Thread by @snekotron

I've been late to this absolute masterclass in CYA from the Washington Post. And while no doubt this article has been endlessly lampooned by Z-posters, some of the points are interesting to consider.

Some observations. /1
archive.ph/4YgHj

Ukraine and the US built the offensive on a series of wargames where they were able to sweep away the Russian defenders and break through to the Sea of Azov. Garbage data fed the assumptions and stats used in the wargames. Garbage in, garbage out. /2

What is highly credible to me is the reported disconnect between the US and Ukrainian leaderships, where the US wanted one axis of attack while Ukraine continued to prioritize other fronts. Key thing to note here is that Zelensky and Zaluzhny were both behind this. /3

I've been saying for a while that Zaluzhny is a midwit at best, and nothing I have seen or heard has disabused me of that opinion. There was a rather astute observation the other day by @ClaytonNicholas /4

@ClaytonNicholas Ukrocope now on how wargaming doesn't work. Sorry, you can only rehearse and simulate since you don't have a replica Russian army to test this on. You're the ones who fed garbage data into the sims, and the West stupidly believed you. No takebacks. /5

@ClaytonNicholas And then the mutual blame game, where the US accuses Ukraine of getting cold feet and Ukraine accuses the west of supplying broken equipment. Honestly, Ukraine got everything they wanted and more. Remember Zaluzhny's shopping list last year? Yeah. /6

@ClaytonNicholas Ultimately, if Ukraine said they wanted to fight a WW2 style breakthrough battle, they should have committed to it. Granted, the 30-40% casualties wargamed was a bullshit lowball, but for the type of battle they wanted to fight 60-80% would have been worth it. /7

@ClaytonNicholas This is not explained in the article, since it is more about CYA than actual military analysis, and because journalists usually have a piss poor understanding of military affairs, but because Ukraine didn't attack all at once, logistical attrition made critical mass impossible./8

@ClaytonNicholas The article's effort to shift the blame onto Ukraine's leadership does land quite well, honestly speaking, but it is missing the big picture. Ukraine likely approached this from the perspective of a typical client, looking at weapons as tokens of political support. /9

@ClaytonNicholas Look, every Third World client state has crap logistics and can't be expected to sustain a long conflict. The US didn't understand this, and Ukrainians deep down are just hoping they'd get bailed out by Western intervention. That's the real reason for this shit. /10

@ClaytonNicholas 2nd part begins with some analysis of the tactical execution of the counteroffensive, and here I'll be more critical of the banal observations and cliches parroted by the WaPo and its unnamed Western sources. /11
archive.ph/Dy26C

@ClaytonNicholas A key point of contention is how the Ukrainians were ill-trained.

Who gives a shit? How well trained was the average trooper in WW2?

The main problem was the lack of coordinated mass in the breakthrough battle. You aren't going to be clever breaking through a trench line. /12

@ClaytonNicholas And again, noting the prevalence of drones. Article hilariously quotes US officials saying to use artillery on them. That's going to stop FPVs, yeah, that'll do it. /13

@ClaytonNicholas Again, here's the problem. Ukraine, as a weaker, less technologically capable country, are trying to attack a country that can outproduce the collective west. The only thing you bring to the table is meat. You can only bring more of it. That's the only resource you have. /14

@ClaytonNicholas Article ends with the new stalemate cope. Let them think this for as long as they want. /15 END