Comments by "Stephen Sipe" (@stephensipe5405) on "Kyiv Post"
channel.
-
@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