Applying Ukrainian Lessons to US Army Training

[KevinB]

I do not think your victory lap would be a week or 2.


"If V Corps was fighting the war, it would have been over, a week or two after the start. Simply because the US Military can exert a level of firepower and coordination that no other force on the planet can, and wouldn’t need to fight like Ukraine has had to."

The last time the US forces fought a land battle yes it was over fairly quick but it took time to build the forces and put boots on the ground.

Gulf War,

Iraq invades Kuwait, 02 August 1990
US Air Force starts to deploy 08 August 1990
US ground forces starting arriving on 09 August 1990
UN authorizes use of Force 29 November 1990
US Congress authorizes use of Force 12 Jan 1991
Air operations starts 16 Jan 1991
Coalition forces claim air supremacy 27 Jan 1991
Ground War operations start 24 Feb 1991
Ground operations cease and cease fire in place 28 Feb 1991

You could argue that some equipment and troops are already in place and prepared for a ground action in Europe. So that shaves some time off the time line.
But moving the troops and equipment since this would be an all out war, not a zone conflict, the Russian Navy and Airforce would be doing their best to stop the movement of ships and aircraft across the Atlantic Ocean, and across Europe by any and all means. Biggest issue would be getting all of NATO to agree that it is in the best interest of all members to actually follow the agreement. Russia would have time to prepare defences and run combat operations before the NATO force was even authorized to move. That is the one perk Russia would have over NATO forces, they are one country and one army, one government compared to the 30 some nations that make up NATO.

Biggest issue would be trading land for time to deploy NATO forces, unless some one actually got the intell right and was able to have the NATO leadership agree and they were pre deployed to meet the threat well in advance.

But what do I know besides reading history and only being a Pte in the infantry a long time ago. Maybe lessons were learned and they can deploy and get everyone to agree in a few days.

V Corps is in Europe currently.
We have over 140k US Military in Europe (the largest amount since the CFE cuts)
We have over 2 Corps worth of equipment in POMCUS depots in Germany and Poland.

The Russian Navy and Air Force are not equipped to conduct any sort of complex combined operation. The VKS still cannot fly more than 4 fighter aircraft sorties and only runs 2 different airframe per sortie. The only thing they do in formation is long range glide bombing or missile launches miles from the front. None if that would exist in hours of a USAF attack.

The only reason V Corps isn’t in Moscow currently is the Russian nuclear arsenal.
Conventionally the RuAF is a shit show.

I’m leaving Political aspects off the table, as the conditions were if Russia had attacked NATO. We aren’t going to launch a preemptive strike into Russia, as that isn’t NATO purpose.

My entire point was that given the training, and equipment available to NATO, that some Lessons Learned are not relevant.

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

Also protecting the movement of goods and vehicles

via: Sarcastosaurus

A target such as a train loading vehicles cannot be effectively camouflaged and it was attacked by an MPK glide bomb, not a drone. Trains are the best way to move vehicles over long distances (particularly tracked vehicles), because it is faster and saves wear and tear on the tracks and other components. The problem is that a train is a very obvious and so-called ‘high value target’. If it is detected and there is a weapon in range, then it can be attacked. This attack occurred just over 40 km from the front lines. That’s within the range of Russian reconnaissance drones. It’s also in range of MPK/UMPK glide bombs.

Since neither side has the capability to completely prevent each other’s drones from travelling behind each other's lines, Ukraine has a couple options. One is to load and unload their trains quicker. The problem is that with a well-organized operation it will still take about an hour for the train to arrive and load and secure this many vehicles. If spotted early enough, that’s enough time to call for an airstrike. The key is to minimize the time they can be spotted while stationary.

The other option is to unload them out of range of Russian drone detection and airstrikes. This is similar to the effect HIMARS had on Russian supply dumps. The bigger dumps had to be moved back out of range of HIMARS and the forward dumps had to be dispersed into smaller depots so not as much would be lost to a single round. Ukraine also has to move its bigger operations out of range of airstrikes and make sure their personnel and equipment that are in range are dispersed so they won’t lose as much in a single strike.

Movement by train is an easy thing to stop, but they can repair the damage quickly and get back on the rails quickly. To kill a modern day railroad ( only know North American roads well enough to comment ) it is hard because of the inhouse construction teams and planning.

Since the railroads or railways in North America are self insured and have the equipment and plans already in place to rebuild track, bridges etc quickly because every day a route is down it is a money losing, have to pay to operate on other companies' tracks, etc.

Take out a bridge over a river, that would delay them maybe a few days. They already have the plans, know what bridge they need to have their bridging department make and have the equipment to move it to remote location. Look at derailments, trains are usually running within 24 hours, or less, reduced speeds, but they are moving. ( Smiths Falls Ontario use to have the CPR Bridging plant in the yard. ) They have track already in storage much like sections a model train would use. Put on a flat car and they ship out to the derailment site and install.

Prescott Ontario , CN had a good size derailment, derailment on the Thursday, trains back running by Saturday.

To kill railroad and make it difficult to move equipment, you need to take out yards, tunnels and the big bridges.
Locomotive service centers, mind you there is enough equipment in storage in rail yards across North America, they could replace locomotives and container cars, miles of container cars are in storage, same with oil tanker cars, locomotives in storage number into the 1000s fairly quickly. Tunnels are the only thing they cannot rebuild as fast.

Take out some the major tunnels in Canada and the US nothing is moving or it is heavily back logged that targets are sitting in the open.

 

[KevinB]

If V Corps could solve this war in a week or two, lets allow them until Christmas and then assume that it is only a matter of marching, how do we explain the hesitancy of the west to grapple with Russia prior to the Ukrainians exposing the Russian's weaknesses and depleting the Russian force?

NATO isn’t an offensive alliance, Russia only needs to worry about NATO if it attacks.

A2AD was a big thing back then. S400 and S500 presented problems that the F35 might or might not have negated. Air Superiority might or might not have been achievable.

A2AD is primarily a concern against China.
RuAF AD was a talking point for NGASF, we already knew from U2S flights what the issues those have, and the fact that the F-22 and F-35 didn’t really care about them.

Could a successful campaign be waged without Air Dominance?

That’s a good question. Frankly without major fires expansion, it would be a lot more bloody than needed.

Were the Swedes right and the Russian Army was a hollow, rusted out force that while dangerous, was only a shadow of the Cold War Red Army? What was plan B? etc.

It is always better to underestimate one’s self, and overestimate the enemy. It keeps you sharp and fit.

The West developed a game plan based on their appreciation of the situation. They then had the luxury of refusing battle until they perceived the best opportunity for the success of their plan, ie the situation matched their appreciation. The Ukrainians, lacking that luxury, had to kick, scratch and claw while adapting and innovating. Their best course of action was the one that resulted in the fewest dead Ukrainians and the most dead Russians. That is still their best course of action.

110%

I continue to see public commentary from people not in the field, reputable commentators, often the same ones that claimed this would all be over in three days two years ago, saying "if only". If only this or that was done then....

I think Ukraine had done incredible given their constraints.

In August 1914 nobody was predicting that by April 1917 the look of the world's armies would change completely from men in blue tunics, red pants and shining bayonets advancing in columns to men in khakis scrabbling in the mud with tanks, mortars, machine guns, grenades and aircraft.

Armies invest a lot in a particular course of action. That investment tends to be self-preserving. New things are tried, new equipment is added, but the basic, underlying structure does not change until it is challenged in the field. Then the "if onlies" stop.

I’ve yet to see anything open or closed source that suggests that there needs to be a revision.

....

The Ukrainians have learnt. They have innovated. They have exposed the Russians. They have changed the Russians. The situation has changed. The appreciations must change.

Yes, but many of those factors aren’t factors for the West.

 

[Kirkhill]

NATO isn’t an offensive alliance, Russia only needs to worry about NATO if it attacks.

But...

NATO has not just refused to attack and join battle, it has refused battle entirely and refused to defend. It has refused to even aggressively man listening posts and lines along its borders. And that reluctance was not just a result of European wimpery.

A2AD is primarily a concern against China.
RuAF AD was a talking point for NGASF, we already knew from U2S flights what the issues those have, and the fact that the F-22 and F-35 didn’t really care about them.

A2AD was and is still a concern when talking about the Baltic. Getting Canadian ships into Polish harbours, or even getting them within launch range for Tomahawks was considered a very high risk gambit. Is the situation the same today?

That’s a good question. Frankly without major fires expansion, it would be a lot more bloody than needed.

If I were following anybody's lead these days I would be following the Poles and, in particular, their investment in MRLS systems. Yes, they are buying and building lots of the tried and true but, I believe, it is their MRLS programme that is future proofing their forces.

Those trucks and tracks with boxes of UAVs powered by rockets, jets, props or batteries, and capable of following the last order given and complete a ballistic flight, or change targets in mid flight, or loiter in the general vicinity, or report observations, or return to base to be rearmed and re launched.... those are taking the place of F35s and other exquisites. Especially when that same truck can launch from 10 km away and 1500 km away, against CPs and warehouses, against trucks, tanks, ships and aircraft as well as PBIs depending on load out.

But that is a personal opinion and not relevant to the question of whether or not the Ukrainians have anything to teach.

It is always better to underestimate one’s self, and overestimate the enemy. It keeps you sharp and fit.

Agreed. But equally to overestimate can bleed over into taking counsel of one's fears. Especially when that results in a profitable course of action.

PS - What happens to the shipyards if the Pacific ends up looking like a larger version of the Black Sea and the USN looks more like the Ukrainian Navy?

110%

I think Ukraine had done incredible given their constraints.

I’ve yet to see anything open or closed source that suggests that there needs to be a revision.

Yes, but many of those factors aren’t factors for the West.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I asked this question months ago on another post on this site.

NATO is teaching the Ukrainian forces how to fight the Russian forces and the Ukrainian forces are having some success. Now it is because of they are using NATO doctrine or because they are using a blend of NATO training and a blend of Ukrainian training and battle field experience?

No one has defeated the modern day Russian army on the field ever. The Ukrainian forces are regaining land back and pushing the Russian lines back. But that is not full military victory, no mass retreat or surrender yet.

Only power that has defeated the Soviet army was the Afghanistan rebels and that was war based on economic losses and numbers of Soviet troops killed or wounded. Unpopular at home etc. China and Russia have border issues but not an all out war.


So my question has always been if the Ukrainian side is victorious and Russian forces surrendered or a full blown retreat back to Russian land. When does the Ukrainian force open up school and teach the teachers how to use the equipment, the low tech and high tech toys to defeat an enemy force?


Canadians have not seen a tank on tank battle since Korea , we train to fight a tank battle but no one has done it outside of an exercise since Korea, or as exchange officer in Gulf War 1. ( most are retired now I suspect )

Canadians have not had to clear a Russian trench ever nor as the rest of NATO forces. We have trained, have watched endless power points, or practiced it but never done it.

if the Ukrainian forces win or even force a stalemate and there are peace talks they will have the knowledge and the experience to teach NATO troops the facts and lessons learned in battle.


They have already learned weakness points in NATO equipment and weakness in Russian equipment but also learnec how to make it work.

So lessons learnec and shared will change how the US fights their next war of a peer or equal force. If the US changes all of NATO must change to the new reality

Canadians have fought the Russians thanks to our intervention in the Russian Civil War. Just saying we never fought Russia isn’t a accurate statement.

One of the biggest issues for both the Russians and Ukrainians is the lack of training. At the end of the day the vast majority of both their armies have 1 year or less of experience. Its hard to say for certain whose tactics are more proficient when neither side is actually practicing them.

In WWII our militaries in the West got 5 years to train and create a professional military from civilians, this war doesn’t have such luxuries.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

But...

NATO has not just refused to attack and join battle, it has refused battle entirely and refused to defend. It has refused to even aggressively man listening posts and lines along its borders. And that reluctance was not just a result of European wimpery.



A2AD was and is still a concern when talking about the Baltic. Getting Canadian ships into Polish harbours, or even getting them within launch range for Tomahawks was considered a very high risk gambit. Is the situation the same today?




If I were following anybody's lead these days I would be following the Poles and, in particular, their investment in MRLS systems. Yes, they are buying and building lots of the tried and true but, I believe, it is their MRLS programme that is future proofing their forces.

Those trucks and tracks with boxes of UAVs powered by rockets, jets, props or batteries, and capable of following the last order given and complete a ballistic flight, or change targets in mid flight, or loiter in the general vicinity, or report observations, or return to base to be rearmed and re launched.... those are taking the place of F35s and other exquisites. Especially when that same truck can launch from 10 km away and 1500 km away, against CPs and warehouses, against trucks, tanks, ships and aircraft as well as PBIs depending on load out.

But that is a personal opinion and not relevant to the question of whether or not the Ukrainians have anything to teach.




Agreed. But equally to overestimate can bleed over into taking counsel of one's fears. Especially when that results in a profitable course of action.

PS - What happens to the shipyards if the Pacific ends up looking like a larger version of the Black Sea and the USN looks more like the Ukrainian Navy?

I don't think that you understand what NATO is and how it operates. A NATO country has not been attacked in this war (I am not counting stray ordinance), so there is no "refusal to defend." As to your comment about refusing to aggressively man listening posts and lines along its borders, what does that even mean? How does one aggressively man a listening post? Are you seeking to provoke a wider war?

NATO members have absolutely increased their Enhanced Forward Presence (eFP), so I am not sure what else you want to happen?

A2AD is still a concern, and the Baltic would not be a great place to have ships in a shooting war. Why use a vulnerable ship to launch a Tomahawk when we have any number of places on the ground that we control that we could use? Lines of Communication always have some vulnerability - its just that the Pacific has greater A2AD challenges.

The STEADFAST DEFENDER exercise in 2024 (part of a series) rehearses the movement of forces from North America to Europe to include the RSOMI process once they arrive.

 

[Kirkhill]

Canadians have fought the Russians thanks to our intervention in the Russian Civil War. Just saying we never fought Russia isn’t a accurate statement.

One of the biggest issues for both the Russians and Ukrainians is the lack of training. At the end of the day the vast majority of both their armies have 1 year or less of experience. Its hard to say for certain whose tactics are more proficient when neither side is actually practicing them.

In WWII our militaries in the West got 5 years to train and create a professional military from civilians, this war doesn’t have such luxuries.

And most of the Canadian Army was only engaged from 6 June 1944 to 8 May 1945. 11 months.
The D-Day Dodgers of the Italian Campaign were in the field from 10 July 1943 to 8 May 1945 or 22 months.
The Ukrainians have been at it for 19 months with some of them at it for coming up on 10 years.

The Canadian experience mirrors the US experience. The Brits were internationally engaged from before September 1939.

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't think that you understand what NATO is and how it operates. A NATO country has not been attacked in this war (I am not counting stray ordinance), so there is no "refusal to defend."

To defend does not require trading shots. To defend can include moving forces into defensive positions. Putting troops into the line in adequate numbers, with adequate kit in a timely fashion can be construed both as a defensive action and as an aggressive one.

"Hey, what's this all about? We're only talking. Don't you trust me? Put those guns away and let's talk about this."

As to your comment about refusing to aggressively man listening posts and lines along its borders, what does that even mean? How does one aggressively man a listening post?

See above.

Are you seeking to provoke a wider war?

In February '22 the question was "Are you seeking to provoke a war?" We now have a war and now the question had become "Are you seeking to provoke a wider war?" with occasional concerns about red lines and tactical nukes thrown in.

As a coward myself I fully understand the futility of trying to avoid a fight.

NATO members have absolutely increased their Enhanced Forward Presence (eFP), so I am not sure what else you want to happen?

What I wanted to happen? That has no bearing on the matter. I am not responsible. Thankfully nobody entrusted me with that responsibility.

I observe that there is now a scramble to increase an Enhanced Forward Presence, a battlegroup from 2017, that is now scrabbling to become a Brigade and with Latvia calling for a Division. I also observe that the US has deployed a number of brigades all along the NATO frontier and has deployed formed divisions to start filling V Corps.

Just as in comedy, it seems to be all a matter of timing.

What if the Cold War draw down had never happened?

A2AD is still a concern, and the Baltic would not be a great place to have ships in a shooting war. Why use a vulnerable ship to launch a Tomahawk when we have any number of places on the ground that we control that we could use? Lines of Communication always have some vulnerability - its just that the Pacific has greater A2AD challenges.

The STEADFAST DEFENDER exercise in 2024 (part of a series) rehearses the movement of forces from North America to Europe to include the RSOMI process once they arrive.

Seen.

WRT the Baltic and A2AD - The Ukrainian A2AD efforts by their Navy in the Black Sea would seem to reinforce your position.

 

[Kirkhill]

Further to my last @TangoTwoBravo

This from @FJAG

SPIEGEL Reconstruction: How Merkel Prevented Ukraine's NATO Membership

In April 2008, NATO deliberated on admitting Ukraine as a new member as a show of strength against Vladimir Putin. Washington favored the move, but the Germans thwarted the plan. A reconstruction of a decision that ended in disaster.

www.spiegel.de

As I said. Timing is everything.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

To defend does not require trading shots. To defend can include moving forces into defensive positions. Putting troops into the line in adequate numbers, with adequate kit in a timely fashion can be construed both as a defensive action and as an aggressive one.

"Hey, what's this all about? We're only talking. Don't you trust me? Put those guns away and let's talk about this."



See above.



In February '22 the question was "Are you seeking to provoke a war?" We now have a war and now the question had become "Are you seeking to provoke a wider war?" with occasional concerns about red lines and tactical nukes thrown in.

As a coward myself I fully understand the futility of trying to avoid a fight.



What I wanted to happen? That has no bearing on the matter. I am not responsible. Thankfully nobody entrusted me with that responsibility.

I observe that there is now a scramble to increase an Enhanced Forward Presence, a battlegroup from 2017, that is now scrabbling to become a Brigade and with Latvia calling for a Division. I also observe that the US has deployed a number of brigades all along the NATO frontier and has deployed formed divisions to start filling V Corps.

Just as in comedy, it seems to be all a matter of timing.

What if the Cold War draw down had never happened?



Seen.

WRT the Baltic and A2AD - The Ukrainian A2AD efforts by their Navy in the Black Sea would seem to reinforce your position.

I am struggling to understand what you are saying. What is the "futility of trying to avoid a fight?" Counter-factual history can be fun, but I am not sure of the value.

Do you think that the nuclear piece is an "occasional concern?"

Are you saying that the eFP formations should be in defensive positions along the border?

 

[Kirkhill]

I am struggling to understand what you are saying.

My apologies.

What is the "futility of trying to avoid a fight?"

Speaking from hard personal experience turning the other cheek does not guarantee a desirable outcome. Sometimes it just means getting punched in both sides of the face. If you are going to get punched you might as well be punching.

Counter-factual history can be fun, but I am not sure of the value.

Agreed. But it does demonstrate that there are alternate courses of action.

Do you think that the nuclear piece is an "occasional concern?"

The nuclear piece has been proffered many times in the last 80 years and with increasing frequency in the last two to 10 years. Putin's red lines have proven to be as firm as Obama's.

Are you saying that the eFP formations should be in defensive positions along the border?

I leave the tactical positioning of troops on the ground to you and others that are there. I am noting that while there is legitimate debate over how many troops, with what kit, where and when that there are multiple courses of action between retiring from Europe, as we, the US and the Brits did and building a barbed wire fence with a patrol track and OPs on the border as the Poles have recently done on the Belarus border.

Retreating from Europe didn't gain the Five Eyes or the EU any benefits. Building the fence hasn't caused Russia to bombard Poland with tactical nukes.

I am saying that a legitimate course of action was to beef up Operations Reassurance and Unifier sooner along with Operations Kobold (Kosovo) and Snowgoose (Cyprus). I am also saying that a legitimate course of action was to start arming Ukraine with ManPADs, ATGMs and GBAD systems earlier. Finally, I am saying that another legitimate course of action would have been to ensure that our own forces were fully manned, well equipped, operationally trained and provided with a well established supply chain.

Those are things that NATO in general and Canada in particular could have done and, I believe, should be doing. It isn't too late to start.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Canadians have fought the Russians thanks to our intervention in the Russian Civil War. Just saying we never fought Russia isn’t a accurate statement.

One of the biggest issues for both the Russians and Ukrainians is the lack of training. At the end of the day the vast majority of both their armies have 1 year or less of experience. Its hard to say for certain whose tactics are more proficient when neither side is actually practicing them.

In WWII our militaries in the West got 5 years to train and create a professional military from civilians, this war doesn’t have such luxuries.

Not to mention some Canadians telling the Soviet Army to Piss Off at the end of the war, by blocking them from taking key areas.

 

[KevinB]

I am saying that a legitimate course of action was to beef up Operations Reassurance and Unifier sooner along with Operations Kobold (Kosovo) and Snowgoose (Cyprus).

Hindsight is always 20/20

I am also saying that a legitimate course of action was to start arming Ukraine with ManPADs, ATGMs and GBAD systems earlier.

See above, part of the issue was also DJT causing issues.

Finally, I am saying that another legitimate course of action would have been to ensure that our own forces were fully manned, well equipped, operationally trained and provided with a well established supply chain.

The fact that Canada has not conduct a major Military rebuild just shows you that the majority of Canadians seem to be happy with the decisions made to prioritize Childcare and Dental.
Frankly I think that America should impose a freeloader tax on Canadians, or just randomly start confiscating lands (dont want your people though).

Those are things that NATO in general and Canada in particular could have done and, I believe, should be doing. It isn't too late to start.

Some countries are...

 

[Kirkhill]

Hindsight is always 20/20


See above, part of the issue was also DJT causing issues.

The fact that Canada has not conduct a major Military rebuild just shows you that the majority of Canadians seem to be happy with the decisions made to prioritize Childcare and Dental.
Frankly I think that America should impose a freeloader tax on Canadians, or just randomly start confiscating lands (dont want your people though).

Some countries are...

Comments on retrovision accepted. No argument.

Having said that there was no lack of people presenting the alternative courses of action. Decisions were made.

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

Canadians have fought the Russians thanks to our intervention in the Russian Civil War. Just saying we never fought Russia isn’t a accurate statement.

One of the biggest issues for both the Russians and Ukrainians is the lack of training. At the end of the day the vast majority of both their armies have 1 year or less of experience. Its hard to say for certain whose tactics are more proficient when neither side is actually practicing them.

In WWII our militaries in the West got 5 years to train and create a professional military from civilians, this war doesn’t have such luxuries.

No NATO country has fought the Russian army directly. We cannot really compare First World War and Post War action to todays war, using modern weapons, electronics, and other equipment.

We have a modern trained army and since 1950 it has only seen direct action 3x , Korea, Medak Pocket, and the last war in Afghanistan, with some troops involved in the battle with ISIS. None of those battles was a equal battle, with both side equally armed and numbers.

We have not attacked a Russian force in over 100 years, we have not faced a tank on tank battle since Second World War or Korea. We have not a naval gun battle in decades.

I think the Canadian commanders of today need to really look at how the Ukrainians are fighting the Russian forces, what is working for them and what is not working for them and compare it to our drills and plans and improve on the plan from lessons we see as being learned. Leaders have to note lessons and pass them on in training because you never know what next week or next year is going to bring to our table.

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

Hindsight is always 20/20


See above, part of the issue was also DJT causing issues.

The fact that Canada has not conduct a major Military rebuild just shows you that the majority of Canadians seem to be happy with the decisions made to prioritize Childcare and Dental.
Frankly I think that America should impose a freeloader tax on Canadians, or just randomly start confiscating lands (dont want your people though).

Some countries are...

This is how the average Canadian thinks and does not want to change the status.

Who in the right wants to invade Canada? Option 1 is Russia, but they have to go thru Alaska to get to Canada, or over the pole and down thru Canada's Arctic. Solution is and always has been since the 1950s is that the US will step in and counter that because they do not want a Commie Country above their Northern Borders.

Option 2 and this one is not so far out of left field the US attacks Canada, pick anyone of many reasons, water, natural resources, another left leaning government that wants to break up Canada. ( War Plan Red)( Lt.-Col. James “Buster” Sutherland Brown drafted the Canadian plan to invade the United States, known as Defence Scheme No. 1. )

In that Option we hoped to have the Mother Land the UK come to our rescue. ( she might not be so willing now )

But the fact is right now Canada can ride the security cloak of the US Military and not really have to worry about anything, because who in the right mind is going to invade land so close to the USA?

The world had doubts about the Canadian military as a force when it came to the war of terror, out dated equipment, smaller force with numbers issues. But Canadians showed and did the heavy lifting when required. But now that is forgotten and buried.

Popular thought is why spend money on defence when there is nothing to defend because no one wants us or our land? But Everyone forgets about the Arctic and what resources that might be under the ice and rock up there, oil, natural gas, diamonds, gold, who knows what and it might be a cheap way to get at them by taking that part of Canada and waiting to see who gets upset by it. Canada cannot take it back on her own, so we need a strong ally power to help do the heavy lifting. Back to the shoulders of the USA to make noise and protect the Canadian borders, so we have the money for health care and dental for every Canadian.

 

[GK .Dundas]

If V Corps could solve this war in a week or two, lets allow them until Christmas and then assume that it is only a matter of marching, how do we explain the hesitancy of the west to grapple with Russia prior to the Ukrainians exposing the Russian's weaknesses and depleting the Russian force?

A2AD was a big thing back then. S400 and S500 presented problems that the F35 might or might not have negated. Air Superiority might or might not have been achievable. Could a successful campaign be waged without Air Dominance? Were the Swedes right and the Russian Army was a hollow, rusted out force that while dangerous, was only a shadow of the Cold War Red Army? What was plan B? etc.

The West developed a game plan based on their appreciation of the situation. They then had the luxury of refusing battle until they perceived the best opportunity for the success of their plan, ie the situation matched their appreciation. The Ukrainians, lacking that luxury, had to kick, scratch and claw while adapting and innovating. Their best course of action was the one that resulted in the fewest dead Ukrainians and the most dead Russians. That is still their best course of action.

I continue to see public commentary from people not in the field, reputable commentators, often the same ones that claimed this would all be over in three days two years ago, saying "if only". If only this or that was done then....

In August 1914 nobody was predicting that by April 1917 the look of the world's armies would change completely from men in blue tunics, red pants and shining bayonets advancing in columns to men in khakis scrabbling in the mud with tanks, mortars, machine guns, grenades and aircraft.

Armies invest a lot in a particular course of action. That investment tends to be self-preserving. New things are tried, new equipment is added, but the basic, underlying structure does not change until it is challenged in the field. Then the "if onlies" stop.

....

The Ukrainians have learnt. They have innovated. They have exposed the Russians. They have changed the Russians. The situation has changed. The appreciations must change.

Well said !

 

[Colin Parkinson]

This is how the average Canadian thinks and does not want to change the status.

Who in the right wants to invade Canada? Option 1 is Russia, but they have to go thru Alaska to get to Canada, or over the pole and down thru Canada's Arctic. Solution is and always has been since the 1950s is that the US will step in and counter that because they do not want a Commie Country above their Northern Borders.

Option 2 and this one is not so far out of left field the US attacks Canada, pick anyone of many reasons, water, natural resources, another left leaning government that wants to break up Canada. ( War Plan Red)( Lt.-Col. James “Buster” Sutherland Brown drafted the Canadian plan to invade the United States, known as Defence Scheme No. 1. )

In that Option we hoped to have the Mother Land the UK come to our rescue. ( she might not be so willing now )

But the fact is right now Canada can ride the security cloak of the US Military and not really have to worry about anything, because who in the right mind is going to invade land so close to the USA?

The world had doubts about the Canadian military as a force when it came to the war of terror, out dated equipment, smaller force with numbers issues. But Canadians showed and did the heavy lifting when required. But now that is forgotten and buried.

Popular thought is why spend money on defence when there is nothing to defend because no one wants us or our land? But Everyone forgets about the Arctic and what resources that might be under the ice and rock up there, oil, natural gas, diamonds, gold, who knows what and it might be a cheap way to get at them by taking that part of Canada and waiting to see who gets upset by it. Canada cannot take it back on her own, so we need a strong ally power to help do the heavy lifting. Back to the shoulders of the USA to make noise and protect the Canadian borders, so we have the money for health care and dental for every Canadian.

China and Russia (If it could) would happily "invade" key bits of the Arctic archipelago. Likely using a civilian force with little "Green men" to protect them from bears using SHOAD, etc. The idea is to dispute and break Canada's hold on the region and open it for exploitation. I personally think that was China's long term goal, whether it's still viable with the way things are going in Ukraine is anyone's guess? China would need Russia's moral and logistical support for such a move, as only the Russians have a true year round arctic fleet that could pull off such a move. The Ukrainian conflict has likley sucked the will out of Moscow for opening up another potentiel conflict at this point. Had their 3-day war worked. Then I suspect both Russia and China would have pushed the envelope in the Arctic. But for now we have some time. Hopefully we use it wisely.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

My apologies.



Speaking from hard personal experience turning the other cheek does not guarantee a desirable outcome. Sometimes it just means getting punched in both sides of the face. If you are going to get punched you might as well be punching.


Agreed. But it does demonstrate that there are alternate courses of action.


The nuclear piece has been proffered many times in the last 80 years and with increasing frequency in the last two to 10 years. Putin's red lines have proven to be as firm as Obama's.



I leave the tactical positioning of troops on the ground to you and others that are there. I am noting that while there is legitimate debate over how many troops, with what kit, where and when that there are multiple courses of action between retiring from Europe, as we, the US and the Brits did and building a barbed wire fence with a patrol track and OPs on the border as the Poles have recently done on the Belarus border.

Retreating from Europe didn't gain the Five Eyes or the EU any benefits. Building the fence hasn't caused Russia to bombard Poland with tactical nukes.

I am saying that a legitimate course of action was to beef up Operations Reassurance and Unifier sooner along with Operations Kobold (Kosovo) and Snowgoose (Cyprus). I am also saying that a legitimate course of action was to start arming Ukraine with ManPADs, ATGMs and GBAD systems earlier. Finally, I am saying that another legitimate course of action would have been to ensure that our own forces were fully manned, well equipped, operationally trained and provided with a well established supply chain.

Those are things that NATO in general and Canada in particular could have done and, I believe, should be doing. It isn't too late to start.

I am not sure that using school-yard experience as your frame for dealing with great-power relations with nuclear weapons is a good idea, nor is taking lightly the threat of open war between nuclear powers. Analogies can be useful, but they can also be a mental trap.

A border fence can be useful for controlling trade, migration and infiltration; not stopping or deterring conventional invasion.

I am baffled how beefing up SNOWGOOSE and KOBOLD would have helped the current situation. Words are just that, but I would not characterize the draw-down in the early 90s as a "retreat from Europe." We had a BG and more in the Balkans for a decade after that, and the bulk of our commitment to Afghanistan for the following decade was under a NATO construct.

We did have a robust UNIFIER presence. Could our REASSURANCE forces have been larger earlier? Sure? Not sure what that would have achieved. We had elements involved very early, and have been the framework nation for the eFP in Latvia since its inception. NATO did take note of the change in the world situation in 2014.

There are capability deficiencies. Efforts, some short term and others longer term, are being made to address some of those.

 

[Kirkhill]

I am not sure that using school-yard experience as your frame for dealing with great-power relations with nuclear weapons is a good idea, nor is taking lightly the threat of open war between nuclear powers. Analogies can be useful, but they can also be a mental trap.

Your possibly right. The funny thing is, no matter which ladder I have climbed and no matter how high I have climbed I have always ended up negotiating with a person.

A border fence can be useful for controlling trade, migration and infiltration; not stopping or deterring conventional invasion.

True. But it is still seen as an aggressive act. Just like herding people in your neighbour's country can be seen as an aggressive act. Or having your soldiers take vacations there.

I am baffled how beefing up SNOWGOOSE and KOBOLD would have helped the current situation. Words are just that, but I would not characterize the draw-down in the early 90s as a "retreat from Europe." We had a BG and more in the Balkans for a decade after that, and the bulk of our commitment to Afghanistan for the following decade was under a NATO construct.

Snowgoose and Kobold would have had no impact on the tactical situation on the ground in Ukraine. On the other hand demonstrating that we had troops to spare and were willing to deploy them in a good cause might have made an impact on some other decision makers. And not just in the Kremlin.

We did have a robust UNIFIER presence. Could our REASSURANCE forces have been larger earlier? Sure? Not sure what that would have achieved. We had elements involved very early, and have been the framework nation for the eFP in Latvia since its inception. NATO did take note of the change in the world situation in 2014.

What might a beefed up presence have achieved earlier? Intent? Willingness? Commitment?

There are capability deficiencies. Efforts, some short term and others longer term, are being made to address some of those.

That is good news.