Comments by "Stephen Sipe" (@stephensipe5405) on "Kyiv Post"
channel.
-
37
-
I do not challenge 99% of what GEN Hodges ever states. Nevertheless, probably in deference to a Ukrainian interviewer, I will object to GEN Hodges comments on early support for Ukraine. Ukrainians have to look in the mirror and take responsibility for their own leadership failures as Euro-centric democracy evolved in Ukraine. For example, the US could not support 1991 Ukraine with arms because it was an independent country with a Russian puppet leader.
It was not until the Orange Revolution in 2005 that Ukrainians had a real Ukrainian leader. However, this Ukrainian still followed in the footsteps of Russian puppet leaders. Ukraine had KGB operatives everywhere in Ukraine’s government and policies were Russia friendly. He also allowed Ukrainian Oligarchs and corruption. Why would the US give this government money and arms?
Then came the Maiden Revolution in 2014. This was the 1ST Ukrainian government which openly tried to orient to European values. A real election occurred. It was not perfect, but was closer to reflect the true will of Ukraine’s people than previous elections. The Russians did not wait for good US relations to develop. They took Crimea by force within months. What could the US do but publicly protest. Most European countries did NOT think Crimea was a big lost to Ukraine and did not want trouble with importing Russian gas. The Donbas activity was different. It started quickly in 2014 but rose slowly in ferocity. Again the US condemned it but Ukraine’s government was unstable to work with.
It was not until 2018, after several elections, did Ukrainians have a stable government with stronger US relations. It is then the US sent military advisers as trainers. They provided small arms to help fight Russian separatists in the Donbas. The US Intelligence identified 100s of KGB agents in Ukraine’s democratically elected government. Heavy NATO weapons could NOT be given because the US feared compromises of its weapon technology. In fact, it was not until President Zelinsky agreed to fire about 100 known KGB agents did the US finally agree to send HIMARS artillery.
Now here is another problem. Ukraine is not a NATO functioning military. It’s a Soviet style military in transition to a NATO style military. The core organization since 2018 is NATO style with a trusted NCO Corp. This 1 change combined with patriotism and NATO small arms won the early Russian War On Ukraine. However, Ukrainian Offensive Operations still rely on Soviet heavy use of artillery instead of NATO Combined Arms including air power.
NATO countries appear to be under supplying weapons to Ukraine because artillery is not used like water. I agree the train up for NATO weapons like aircraft, tanks, and IFVs should have started in April after the Russians regrouped to the east. However, at that point is was still unclear whether Ukraine would fight to win back all its territory. After the Great Kharkiv Offensive, total victory for Ukraine was obvious. This is where NATO wasted 3 months of training time. Keep in mind, the US was training a 100 Ukrainian pilots for F16s and the UK 10,000 Ukrainians in Basic NATO Training. However, the rest of NATO had to be prodded to give any help.
Look at Germany today. Germany in many ways proves President Trump was right about self serving Germans under Social Democrat leadership.
My hope is the US follows those statements of GEN Hodges to supply MBTs, IFVs, and more artillery. The US alone can supply 300 M1A2s and 600 IFVs. We have already publicly agreed to 50 Bradley M2 IFVs, 100 Stryker Light Tanks, and 200 Stryker IVFs. The US should add at least 56 M1A2 MBTs and an additional 100 Bradley IFVs. This would be a Combined Arms Brigade and a Recon Brigade. Surely Europeans can add at least the same!!!
25
-
What a stupid interview by a o person not looking at actual history. Bolton uses hindsight like everything was known and did not evolve. The interviewer has also have a clear picture of history too.
First, Ukraine today did not exist in 1991. Therefore, the West had little to work with in Ukraine until 2004-5 Orange Revolution. This was a Ukrainian nationalist revolution without cutting ties to Russia. It was not until 2014’s Maiden Revolution did Ukrainians state they wanted both nationalism AND to be Euro-centric. Both Ukrainian democracy was feeble. Even when President Zelinsky was elected in 2018, the West was limited in what it could do.
President Trump did send US Advisors in 2018. The US Advisors brought manpads. However, their biggest aid to Ukraine was to set up a professional NCO Corp. Ukrainian bravery organized around a US trained NCO Corp using manpads defeated the initial Russian invasion in 2022. Bolton overlooks these facts. He should have confronted Ukrainians with the truth; Ukraine could have been Afghanistan 2.0 if President Zelinsky fled!
Then Bolton overlooks the real history of Russia’s War On Ukraine. In February 2022, Ukraine had over 1000 Russian spies, Ukrainian agents, and paid collaborators in the Ukrainian government. The US refused to send any heavy weapons until these known people were fired. President Zelinsky fired about 600+ in late May 2022, but only after seeing US Intel intercepts confirming Russian contact. The US delivered HIMARS and ammo in June 2022. Bolton gives Ukraine a pass on this reality. In fact, Ukrainian soldiers have to know it took US political pressure to get rid of many Soviet/Russian holdovers in government including the Ukrainian Military. Bolton is just not articulating facts.
One thing I agree with Bolton and GEN Hodges, the US should have a stated goal in Ukraine. My goal would be to defeat Russia and force them to leave Ukraine.
Even though I am a NOT 1 INCHER, Ukrainians have to decide for themselves what human cost ALL territory from 1991 means. I want ALL to mean at least every inch of 1991 territory. But it’s not for me to say 20,000, 30,000, or 50,000+ casualties to liberate Crimea is worth that human cost. I would give the weapon to make continued Russian occupation of Crimea difficult. By RealLifeLore has documented the previous human cost to win. This is a Ukrainian decision.
My questions are these to Ukrainian leaders:
1: Is Ukraine willing to cut all roads and railroads to Russia as part of a barrier border?
2: When Ukrainians liberate Donetsk Oblast, ARE Ukrainians prepared to exploit the Russian border south of the Donetsk River if no Russian Units defend the area to Taganrog or even Rostov?
12
-
These are fair comments. Nevertheless, they overlook the Ukrainian Military Command change from GEN Zaluzhny to GEN Syrskyi. They do not mention Ukraine’s waste of resources, troops and NATO equipment, used in Offensive Operations in 2023 by GEN Zaluzhny. The failed to discuss the lack of Strategic Defense Lines GEN Zaluzhny could have ordered build by October 2023, instead of writing 2 articles condemning Western aid for his personal failures at Offensive Operations. Without understanding what failed, Ukrainians cannot hope to succeed better than Russians in Offensive Operations.
In particular, who the Commander of Ukraine’s 110TH Brigade Infantry Team (Mech)? He was forward at Avdiivka. Why did he not build his own layered defense lines to the City, then at the Chemical Factory, then at Orlivka? Who is his Divisional Commander of the Avdiivka Front? These 2 Commanders need to be removed and retrained at a NATO Officer school in Germany if they are given US clearance. They failed to prepare a structured, timely retrograde Defensive Operation. They got people in their Command killed.
What GEN Syrskyi has so far done looks like a NATO quality Defensive Operation. He risked one of his top 2 Brigades to save the 110TH Brigade at Avdiivka. It was hasty and ugly but he saved 80% of the force. Then he fought a withdrawal to terrain advantaged positions buying enough time to dig in. He even used opportunistic counterattacks to delay and even push back Russian advances.
Simultaneously, GEN Syrskyi started building hardened defensive lines even further back to make Russians pay dearly for every meter. Nevertheless, counterattacks are NOT major Offensive Operations. I will wait until ammo and F16s arrive to see if he can battle plan successful Offensive Operations.
PS: In April 2022, I posted on Times Radio and the German Channel my comparison between Russia fighting Ukraine and George Foreman fighting Muhammad Ali. To me, Ukraine was doing Ali’s Rooe-A-Dope compared to Foreman’s Slug Big Punches strategy. Ali scored a knockout after Foreman tired himself out. Ukrainians will also win by knockout!!!
Slava Ukraini!!!
12
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
Few people remember as the UN was forming, Stalin wanted 3 votes for the Soviet Union. This was for Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine. The US objected and demanded 48 votes for each state. The Soviet Union settled for 1 vote.
The UN is not designed to be a government. It is designed to be a forum for peace. Any organization to be more of a government, as an American, I would limit in an extreme way. Only Canada and Australia have similar democracies. The EU is a work in progress to achieve real government. Much of Africa and Asia do not really accept democracy. South America cannot make up its mind about democracy.
Should there be a population limit to be a UN member?
Why should an island of 100,000 get the same vote as a country of 100,000,0000 million people?
The Security Council Membership went from the Soviet Union to Russia because of military might including nuclear weapons. After Putin, if Russia separates by people groups, will Russia still be a Security Council Member? Yes. Because of nuclear weapons. Does all the supposed legal documents matter? No.
4
-
4
-
4
-
You begin by stating the 3RD Brigade Infantry Team (Spec) is a Division. As a US military leader, a Brigade Military Intelligence Officer, previously trained as an Armor Officer, I am very sensitive to the looseness of media types in reporting. A NATO Brigade consists of 4 Battalions maneuver, 1 Battalion Artillery, and a HQ Battalion. A Division is slightly flexible by mission, but consists of 3-4 Brigades, 1 Regiment Artillery, and a HQ Brigade.
NATO HQ Elements start at Battalion Level. Every level battle plans their missions, hoping using the 1/3RD-2/3RDs time allocation method. Companies have an HQ Platoon but not to battle plan. It supports logistics and crew maintenance of weapons. Battalion and higher supports these too, but also vehicles maintenance, fire support, intelligence related issues, medical support, and food support. Air Defense and Specialty Teams are added at Brigade and Division Levels.
Military History has 2 components. Usually insignia are based on Regiments. In Ukraine, this seems to have been given to Battalions and Brigades. Combat history follows Units from Battalion and higher with most historians tracking only Divisions.
For example, my original Battalion during WW2 was reorganized into a slightly larger Regiment called an Armored Cavalry Regiment (ACR). It used Light Tanks and 6 Wheeled Armored Cars with the same main gun as the Light Tank. My Unit was attached to 2ND Armor Division (Free French). The purpose of my ACR Unit was to ensure 2ND Armor Division had unobstructed roads, good bridges, and knew where German Unit concentrations were located.
When Paris was liberated, it was my Units Armored Cars which secured the Arch De Triumph in Paris on the news reels. It was my Units Light Tanks which passed through the Arch to pursue withdrawing Germans. It was the Sherman Tanks of 2ND Armored Division (Free French) which got all the credit and kisses from Paris women. My Unit just got Vichy wine they were going to throw away and after the war, a Unit citation from France, a Fleur De Lis. My Units motto however, is also in French, from when we fought with Washington in the French and Indian War: Fide Et Fortitudine. It comes from a Scottish Family Crest. Most of my State was settled early by Scots.
4
-
4
-
Ukraine needs weapons capability AND sufficient quantities of weapons to win. However, a winning strategy means something too.
Ukraine needs Patriot Air Defense Systems for Odessa and Lviv. It needs more IRIS-T air defense units for frontline use, too. These will protect all the key parts of Ukraine from the worst of Russian attacks.
Traditional NATO Combined Arms Combat will be possible with F16 deliveries. This will also add a large array of NATO aircraft ammo to Ukraine’s inventory. Of course, Ukrainian Offensives will still be limited by Soviet Unit organization and Soviet schemes of maneuver.
Getting another 62 Abrams M1A1 MBTs would help. Getting 200 more Bradley M2s would help more. This will add 2 Brigade Armor Teams organized at legacy Soviet levels. The EU countries who made pledges have until January to deliver equipment or go over 1 year. So far, the US is fully delivered and the EU is at 60% overall. It’s time to ante up.
GEN Zaluzhny has allowed Ukrainian Units to be diluted across many Offensive efforts. This is legacy Soviet doctrine. The Kharkiv Offensive of concentrating overwhelming force is NATO doctrine.
The Kherson Oblast West Offensive was the Ukrainian I cannot make up my mind Offensive. It worked because Russians needed the Units to man the Surovikin Line of defenses. Had Ukrainians punched through the weaker frontline only defenses at the time, they could have gotten to Nova Kakhovka and Olesky before Russians could have retreated. Unfortunately, Ukrainians did not have the Reserve manpower and equipment to pull this off without great risk. Therefore, it was what it was; a punt to another battlefield in Zaporizhzhya Oblast where both sides are equal with defense works factored in.
The next Ukrainian Offensive has to be a NATO quality, Kharkiv style Offensive decisively cutting the Russian land bridge. This will then set up the envelopment of Tokmak from 2 sides while Melitopol is simultaneously threatened. Ukrainians will have 3 Brigades Abrams, 3 Brigades Leopards, and 3 Brigades Bradleys to achieve these goals. Flank and supply line protection will come from Ukrainian legacy Soviet equipment.
I would also focus on expanding the Bahkmut South Flank Offensive with 3-5 Brigades. Threatening Horlivka would be helpful to divert Russian reinforcements.
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I usually agree with GEN Ben Hodges, but with 100% hindsight, he is totally wrong!!!
Ukrainian President Zelinsky stated Ukraine’s Summer Offensive Objective, cut the Russian land bridge. This Commander intent is crystal clear. The Ukrainian Offensive has failed this Objective.
Part of the reasons is the opinions of GEN Hodges. Ukrainian Military Command took GEN Hodges statements about Crimea’s importance, combined it with President Zelinsky’s Commander’s Intent, and made Tokmak and Melitopol the Ukrainian Offensive’s Objective 1 and Objective 2. This was wrong and is clear as day in hindsight.
During WW2, the best place to land Allied forces was Pais De Calais. The Allies landed just south at Dieppe as a test. The Germans then put their strongest defenses from Dieppe to Calais to thwart an Allied landing.
Just south of Dieppe were the Normandy beaches. The landing spot was problematic. Special engineering constructions were required to land trucks, artillery, and tanks. The post landing terrain naturally resisted a quick breakout. This is why the Germans only positioned a nominal resistance force at Normandy. This is exactly why the Allies attacked at Normandy. US forces were able to create a breakout faster than the Germans believed possible and push the battle line toward Paris with a month. This follows the Principle Of War: strike decisively where your enemy is least prepared to defend.
In June 2023, Ukrainian Military Command might have been unsure of where the greatest weak spot of Russian defenses would be. Therefore, it was reasonable for Ukrainian Command to prob for weaknesses for 1 to 3 weeks. However, by week 4, 2 areas were clearly the best places to ADD additional resources.
The 1ST successful Offensive was Bahkmut South Flank. The north flank had some success, but never controlled the high ground. Bahkmut was never to be liberated. However, threatening it by continued envelopment would have forced Russians to reallocate Units from other areas. The Bahkmut South Flank Exploitation Offensive would have needed 2 Brigades to reach and defend the M03-H32 road junction to Popasna. Another 2-3 Brigades would have been needed to threaten the envelopment of Horlivka.
Although using about 1/3RD of Ukraine’s new NATO resources, would any of this Offensive Operations have achieved the Commander’s Intent? Not exactly. By exploiting success in this area in late June and early July, Russian decision makers would have had to pull Units from Kherson and Luhansk 2 months earlier than they actually did. It would have prevented the current Russian Andriivka Offensive.
The other successful Offensive was near Staromaiorske. A wide area of mines were cleared here too. So why waste resources pushing to Tokmak? A breakthrough at Staromaiorke open paths to either Berdiansk or Mariupol. Either would have accomplished Oresident Zelinsky’s Commander’s Intent. From either port city, Russian Azov Sea shipping would have been threatened. The Kerch Bridge would have been threatened. Finally, all of Crimea could have been sieged.
Ukrainian Military Command has mishandled their big Offensives opportunities. They are wasting 15,000 soldiers playing faux threats along the Dnipro River. Those 15,000 troops could be decisive in Bahkmut South Flank or either Zaporizhzhya Offensive currently stalled. GEN Hodges should have called them out.
Hopefully with Abrams M1A1 MBTs and F16s, Ukraine will find a way to win despite its initial Offensive bungling. Ukrainians have a NATO trained NCO Corp. They NATO weapons. Post war, the Ukrainian Officer Corp all need NATO training. Ukrainian Units need NATO organization. The Soviet organization and Soviet schemes of maneuver have to all go.
I am a US school trained Armor Officer and school trained MI Officer, Brigade S2.
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
@Walterwaltraud US support for Ukraine does not include planning their operations. We have shared intelligence for targeting. However, many targets have been plotted via a vigorous Ukrainian MI effort. Supplementing US injects, these other targets are acquired via drones, Special Forces, locals, and communication intercepts. The Kadyrov Chechnyans were targeted by communication intercepts cross referenced to social media posts of named personnel, with a lodging site IDed, and confirmed by drones. The HIMARS fire was green lighted upon confirmation and BOOM! This was not US intelligence. This was Ukrainian MI throughout the process.
In post war Ukraine, I am expecting Ukrainian MI will be as important to the US and NATO as Israel is in the Middle East. The Ukrainian ability to detect Russian slang and emphasis on importance is average communication intercepts will greatly enhance US/NATO understanding. For example, suppose Ukrainian Intelligence collects the names of tank plant workers. Ukrainian MI takes over and monitors those plant workers with the most social media posts or who are worker leaders. If MI overheard conversations about tank quality or parts issues or test failures, this information can then be researched to confirm as intelligence. Threat assessment can then be better determined.
2
-
The Ukrainian Parliament must start making its post war plans for: building a barrier border with Russia, clean up of munitions, debris clean up, reconstruction, and modernization. These areas each need their own specific plans. For example:
1-Barrier Border With Russia: this is a 3000M to 5000M security zone. All roads crossing it will be destroyed and replaced by Anti-Armor traps. All railways crossing it will be destroyed for 25K. A cyclone fence, multiple layers of barbed wire, an access/maintenance pathway, electric fence, minefields, camera fields, and fighting positions have to be built. No Ukraine-Russian air travel will occur. Only a ferry at Mariupol next to a Russian War On Ukraine Memorial will be allowed.
2-Reconstruction has many parts. Temporary housing housing could come from the purchase of 3 million RVs (US). New quick replacement housing could come from a German folding house company whose product can be installed on a cement slab on Day 1 including the roof. It can be furnished with a kitchen, and bath on Day 2. It is designed for IKEA furniture. An alternative is a Dutch firm using a “Lego Style” block construction. It takes a day to assemble on a cement slab. The roof and exterior takes another day. Plumbing , electrical, kitchen, and bath a 3RD day. Finishing interior walls a 4TH day, and furniture with move in a 5TH day. Large apartment blocks could take about 9 months is modular construction is used. Then there is infrastructure including all signage in Ukrainian to build. All the bridges on the Dnipro River need to be replaced with drawbridges rising to the west. The post war Ukrainian Military has to be planned for 300,000. 2/3RDs will have to be Reserve or National Guard forces to cut costs. This mean Oblast based Units with dual missions like in the US. There are many factors to consider.
3-Modernization also has many parts and should be coordinated with Reconstruction, like the drawbridges. Other areas include: electrical infrastructure compatible with the EU; relaying all railways to EU standard gauge and replacing the wheels on all rolling stock; modernizing Ukraine’s port system and Black Sea waterways; and setting up Ukraine own satellite communications system or integrating with EU satellites.
These are huge areas of responsibility with many smaller pieces of varying interest in different parts of Ukraine. Plans have to be made so refugees can return as quickly as areas are safe and services restored.
2
-
I would feel better about the Ukrainian Military if so many legacy Soviet minded Commanders were not in charge of Ukrainian Divisions, Brigades, and Battalions. Armed with NATO equipment, these Ukrainian Military Leaders still use Soviet Unit organization and schemes. As a Military Intelligence Officer of a US Brigade, I know what the Battle Planning Process around a 5 Paragraph OPORD involves. This is a NATO standard. I believe Ukrainians only plan at Corp and Division Levels in a “similar” manner. Most Ukrainian Battalions and all but a few Brigades have no Battle Planning Process. The US teaches The Battle Planning Process at all levels to make sure any promoted Officers are competent enough to fill their new rows.
What is The Battle Planning Process around a 5 Paragraph OPORD?
1: Issue Warning Orders to subordinate Commands that a mission is being planned. More specific Warning Orders come out to specific Commands as Higher Level Commands finalize the Battle Plan.
2: Every Command Level uses the time management rule of D-Day minus 2/3RDs for preparation and 1/3RD for Planning your Level. If Division gives its 4 maneuver Brigades 14 Days to D-Day, then a Warning Order goes out to Battalions and then from Battalions to Companies. The Brigade Staffs then have 1/3 of 14 Days, 3 Days, to go through the Battle Planning Process. This means reading the Division 5 Paragraph OPORD, pulling out the parts related to your specific Brigade, and identifying your Objectives for the mission.
3: The the Brigade Staffs start to analyze their AO (Area of Operations), the Enemy forces they expect to encounter, the Friendly forces in their Command and on the Flanks, and then what the Commander’s Intent/Guidance is to complete the mission and achieve the Objective. The Military Intelligence Officer should always present Enemy Most Probable and Most Dangerous COAs (Courses Of Action). The Brigade XO and Tactical Officer should create 2 very different COAs to achieve the Objective. The Commander usually is making sure Battalions are preparing and physically making sure the routes of Battalions to the Start Line on D-Day is clear of obstacles or risk areas, like a bridge crossing. If a passage of Friendly lines needs to occur, coordinating with the MP Commander is always wise.
4: The Commander then returns to lead the Battle Planning Process. This leadership is usually only injected guidance. Multiple war games take place after the initial presentations. Each Friendly COA has to account for Enemy Most Probable/Most Dangerous COAs. NCOs create timelines for each Friendly COA and mark DPs (Commander Decision Points). The timeline and DPs help Commanders to make timely decisions as battles heat up and the TOC (Tactical Operations Center) gets confused. The Commander then has to pick the best COA. NOTE: Almost every Commander under which I served thought they were in a Chinese Restaurant after war gaming. They each took the parts or multiple COAs to create the final COA. This should require a final war game with NCOs making a new timeline and DPs. When this final war gaming was NOT done, there were always gaps in assets available to confirm DPs or the timelines made for Battalion misalignment in the AO. This can give Enemy Units counterattack opportunities.
5: This is where Brigade Staffs go to subordinate Battalions to OBSERVE the next Level down Battle Planning. If comments are made, they should only be to the Battalion Commander. Otherwise it’s micromanaging and create circular thinking. Besides the XO and Tactical Officer usually have to work with the Logistics Officer to finalize a support plan conforming to the Final COA. Most Logistics Officers have an AO sketch plan. However, this has to be edited so support does not become an easy target.
6: During execution of the Battle Plan, Brigade Commanders are usually near the main push. The Tactical Officer is near the secondary push. This gives Brigade Commanders opportunities to FRAGO or edit an OPORD if Enemy actions or terrain is other than expected. This means the XO is plotting and mapping the battlefield situation from the TOC. The Military Intelligence Officer is usually with him in the TOC. The Logistics Officer is also plotting and mapping the battlefield from his main supply point. If the XO has to move forward to replace an injured Commander, he is prepared. The Logistics Officer then moves forward to be in the XOs position. However, the Tactical Operations Officer is the person to replace the XO if they go down.
7: I have stated it takes at least 18 months to train up a Brigade including promoting the best Battalion Staff, training up NCOs at all Levels, creating Battalion Staffs, building out Companies, and taking in Basic Trainees with no experience. The whole process of Battle Planning is not easy. There are many things learned about leaders during war gaming. Using simulators for all Levels and plotting them on a giant electronic map board, can train Division Staff. It definitely can train Brigade and Battalion Staffs prior to Field Exercises. Actually moving around during Field Exercises can greatly enhance a Unit’s radio skills and discipline. There are Coordinating Instructions such as lines being crossed or points reach set by higher Command Level so they can understand situations. Practice is the only true teacher.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Chuck, your analysis of Russian Offensive failure near Kupiansk was BOT. However, you missed 1 huge Russian flaw which Ukrainian Military Command mimics in Offensive Operations. The NATO Battle Planning Process leading to a standard 5 Paragraph OPORD is an EVERY Command Level necessity from Battalion Level up. The OPORD might come from a higher Command Level down, but each subordinate Command Level down to Battalion has to have to plan their own OPORD based on the higher Command Level slice instructions.
For example, in your analysis, it appeared the Russian Offensive Operation was 2 Brigades, which is a weak Division Command Level unless a trailing Brigade was in Reserve. Each Brigade should have a Scout screening Unit OR the lead Battalion should deploy a Company on a 2-4 roadway path to determine the contact line, minefields, or natural obstacles. The lead Battalion should not be in a column. However, the trailing Battalions can move in a column until contact is made, the deploy.
It is obvious this Offensive was planned off a map. The scale might have been lacking detail. A Division Recon/ACR or Drone Unit should have IDed the natural terrain obstacles. If this detail was added to the maps used, and then wargamed, the outcome would have been forecasted. Russians seem to lack a systematic Battle Planning Process, they lack any planning at every Command Level, and then execution is every Unit for themselves.
Unfortunately, Ukrainian Military Command suffers from these same issues. For example, the initial Kursk Offensive was well planned. It totally caught Russians by surprise, again! However, Ukrainians lacked very clear, specific Objectives. The Ukrainians could have run a Stryker Unit north to threaten the nuclear power plant near Kursk City. This was ALWAYS too far to be an Objective without a Corps of 3 Divisions, 4 Brigades each. So what was the main Objective or Objectives? Capturing Sudzha was Objective 1. The Objective 2 should have been to secure the Seym River from Tyotkino to Korenovo. This required 2 Brigades attacking from different points of the Ukrainian border to surround Glushkovo from the west and south. Korenovo needed 2 Brigades additional. All of these Units should have been already on the border. Ukrainians needed an additional Brigade to capture Guyevo and secure the river to Sudzha. Once SECURED, Ukrainians could have dug in and redeployed Units north to form a defense line along waterways from Korenovo to Sheptukhova to Progrebki to Sudzha. Minus the lakes, this is about 25 miles of trench lines, minefields, barbed wire. The actual Ukrainian border is about 150 miles with few natural defenses. This means trading land was NOT an Objective. Creating a defendable border has always been the Objective.
Waterway networks are the best borders with Russia. Trading Luhansk Oblast north of the Donetsk River for all the territory south of the Donetsk River, including Rostov and Taganrog, would be defendable. If Crimea was lost, but Kherson Oblast East liberated, dig a canal from the Azov Sea to the Black Sea at Krasnopekopsk. Ukrainians have to rebuild all bridges across the Dnipro River as draw bridges rising to the west. This is Ukraine’s best defense other than becoming a NATO Member.
PS: I am a Brigade MI Officer, previously trained as an Armor Officer.
2
-
2
-
UK is great for taking baby steps to support Ukraine before any other countries. This is another such 1ST Step. Here is what I would want as a US supporter of Ukraine:
1: US public statement that Ukrainians have proven their right to exist as a free country. As a free country, the US agrees to arm Ukrainians to win any war with Russia over its UN recognized 1991 borders or until Ukraine determines new borders as part of a peace treaty.
2: The US will defend all Ukrainian air space and ground space west of the Dnipro River from the Black Sea to Dnipro City, and then all of Kharkiv Oblast west.
3: The US recognizes Ukraine’s right to negotiate claims of territory currently recognized as Russian territory, including the cities of Taganrod and Rostov with Donetsk River as a natural border.
4: Ukraine in turn, agrees to defend the US if it is attacked by Russia in the air, at sea, and/or on land, including any US possession.
I would want to make most of Ukraine a safe space for its people, its economy, and to develop its own military defense industries. This would allow a US no fly zone and also allow US Military Advisors to train Ukrainians in country.
My main problem with Ukraine is GEN Zaluzhny. He was not thinking clearly in this Summer’s Ukrainian Offensives. He spread out Ukrainian Military Force. To NATO, this is a no-no called Dilution Of Force. His strategy to defeat Russia by attrition is also suspect.
The US/NATO wanted a single Corp Level Offensive with multiple Division Axis of Advance with a common Objective of cutting the Russian land bridge. This would have been a 30K front supported by 5 Regiments Artillery all mutually supporting. NATO calls this an Economy Of Force.
If Ukrainians are really taking 1 Year off to train up 150,000 more troops, then 2 things should happen. Units in deep Reserve need to be reorganized into NATO Unit formations. Currently, Ukrainians use legacy Soviet Unit formations. These rob lower level leadership the resources to be quickly decisive, especially at Company, Battalion and Brigade Levels. NCOs can reorganize most Units.
Meanwhile, the Ukrainian Officer Corps needs a condensed US/NATO train up class for all reorganized Units. I see Battalion Staffs with Company Leadership doing: 2 months classroom instruction on fundamentals; 3 months battle planning to include option development, wargaming options, and writing a 5 Paragraph OPORD; 2 months simulator training; and 3 months field training. Brigades would observe or could work in parallel. During the 1 month of field training, Brigade Staffs would be doing their own higher level battle plans. They would then join the Battalion field exercises and run through 2 full battle plans. This will get the ready for 2025 Combined Arms Offensives with F16s giving Ukrainians Area of Operations (AO) Air Dominance.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@andersgrassman6583 I agree the Ukrainian Army with a NATO trained NCO Corp is much more agile at lower levels than Russians. Ukrainians can win with their transitional style force. Having said this, the timeline to completely remake the Ukrainian Officer Corp and reorganize Units may have been too short to implement at this time.
You can have friendly fire deaths when Units do not understand exactly what they are doing. The 5 Paragraph OPORD and how to create it, The Process, has to be trained with multiple practical table top exercises with Officers and NCOs down to Battalion level. The wargaming part of The Process has to include key Company level Officers and NCOs. Companies do NOT create OPORDs. However, they have to pull their pieces out of Battalion OPORDs and explain them to every troop. If a Corp General asks a Private in a Company what’s the plan, he had better hear that Company’s plan or at least a Platoon version of the Company plan.
These plans get weaker as a battle progresses. OPORDs become FRAGOs. There are less discussions about plans. The coordination with adjacent Units also becomes weaker, sometimes confused. If a Battalion Commander has 4 maneuver Companies in a NATO organization instead of 3 in a Soviet organization, this is an extra advantage at the Battalion level, to resolve situations with your own resources.
In the Soviet model, all those 4TH Companies are reformed into additional Battalions. But Soviet Brigades do not get the additional Battalions. These extra Battalions are reformed into additional Brigades. Its at the Division Command level that the additional Brigades can be maneuvered. Remember, when 1 Unit gives up the battlefield to another friendly Unit, this is called a Battle Handover maneuver. It is dangerous at any level because of Enemy artillery fire. However, the higher the Command level, the more dangerous. This is why extra internal resources at each level are so important. If a Battle Handover occurs after an Objective is secure, great. If it occurs in between Objectives, this is a risky maneuver which increases in risk the higher the Command level.
After Ukrainians win the War, a NATO style AAR (After Action Review) has to be conducted. It has to be honest and thorough. This is the only way things improve. Bottom up 360 management has to be used. The US after Vietnam did this to learn SOME lessons. They did it in Grenada, Panama, and the Desert Storms. Each time they learned more lessons and made adjustments. Equipment matters, but so does organization and training to apply the equipment used. The Ukrainian Military Command cannot let post war civilian euphoria or depression color their AAR. Each Unit in each level of Command has to document their experiences. Higher Command has to interpret these reflections to determine where there were positives and negatives. They have to compare these to their own initial assessments. Finally, an Official AAR has to be published.
In some cases, 2 Battalions or 2 Brigades or 2 Divisions may have different AAR reflections covering the same topics. Why? Is leadership training or quality to “blame”. In this case it’s not personal blame but finding what to fix blame. Is it an equipment advantage 1 Unit held versus another? This is a purchase recommendation. Were there intelligence gaps or Russian surprises? The reasons why have to be determined. Collectively, these all will produce a better Ukrainian Military. It will give them intelligent questions to ask in NATO Conferences and Workshops.
2
-
@andersgrassman6583 Your understanding of my post is well comprehended. An athlete has a single brain and still struggles to change from one way originally trained to new way to win with new equipment or a new scheme.
It is much harder to change from one military scheme different, new scheme using leaders at different levels all adapting at different speeds. It may take several different types of exercises, both field and table top, to get the concepts to sink in using a variety of scenarios.
Ukrainians did really well learning how to build an NCO Corp from 2018 to 2022. This the basic of Crawl. Having Junior Officers used to delegating to a Senior Sergeant group is the next level of Crawl. Platoons are the same 3 at Company Level as in a Soviet model. Learning new equipment and understanding how to pull the Company information out out Battalion OPORD are the top of Crawl at the Company level.
Battalions are the lowest level of maneuver Command. This Crawl is much harder. Battalion Staffs each have thinking component parts, the brain, of the Battalion. NATO Battalions have 4 maneuver Companies. Their formations are: linear (moving fast), diamond (possible contact); square (expected contact); and horizontal (full attack). Getting Company Commanders to understand the battlefield, applying the formations to the battlefield, and making sure the Companies are ready to maneuver when required. The road and maneuver fields for each Battalion in each formation throughout the AO (Area of Operations) has to be planned, war gamed, and run through with key Company Platoon Staff. This all takes time to perfect. Ukrainian timelines did not allow for this much change at Battalion level.
Now imagine adding an extra Battalion to each Brigade! I am not sure what The Process is in a Ukrainian Brigade. Does Staff at this level create their own Plans the way NATO Units do? Are Plans made at a higher level in micromanagement detail and handed to Brigades? NATO Plans at high levels via the OPROD. Each lower level creates their own OPORD down to Battalion level. This is how Staffs are trained for promotion. I believe Ukrainians just did not have enough time to adopt and implement all of these changes for 2023 Offensives.
2
-
1
-
1
-
I watch daily Ukraine Matters. Georgie understands overall strategy for Ukraine to win. He relies on low level Ukrainian soldiers to give him frontline updates. Therefore, as a US trained Brigade Military Intelligence Officer, formerly Armor trained to Company Level, I am able to separate those areas where Georgie’s analysis is strong and those areas in which he is reaching with Ukrainian glasses on.
Here are the real facts:
1: Georgie is correct about the Russian economy falling into a meltdown. Russia is close to Germany in early 1918 economically. If Russia cannot pull off a victory by July 2025, OR get a Cease Fire during Peace Negotiations, the Russian Military will have to dig in or pull back to defensive positions.
2: The Allies of Ukraine at the Rammstein Meetings have slow walked their support since July 2022. Most of these are decisions is t keep all 50 Allies on board. Most are NATO Members. However, President Trump was 100% correct in European laziness in their own defense. Without President Trump’s foot in their behinds, most Europeans not want to PAY for increasing defenses until Russians were at THEIR border. Spain had 368 Leopard MBTs of which only 75 were immediately useable, and 40 more were on 60 day useable status. They promised Ukraine 12 Leopard 2A6 MBTs, delivered 6, then 6 months later delivered 4 more, then 12 months later delivered 6 Leopard 1A5s. If Spain had to actually fulfill its NATO obligations in a war, they might provide 1 Armored Brigade Team. It would take a YEAR to provide a 2ND Brigade. This is what the US is dealing with as part of NATO.
Additionally, many Europeans are running trade surpluses with the US. They are hosing the US on military support and on trade. Average Americans have had enough. We are past WW2 recovery. Europeans have to pull their own weight. US bases in Europe should not cost the US any money.
So Georgie is correct about European defense and defense industries have to be more robust. But how can this occur? Georgie hates President Trump. On the other hand, it’s only President Trump foot up Europe’s behind which has gotten any positive changes. So Georgie’s talk is cheap speculations.
3: Ukrainians are fighting WW3 for all of Europe. I know this. All Europeans should know its Ukrainian blood and guts stopping a greater Russian onslaught by a Russian Hitler minded leader, Putin. The question is what does Ukraine have to do to WIN. Right now Ukrainians are only willing to tread water. Here are my ideas for victory:
A: Ukrainian politicians have to comprehend Ukrainian troops need 18 months to go from raw recruits to Brigades in fighting shape. This includes training all Officers, NCOs, and Command Level NCOs. Most Infantry, Armor, Artillery, and Logistics troops can be trained in 8 months. Junior NCOs can start being selected at the end of this training. Officers with 4 year college degrees will need 8 months also. The weakest Officers can be directed away from Combat roles. It will take 1-2 months to train as a Squads/Platoons inside Companies. The Captain and 1ST Sergeants have to come from experienced leaders to use this timeline. Likewise, Battalions will need 3 months with core Staff coming from experienced Officers and NCOs. Battalions will need simulators as well as field exercises to be trained in 3 months. The HQ Company and its Special Platoons all have to work as a Unit with a succession plan. Maneuver Companies have to know where and how to move in a Battalion formation. All leaders have to “know what they don’t know.” Battalions have to perform at least 2 Battle Planning missions. One can be on simulators and the other has to be a field exercise. There should be at least 1 dry walk through to create a 5 Paragraph OPORD. War gaming has to be explained. All Battle Plans require 2 unique Friendly COAs (Courses Of Action). The MI Officer has to provide the Enemy COAs as Most Probable and Most Dangerous. Staff NCOs create a timeline and Commander DPs (Decision Points) for each Friendly COA versus both Enemy COAs. The Commander then has to pick the best COA. My experience is most Commander’s take parts of both COAs. This should require a final war game with new timelines and DPs. Battalions are then formed into Brigades. It will take 5-6 months to fully train a Brigade. This training should include simulators in the 1ST month. There should be 1-3 Battle Plans practiced each month with at least 4 different locations involved. This will make sure Commanders at all levels do NOT get comfortable with one location. Terrain advantages have to be recognized by leaders, including NCOs. Movement to contact discipline has to be practiced. Communications from Companies to Battalions and Battalions to Brigade has to be maintained under varying circumstances. Division and Corps Commanders can observe the last month of Brigade training to evaluate what quality of Unit they will be getting.
B: With all of A in mind, Ukrainian politicians need to recruit about 150,000 troops per year until 2026. This will send message to its Allies that Ukraine is not backing down.
3: In 2022, Ukrainians did not receive HIMARS Artillery until 600+ Russian spies, agents, and collaborators in the Ukrainian government were fired out of the 1000+ identified by the US. Slowly, these remaining 400+ Russian Operatives are being weeded out. Unfortunately, Ukrainians lost a lot of territory in the beginning of the war. Then GEN Zaluzhny executed Ukraine’s one best Offensive Operation using legacy Soviet Unit Organization and legacy Soviet Schemes Of Maneuver. He rejected US/NATO guidance. GEN Zaluzhny failed and so did Ukraine. This has complicated Ukraine’s path to victory. There are ZERO excuses for failure, but GEN Zaluzhny basically blamed Ukraine’s Allies.
Here is the real truth. Any Ukrainian Unit can defeat a defending Russian Unit IF and WHEN overwhelming Force is applied and Success Is Exploited. These are both NATO Principles Of War. Do you need Air Superiority? NO. The Ukrainian Kharkiv Offensive did not enjoy Air Superiority yet was a massive success. When GEN Zaluzhny had a big success during the Bahkmut South Flank Offensive, he failed to Exploit Success with additional Brigades to envelop Horlivka or push onto Popasna. Instead, GEN Zaluzhny diluted his Force by starting another Offensive in a different and unrelated part of tge frontline. This was legacy Soviet thinking. NATO Commanders would have piled on the Bahkmut South Flank Offensive and forced Russia to immediately react.
Now GEN Syrskyi has launched a Battalion size Offensive Operation into Kursk. WHY?!? Would not a fresh Battalion counterattacking in a current battle where Russians have overextended their salients been better? Even a non-salient attack on Hatyshche to cut off Russian supply lines north of the village would have yield better and longer lasting results. Ukrainian Military Command cannot afford more GEN Zaluzhny mistakes in Offensive Operations.
1
-
1
-
President Clinton, President Obama, and President Biden, all Democrats, have given Ukraine hints at supporting its Independence from Russia, but not enough to maintain its 1991 borders. Now Ukrainians have NOT always spoken with 1 voice. Americans heard independence talk, but then Ukraine elected Russian puppet leaders. By 2014, Ukrainians finally decided fight for Independence from Russia. This included full EU integration and NATO Membership. President Biden has slow walked Ukrainian aid.
President Trump has 2 responses in support of Ukraine. 1ST, he will make the US energy independent. This might not sound like Ukrainian support, BUT, increased US oil/gas production will lower world oil/gas prices. Russia needs $35 per barrel to break even. They have to discount Russian oil by about $20 per barrel. If oil drops from $80 to $55 per barrel, Russia makes zero revenue. US increased production should lower oil prices to $40 per barrel. 2ND, President Trump does not want a long war in Ukraine. He will back Ukraine to win 300 Abrams MBTs, 600 Bradley IFVs, and 200 F16s. Plus enough ammo to win. The US will want Ukrainian trade deals under President Trump. And yes, the US will push NATO Membership for Ukraine IF Ukrainians agree to spend 3% on Defense spending.
1
-
1
-
Ukraine Fatigue was caused by GEN Zaluzhny’s failure to use Economy Of Force in a single Corp Level Offensive in 2023. This is what the US/NATO advised. Instead, GEN Zaluzhny used a Dilution Of Force, a NATO no-no, by spreading out Ukrainian manpower and NATO weapons over 8 Offensives not supporting each other’s Objectives. These included: 1 in Donetsk Oblast, 6 in Zaporizhzhia Oblast, and 1 in Kherson Oblast East. Dilution equals failure just as the US/NATO suggested.
Ukraine will have 1 more chance at an Offensive season. If GEN Zaluzhny again leads Ukraine on multiple Offensives, this will cost Ukraine any chance of victory. If GEN Zaluzhny learned from his failure, or if a new Commander with a NATO perspective is hired, Ukrainians might still launch a single Corp Level Offensive capable of reaching the Azov Sea. The Ukrainians will have F16s to help gain Air Dominance. The question is whether the array of ammo will be great enough and in sufficient quantities to create a true Combined Arms environment. Once the Azov Sea is reached, all of Crimea can be under daily siege using conventional artillery rounds, glide bombs, and HIMARS rounds. Reaching Crimea or liberating the Donbas south of the Donetsk River will both be achievable Objectives.
1
-
@DavidOfWhitehills Air neutrality means what to you? From my military training it means Enemy aircraft may OR may not be present. This means Air Defense has to be planned along with CAS missions to give AO (Area of Operations) Air Dominance. Ukrainians certainly could not do this for the 8 Offensives attempted. They could have done it for 1 Corp Level Offensive.
The early Ukrainian formations destroyed on movement to the front lines were bunched up, not dispersed. They moved in secure areas in daylight, not at night. Why? Normal procedure would be to move at night by MPs to a secure area with cover near the frontline.
Ukrainians have NEVER demonstrated on video proper breaching technique for crossing a minefield and breaching a defensive line. This is the by the book procedure:
1: Suppressive fire at the defensive line.
2: Include obscuration rounds just prior to the start of the breach.
3: Deploy near side Security Team.
4: Deploy Engineers with MICLICs. Fire MICLICs. Proof lane to end of detonation. Repeat MICLICs and proofing until the minefield is cleared.
5: At this point obscuration rounds continue but suppression rounds shift to deep battle.
6: Far side Security Team runs through the lane to secure far side.
7: The 1ST Unit to attack now runs through the breach and attacks defensive line. As this occurs, the obscuration rounds stop.
If the Enemy has limited night vision devices, the breach should occur at night. Combined with obscuration, the Enemy should not know exactly where lanes cross the minefields even with MICLICs firing.
Why 1 Corp Level OffensIve?
With 1 Corp Offensive, Ukrainians would have plenty of artillery supporting individual frontline Units, and additional artillery in Reserve. This is a lot of suppression fire and obscuration fire. If a 30K Offensive centered on Staromaiorske with 3 Axis of Advance with Rozivka as an Objective. Once Rozivka was secure, the easiest of Berdiansk, Yalta, or Mariupol would be the Objective cutting the Russian land bridge.
1
-
1
-
1
-
It is true training environments should, but do not always reflect, reality. Thankfully, NATO Units does not fight like Ukrainians. This video incorrectly suggested US Units would only use overwhelming force, while not supplying Ukrainian Units with such force. This is BS.
Ukrainian Military Command had an idea of what Units it could equip by November 2022. By March 2023 many of these planned Units were already NATO trained and equipped at staging areas in Ukraine. My guess, about 11 of 18 Brigades and 3 out of 5 Regiments of artillery. By June this was now 18 out of 24 Brigades. By August all 5 Regiments of artillery were deployed and 24 Brigades were fully equipped.
So why is Ukrainian Offensives so slow?
The Kyiv Post is ignoring Ukrainian Military Command problems. There are 3 in particular:
1: Ukrainians still use Soviet Unit organization at Company, Battalion, Brigade, and Division Levels. This Unit organization organically pushes decision making to higher Command levels, which is inherently slower than NATO Unit organization and Command. Ukrainians still have a lot to learn about fighting a modern war.
2: Ukrainians are still using Soviet schemes of maneuver and a Soviet battlefield mindset. This is a linear view. NATO uses thrusts centered on overwhelming force at the POA (point of attack). Ukrainians used this concept in the Kharkiv Offensive of 2022, but did not use in Kherson Oblast West nor in the current Offensives. NATO schemes would use a Battalion to crush a Platoon or Company and then use another Battalion to strike through to go deep. NATO tactics are to speed up engagements to thwart Enemy decking making. Ukrainians are fighting a slower Soviet attrition scheme.
3: Ukrainians do not follow the Principles Of War. Exploiting success like at Bahkmut South Flank, would have forced Russians to react. This speeds up a battle. Adding additional Ukrainian Units would have caused relentless pressure. Ukrainian higher Command Levels are slow to react compared to NATO leadership.
4: Ukrainian also violated another Principle: Economy Of Force. Spreading Russians out early in the war was a good way to find weak spots. Bahkmut South Flank and 2 Salients in Zaporizhzhya Oblast were IDed in June. By mid July, other Offensive positions should have dug in at their LOA (limit of advance). Only these 3 Offensives should have gotten priorities of fires. All new Brigades should have been focused in these 3 Offensives.
5: Ukrainian NCOs are all NATO trained. However, NCOs only can demonstrate independent leadership at the Squad (10-15 troops), Platoon (15-30 troops), and occasionally Company level. These are the small Units Ukrainians are using to spearhead Offensive Operations. The Ukrainian Officer Corp is mostly NOT trained by NATO. These means slow moving small Units are doing the work larger Units should be achieving via strategic maneuver.
These are the reasons Ukrainians are moving slow. Getting F16s and NATO weapons for the F16s will only paper only legacy Soviet organization and schemes. The only NATO deficiency was having MICLIC range not go 1500K or 2000K. Even with this, Ukrainians failed to use obscuration/smoke.
1
-
How honest is Kviv Post? I sincerely ask this question for 2 reasons.
1: President Trump gave support to Ukrainian defense and provided US Advisors to train up a NATO quality Ukrainian NCO Corp. President Biden never supported Ukraine. He supported a NATO Coalition who would determine support for Ukraine. Unfortunately, President Biden had to force President Zelinsky to fire about 600+ government and military workers who the US had direct evidence of being Russian spies, agents, or collaborators before HIMARS were delivered in 2022. The initial aid came fast enough for Ukrainians to create an overwhelming advantage over Russia. This is when the Kharkiv and Kherson Oblast West Offensives occurred. Then President Biden and his team got cold feet about kicking Russia out of Crimea at the same time GEN Hodges kept stating Crimea had to be liberated. Since then, President Biden has given only enough support to liberate the Zaporizhzhia Oblast to cut the Russian land bridge.
Even this Objective, stated by President Zelinsky, was compromised by GEN Zaluzhny’s horrible Offensive Plan for 2023. His rejection of the suggested US plan only made it worst. GEN Zaluzhny’s 2 articles attacking Ukraine’s Allied support just made President Biden throw up his hands. The fact President Trump and MAGA Republicans give him fig leaf, cannot hide US political support for Ukraine has dried up. No F16s, full range ATACMs, or additional MBTs/IFVs are coming from the US. Plan on only ammo, if anything.
2: President Trump is playing US political games. The US lost big in Afghanistan trying to nation build a backward, poor country with only 1 modern urban city. The US left a wealthy educated Iraq because Democrats thought of it as President Bush’s Republican War. This was President Obama’s BS leading to an ISIS Caliphate and more US involvement on less than ideal terms. This followed another Democrat foreign debacle which still has Nicaraguans living under tyranny because they looked at it as President Reagan’s Republican War. This is the history Ukrainians are going to pay for in lives.
President Trump will say are Nicaraguan or Kurdish Iraqi lives less valuable than those lives lost in Ukraine?
I would say no. I am a Not 1 Inch Ukrainian supporter. I count Ukrainians as fighting the WW3 with Russia we never had. The fact the war zone is in far eastern Ukraine and NOT on the German/Polish border is blessing. These, and the fact I grew up with Ukrainian friends and neighbors, has had me call my Congressman 5X and send 3 emails on this and only this issue: Support Ukraine.
So what does President Trump get by losing a lifelong Republican voter like me with an original 2016 Trumpy Bear? I believe he has 2 reasons.
Reason 1 is trying to NOT have Russian disinformation work against his Presidential Campaign in a close race.
Reason 2 is to force President Zelinsky to get involved in US politics. So far he has refused to investigate matters prior to his election. What President Trump wants President Zelinsky to do is investigate the corruption relationship between Ukrainian President and Russian bootlicker President Yanukovych and then VP Biden and his son Hunter Biden. VP Biden bragged on video that he got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired for doing an investigation. This is the scheme. VP Biden was given control of $1 billion in Ukraine Foreign Aid. VP Biden demanded and got a 10% or $100 million kickback. How? VP Biden laundered: $10 million to his son as a Ukrainian Oil Executive salary; $30 million was paid to shell companies owned by VP Biden and his wife; and $60 million was paid to George Soros NGOs. Of the $60 million: the NGOs keep $10 million for their activities; and $25 million was paid to Democrat Senate Campaign and $25 million to Democrat House Campaign. This same deal for lesser amounts was done via 6 other countries. However, VP Biden on bragged about Ukraine on video. The Hunter Biden laptop confirms how it worked.
Now Kviv Post could investigate this matter on its own and spare President Zelinsky the squeeze of investigating it himself. It could impact the US Presidential Election. Keep in mind, this was prior to the Maiden Revolution and one of the reasons for it. It’s time to come clean.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Are Ukrainians ready to hear a real military assessment of 2 years of fighting?
Warning, I talk in language not fit for children, who in Ukraine, have already suffered too much anguish. So grab hold of your nutsack and let’s jump in a 2 year analysis.
1: Ukraine would have gone no where and done nothing without President Zelinsky publicly proclaiming he would stand and fight. This single act allowed everything else to happen.
2: Where there prewar Ukrainian failures? Yes. GEN Zaluzhny, beloved as he is now, will not fair well in history.
Ukraine’s greatest prewar success was allowing US and UK Military Advisors to retrain a brutal Soviet type Ukrainian NCO Corp into a NATO quality junior Officer NCO Corp of Enlisted soldiers. This has benefited Ukrainians in every single engagement.
The Ukrainian failures are 3 fold: (1) they did not believe US intelligence reports of a pending Russian massive attack.
(2) Ukrainians failed to built defense lines in Kherson Oblast East, around all of the Donbas, and did not mobilize at least 150,000 troops.
(3) Ukrainians did not destroy 25K worth of railway tracks at every point crossing into Russia.
All of these 3 are on GEN Zaluzhny as overall Commander except, mobilization.
3: Ukrainians were shocked when the US confirmed Russians had 1000+ active spies, agents, and collaborators within the Ukrainian government at all levels and the Ukrainian Military. It took Ukrainians 2 months to act on 600+ of the US identified personnel before the US would send HIMARS artillery. The truth hurt Ukraine that they had been betrayed from within.
4: The Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian military did everything necessary to defend their country and even liberate Russian occupied territory.
5: GEN Zaluzhny in coordination with GEN Budanov, have exploited the best of Ukrainian innovation to create a successful Strategic Level Campaign to defeat Russia. The have pioneered drone warfare to augment artillery for ground forces, especially attacking Russian radars, fuel storage, and airfields. Ukrainian sea drones and missiles have sunk 1/3RD of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. Ukrainians have proved successful at sabotage within Russian and also have assassinated key Russian leaders and influencers. From GEN Zaluzhny’s own articles, this is the area he favors and fully comprehends.
6: GEN Zaluzhny completely messed up the Ukrainian 2023 Offensive(s). Neither his whining articles nor Kviv Post pats on his back can erase HIS failure. All Generals want more stuff and more troops. Great Military Leaders win by using what they have to succeed in what they can.
President Zelinsky publicly stated Ukrainian’s Objective was to cut the Russian land bridge. GEN Zaluzhny’s Objective was attrition of Russian Forces. NATO doctrine is attrition in Defensive Operations, gaining territory in Offensive Operations. GEN Zaluzhny was a bad leader for Offensive Operations. Unfortunately, Ukraine had 1 best chance to succeed during Offensive Operations and GEN Zaluzhny blew it.
6: GEN Syrskyi is not a public favorite military leader. He will do great in well planned out Defensive Operations in 2024. He might even gain some ground in counterattack. Nevertheless, his big shot will be 2025.
GEN Syrski will have many assets. F16s might give Ukrainians Air Dominance or even Air Superiority. Hopefully, he will have 150,000 additional troops in 2024 and 30,000 more by June 2025. He will need equipment and ammo. These NATO has to deliver.
7: Ukrainian politicians have to be willing to mobilize 450,000, about 150,000 each year, for 3 years. This is the part average Ukrainians have to determine is worth their freedom for all of Ukraine. IF they reject what is required of them, they are defacto saying some Ukrainian territory is NOT worth their blood.
PS: IF Russia ever reached the northern Dnipro River again, NATO would be involved in Ukraine’s fight.
1
-
GEN Hodges always zeroes in on what Ukrainians really need. Don’t get me wrong. I know Ukrainian troops have become casualties because NATO/EU countries have acted slowly. On the other hand, without incremental aid from NATO/EU, Ukrainians would be fighting a guerrilla war with how many more Ukrainian casualties?
I know Ukrainians are thankful. As an American, I would want more support for Ukrainians faster. Nevertheless, the slow pokes are other European NATO/EU countries Ukraine wants to join. Average Ukrainians always have to remember this fact. After the war, even if Ukraine is not allowed to immediately join NATO, Ukraine has to get a US Air Force and Army bases in between Kyiv and Odessa.
My opinion is a Ukrainian Offensive requires attacking Russian air defenses and airfields from Belograd to Krasnodar. The further from the Ukrainian-Russian border, the better. How to attack may require using JDAMs and drones instead of HIMARS. HIMARS are to be reserved for liberation of Crimea.
Ukrainians need to fight Russians where they are in greatest number. Therefore, I call this the Ukrainian Donbas Campaign. The northern Luhansk Offensive will close 1 flank. The Donetsk Offensive in the south will close the other flank. A follow on Offensive will secure Berdiansk an cut the Russian land bridge. The Donvbas Campaign will then tighten the perimeter to liberate lightly defended villages, then towns, and finally cities. All the time, hardcore Russian Units will be isolated and pounded by artillery. Air power will be saved for the air war and to attack fleeing Russian troops taking a single major road to Taganrog.
I agreed with GEN Hodges, liberating Crimea is a final key goal. After the Donbas is secure, a new Kherson Oblast East Offensive needs to start. Clearing Kherson Oblast East has to occur prior to October because of weather conditions.
Crimea will take a siege. GEN Hodges is correct in believing making the peninsula untenable for Russia is key. Therefore, cut water and power; attack the Kerch Bridge and the ferries; bring down hellfire on every Russian airfield, fortification, and base. Only if the do not voluntarily leave, attack. The Ukrainian attack will require about 300 US Marine landing vehicles. This Crimea Offensive could happen by year end.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
The way you tell it, GEN Zaluzhny is carping like a Basic Trainee on their 1ST day in the field!!!
Is this the Senior Commander of Ukrainian Military Forces???
GEN Zaluzhny started off great stating he miscalculated Russia’s ability to tolerate losses. I great he has no Ukrainian Military Intelligence Officers with balls enough to remind him of Russian history. Attrition of Russian artillery, air defenses, and tanks are good. Trying to attrit troops is foolhardy.
The GEN Zaluzhny went on to list all the gadgets he would like to have. What defeatist BS!!!
President Zelinsky should kick GEN Zaluzhny right in the kneecaps for making quibbling public remarks. These are all like to haves Ukraine should bring to the US and Germany for development. I would have added MICLICs with a 1500K explosive cord. It has to clear minimum direct fire MBT range. None of this fixes the real Ukrainian problems.
Ukraine got 3 years of NATO quality NCO trining from 2018 to 2022 (JAN). Most Ukrainian Units benefited from this training. However, NCOs only lead Squads (5-15 troops) and Platoons (11-33 troops). Only rarely do NCOs lead Companies (100-120 troops). Is it any wonder most Ukrainian attacks are combinations of small NCO lead advances?
The problem is Offensives are planned by Officers. NATO Militaries have Staffs at every level from Battalion, to Brigade, to Division, to Corp doing battle planning for their slice of the battlefield. It would take the Ukrainian Military 7-10 years to NATO standards. This includes classroom training, simulation training with StaffEx, and field training. Currently Ukrainian Officers are using legacy Soviet schemes of maneuver and battlefield thinking. As Notorious BIG (Biggie) would say, “You gotta know what you don’t know!” GEN Zaluzhny doesn’t get it.
In addition to training, the Ukrainian Military uses legacy Soviet Unit Organization. This might appear small, but it isn’t. Soviet Units are smaller with less Command flexibility at each level. This pushes decision making and reaction responses to higher Command levels. This is always a slower response process. It would take 1-2 years to reorganize all Ukrainian Units to NATO organization. NCOs could do most of the physical reorganization while Officers are going through their training.
If GEN Zaluzhny had stated the Ukrainian Military required NATO organization and Officers needed NATO training but the training time line as too short for a 2023 Spring/Summer Offensive season, I would have concurred. There was greater risk going off with rushed NATO training then staying with legacy Soviet Unit organization and schemes of maneuver.
Nevertheless, how does GEN Zaluzhny go forward?
Here are some ideas gleaned from the Principles of War:
1: Exploit Successes: For example, in Bahkmut South Flank, add 3-5 Brigade Armor Teams with 2 Brigade Infantry Teams in Reserve to clear Cities. Capture the M03-H32 road junction. Also, simultaneously push south to envelop Horlivka. Use the Infantry to clear Horlivka.
2: Stop wasting unsupported Units in a sideshow across the Dnipro River.
3: Economy Of Force: Zaporizhzhya Oblast has 6 Offensive areas. Consolidating on 1 area 15K wide with 2 Axis of Advance, will concentrate efforts. Adding in Dnipro Units will help. Push to the Azov Sea by FEB, 2024.
4: Build defensive layers on Adiivka Flanks using mines in depth like the Russians.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@richbattaglia5350 Ramstein is filled with military leaders who understand how winning organizations are built. President Zelinsky is NOT such a skilled military leader. Nevertheless, he hit on the one element common to both political and military leaders; time. Decisive actions have to be taken now to enable Ukrainian Units to be victorious in liberating all its territory from Russian occupation.
Ukrainian military leaders have asked for 300 MBTs and 600 IFVs/APCs. This is what Ramstein military leaders need to do:
1: Ukrainian Units fight as Brigade Combined Arms Offensive Operations. Each Brigade can NOT be logistically (logpac) supported with 10-15 different types of equipment. Therefore, Ramstein needs to build Brigades with the minimum amount of equipment diversity which can be supported by Brigade logpac operations.
2: Ramstein members willing to send equipment need to commit to Brigade packages of: Combined Arms (87 MBTs and 152 IFVs) or Recon (56 Light Tanks and 152 IFVs).
3: Pledged:
A-US: 1 Battalion Bradley M2s (2 Battalions short).
B-US: 1 Brigade Recon (56 Stryker Light Tanks, 152 Stryker IFVs).
C-UK: 1 Company Combined Arms (14 Challenger 2 MBTs, short 73 MBTs).
D-France: 1 Battalion Recon (56 AMX 10 Light Tanks).
E-Canada: 1 Battalion Recon (56 Senator APCs).
F-Australia: 1 Battalion Recon (56 Bushmasters APCs).
G-Germany: 1 Battalion Combined Arms (56 Marders IFVs, short 96 IFVs).
H-Poland, Finland, Spain, and Denmark pending permission to send Leopard 2 MBTs.
Thus far from the above pledges, 2 Recon Brigades are filled. The 2-3 Brigades Combined Arms are partially filled with IFVs but are short all but 1 MBT Company. This is pitifully weak support for Ukraine. I would expect the US to supply 87 M1A2 MBTs and 102 Bradley IFVs. I expect the UK to provide 73 addition Challenger 2 MBTs. It would be nice to supply 152 Warrior IFVs too. Germany needs to supply an additional 96 Marders and give other countries with Leopard 2s permission to send these MBTs to Ukraine. The other countries need to create a package of 87 Leopard 2 MBTs. If they could create additional 1 Battalion MBTs (56 total), this would be helpful as a Reserve force. This is how Ramstein military leaders should plan!!!
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maddog1046 Ukraine during President Obama’s time had a Ukrainian President acting as a puppet of Russia. This Ukrainian President also has Ukrainian Oligarchs stealing. After the Maiden Revolution in 2014, Ukraine started to have a fair election democracy oriented towards Europe. However, it was unstable and learning the democratic process. President Trump had to wait until 2018 to send US Advisors to retrain the Ukrainian Military as a NATO organized force. The US Advisors had intel the Russians had KGB agents in both the government and military. Most US organizing was at the Brigade and Battalion Staffs. We also insisted on building an NCO Corp. However, only small arms were given to fight in the Donbas because of Russian agents.
When President Biden took over, US Advisors continued training. President Zelinsky ignored President Biden’s warnings of a Russian attack. US Advisors were pulled a week prior to the invasion. President Biden refused to send heavy weapons to Ukraine until Ukraine purged known Russian agent, about 100. President Zelinsky final agreed even though it meant firing a lifelong friend. Then the US delivered HIMARS, M777, and ammo for both systems.
The US could not move before Ukraine was ready and then reformed. Sending MBTs and IFVs is now critical for Ukrainian success. Germany should not be a roadblock to Ukrainian success. Ukraine needs 3 Brigades Combined Arms and 2 Brigades Recon. By my count from Ramstein today, Ukraine is getting:
1: 2 Recon Brigades (US Stryker; France AMX 10, Canada Senator)
2: 1 Brigade Combined Arms (Poland, Finland, Spain Leopard 2s, US Bradley M2 IFVs)
3: 1 Brigade Infantry (UK Challenger 2 MBTs, Germany Marder, Multiple Countries IFVs)
4: 1 Brigade Artillery (Multiple Countries with various systems)
In order to conduct Offensive Operations, both #3 and #4 should be used to replace Ukrainian Soviet Era equipment in probable defensive locations. This will allow 1 Brigade Combined Arms and 1 Brigade Artillery of uniform Soviet MBTs and HIMARS/M777 artillery to be part of Offensive Operations standardized logpacs. It would have been better to have a 3RD Brigade Combined Arms. Maybe if Poland can find 174 Leopard 2 MBTs, 87 MBTs for #2 and 87 MBTs for the 3RD Brigade, the US will send an addition 152 Bradley M2s. This is all achievable since Canada has 100 unused Leopard 2 MBTs also.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maddog1046 My UK suggestion is tied to job protection and creation. This should unite Conservatives and Labor.
EU countries are less pacifist than Germany’s Social Democrats are bought off by Russia. The SDP leadership is literally paid off. Many SDP members still are living in a Cold War world mentality, where to them Russia represents the Soviet Union protecting all socialist ideology. To the extent Germany’s SDP is caving to other EU countries will, I think this represents independent German voters starting to break Green Party or even Christian Democrat Party over Ukraine. Bribes do not mean so much if you lose elections.
You military concerns for Ukraine are valid. Ukrainian Military Command and US European Command are building Ukraine’s Offensive battle plan for May of this year. All the equipment promised and received is being tracked. It is all tied into this planning. I have tried to match how this planning process works based on my military training. I know how much manpower and equipment is needed to win this Offensive being planned. What I do not know is how little manpower and equipment is needed to win.
This is partly because Ukrainians and NATO are masking training and equipment. I know for a fact, as confirmed by public US announcements, 1000 Bradley M2 crew members will be trained by May. It will take 2 months to train 500 crew members and there are 4 months. Ukraine could use the 1ST 500 crew members to train 500 more in Ukraine. This is potentially 1500 crew members. Each Bradley M2 has a crew of 3 and carries 8. This means enough crews for 500 Bradleys could be ready by May. These Bradleys can carry 4000 troops about 114 Companies of maneuver Units. These are many more support vehicles required to form Battalions, and this is why Canada’s 200 Senator APCs are important.
I cannot believe Ramstein’s announcements are mostly random proposals by its 50 members. Do you really believe if Ramstein needed Canada to supply its unused 100 Leopard 2 MBTs, that Canadians would have pledged 200 Senator APCs? No! This is why I see 3 Brigades Combined Arms, 2 Brigades Recon, and 1 Brigade Artillery or 3 Regiments Artillery. Plus 1 Squadron F16s.
Keep in mind I also posted several times last June about a Ukrainian Melitopol Offensive to trap Russian Units in Kherson Oblast West. To liberate a city like Melitopol, I suggested using 1 Brigade Urban Assault. At that time I was thinking 3 Infantry Battalions in BTR 80s and BMPs, plus 3 Battalions of MPs in Hummers, and an MI Battalion to go through POWs. I also expected to have several “Companies” of Partisans to help. The 2 Brigades Recon might be made into 1 Brigade Urban Assault using a lighter firepower organization, and still have 2 Brigades Recon only slightly under doctrinal strength. This is where Ukrainian real battle experience has probably given US Advisors key intel on how little is needed in each Brigade to win. It may also allow for 1 Brigade Reserve spearheaded by Soviet Era T MBTs, or it might be the UK will end up supplying 1 Battalion Challenger 2 MBTs instead of a lone 1 Company. The lowest level of military history is written at the Battalion level. Most histories are best detailed at Brigade and Division levels. The UK already has enough Ukrainians in country to fill a MBT Battalion.
1
-
1
-
This interview was very good on 2 little discussed topics. The infiltration of Russian spies, agents, and collaborators into Western countries is larger than we want to admit. Ukrainians are still grappling with the 1000+ spies, agents, and collaborators the US identified in April 2022, of which President Zelensky fired only 600+. It might be up another 40+ now that corruption investigations are bearing fruit.
The other are partly discussed was the conversion from Soviet legacy Unit Organization to NATO quality Unit Organization. Since 2017, the US has provided Advisors to train up a Ukrainian NCO Corps. With UK Advisor help, this has positively impacted almost every Ukrainian Company, and has percolated into some Battalions. Unfortunately, the Ukrainian Officer Corps was NOT also positively impacted. In some cases, low ranking Company Level Officers did glean some NATO Organization benefits from their NCOs. Nevertheless, this was not a systemic training process.
GEN Syrskyi was reported as the Ukrainian liaison to NATO Command under GEN Zaluzhny. He has had NATO Corps and Division Level Training experience without actual classroom theory of warfare. He has cultivated some subordinate Leaders at Brigade and Battalion Command Levels who understand some NATO Organizational benefits and schemes of maneuver. The theory part and how to adapt to Ukrainian circumstances is still a delta (unknown).
Here is what I know as a Brigade Military Intelligence Officer, previously trained in Armor to the Company Level.
1: Officer Training has to be systematic from the top down around a common set of NATO standards. This means teaching what a 5 Paragraph OPORD is and how to create one.
A: Companies do not create 5 Paragraph OPORDs because they lack the Staff. The just pull their slice from Battalion.
B: Battalions and higher all have Staffs to create a 5 Paragraph OPORD. This means from Military Command to Corps to Division to Brigade to Battalion, the Battle Planning Process is replicated at each Command Level for a smaller AO (Area of Operations).
C: The Battle Planning Process includes the 1/3RD-2/3RDs time management rule at each Level. It means counting back from anticipated D-Day to the current day. Warning Orders are issued for Units to prepare as soon as a mission is determined, not Battle Planned. Units usually have standard composition like Brigade Armor Teams or Infantry Armored Teams. However, some missions required specialized Units and equipment. Specific Operation maneuvers like Battle Handovers and River Crossings need to be practiced. Commanders at all Levels need to practice how to lead from the front, not Command by radio using a map in the rear.
2: Not all trained Officers succeed at every Level. Some Officers are great at Logistics and are not great at battlefield maneuver Command. Other Officers are great at Company or Battalion positions but are overwhelmed in higher Command situations. It is best to train and develop Officers to determine strengths and weaknesses prior to combat. The Ukrainian Commands who botched 2 rotations near Avdiivka are they still in Command? Is the 110TH Brigade Infantry Team Commander who did not build a layered defense and lost many troops in a hasty withdrawal under fire still in Command?
3: This brings me to learning from mistakes. GEN Zaluzhny published to horrible AARs (After Action Reviews) which basically exonerated himself from blame. This is Military BS! The Top Commander always has to take the credit for failure. He went to Avdiivka at least 2X prior to its capture and NEVER counseled the 110TH Brigade Infantry Commander to build out a layered defense. He should have mentored where the Strong Points should be.
AARs must be done for EVERY practice mission to improve a Unit. Higher Command should review AARs. Additionally, combat missions need AARs for historical records of Subordinate Units and outstanding troops. Areas of failure need to be identified for corrective action. If these are missing, higher Command has to force truth in writing the AAR by having an IG inspection where troops are interviewed.
Many ignorant posters think Ukrainians with be so good at modern warfare when the war ends. This is a lie based on misunderstanding warfare. Ukrainians use a lot of drones. This is an equalizer in a mostly equal air war. NATO forces would pulverize Russian air defenses in Week 1 of WW3. Then NATO Air Forces would suppress long range Russian missiles/rockets be attacking air bases, ships, and hunting down ground mobile launchers. Then NATO combined artillery and air would weaken Russian defenses everywhere by Week 3. NATO Units would use obscuration and night to thrust deep to the weakest Russian areas as deep as practicable. The Objective would be apply overwhelming force on a narrow front to reach C2 points and Logistics Centers. Then cut off supply to other front line Units. Crimea would NOT be a territorial Objective. Taking out Rostov with a Donetsk River and Don River moot would be an Objective. The taking Belgorod. I would make the Ukrainian border with Russia a series of defendable lakes, rivers, high ground, and forests.
The Ukrainian Military Command post war has 10-15 years of reform needed to be NATO quality. It takes about 18 months to train up a Brigade with raw troops, new NCOs, and new Officers. It will take 3 years to train a Division in Offensive Operations. A Corps might take 5 years. Ukrainians needs 4-5 Corps to defend their territory of 1991.
Ukrainians have NOT vetted the human and material cost of 3-5 Corps. Plus an Air Force and Navy. About 3/4THs of the Corps manpower needs to be National Guard and Reserve troops. About 50% of the Air Force has to be National Guard or Reserves. Even the Navy will need about 25% Reserve troops. The equipment used to support these Units cannot be a hodgepodge logistics nightmare. It has to be thought through. The National Guard equipment has to be similar yet cheaper than the Regular Army and Reserve Unit equipment. This has NOT been well thought out.
1
-
1