs to “send them”.. but to the greater point, Zelinski understands which of our people are critical in the process of approving aid. Seems he would want them to see first hand the struggle of his people. He likely has a greater knowledge of how our Congress functions than your average American high school grad.
Your premise is correct but in his interview he told the journalist he was glad they came but he would have preferred Biden. He did not detail why other than to say he hoped he would come if he can. Personally I think that is a mistake considering Biden is mentally compromised and gets confused often. But honestly I am not fan of Pelosi or Schiff! It is hard to trust any politician now and the Supreme Court leak tops off the mistrust I feel towards Dems not that Republicans are scoring points either. We need a whole revamp of people in DC.
I’ll concede a bit that our current vitriolic divide has certainly spawned questionable politicians across the board. But then how does anyone pick a good one to vote for?
Doug,
Wars are won over time in history by use of power and logistics.
If you read the link below, it gives the basic reasons of how logistics in history won wars.
Appears Russia is still having logistics available being supplied by EU need for oil which means the longer the war will last.
Also appears as long as the USA continues to supply Ukraine and we are willing and able to pay higher prices for oil, the war will last.
Also appears we learned in WWII the quickest way to end the Japan war and save Allied soldiers lives was to drop the Atomic Bomb to end that conflict which could have dragged on because the Japanese culture belief that dying in a war was honorable
In other words, as long as Russia or Ukraine has access to war materials, the longer the conflate will be according to the link.
Both need men and supplies to fight on. Men require will and sacrifice to win, Russia still has conflated a bigger population or logistical advantage than Ukraine,
The USA presently does not have much will to engage in another long-term war or sacrifice which Putin is aware of and probably the reason he decided to invade Ukraine.
Regards and goodwill blogging.
https://www.plslogistics.com/blog/supplying-war-military-logistics
There’s something to be said for the concept of “total war”. You go in with the intent of defeating the enemy at all costs. It’s the shortest distance from start to finish… hence it can save lives over the long run. But the civilized world calls “total war” a measure of barbarianism. So we dream up rules of engagement, Geneva Conventions, moral and ethical treatment of civilians, even to the point that soldiers in the field can only shoot an enemy counterpart with the “appropriate” number of bullets as anything more is a war crime. Then there’s the politics of it all. It’s no wonder wars last as long as they do these days… and costing more lives over time.
Doug,
If we lived far enough from an urban area, our perspctive might be to end it same as Truman decided. Unfortunstely, you know where i live would be a prime target.
Regards and goodwill blogging
Well, if you’re in a target zone you will go in a flash. If you’re in a rural area you can just wait for the prevailing winds to carry the stuff to you and die a slow death. I live in a rural area with a military installation just a few miles down the road. Quick death for me. You live in an urban area.. quick death for you. You never know.. duck & cover might work… and you can watch everyone else die. Pick your movie scenario.
I hear they got the civilians out of Mariupol…..”Total war” accepts civilian deaths as necessary ‘to win’….yes they will die anyway but a strategy that cares little is not a strategy I will endorse. But then I hate all war. chuq
Perhaps it’s similar in context to “War Games”… if “total war” is too repugnant and fighting a “clean” war is unrealistic.. then all that’s left is “not to play the game”… avoid war at all costs, even if “all costs” requires a compromise to our freedoms.
MDA made total war unattractive…..once again definitions vary with years. Why does the avoidance of war cost freedoms? That sounds more like a slogan for Raytheon. chuq
Avoidence of war comes in different packages, chuq.. but my point was that if we presume that a negotiated peace is avoiding war then it all depends on what it cost one side or the other, or both to compromise to make that peace? Take Ukraine for example. Any peace negotiation with Russia means Ukraine undoubted surrender something.. very likely real estate and the people on it will have little or no choice. It’s the old story.. peace at what cost?
Let’s state here…Ukraine is screwed….I have never said otherwise…..but I try to look at reasons for war….once it starts sides will be taken and little can be done until the weariness of war dictates some sort of settlement.
The whole ‘global security’ line is just an excuse to do what they want. chuq
Is that what they call collaterol damage?
All civilians are called ‘collateral damage’…it is better than calling them the murdered. chuq