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