Russia MAY use massive fires on Ukrainian cities. It will undermine their strategic goals so let’s dive into Russian doctrine and discuss why they are using operational objectives that undermine their strategic goals.
🧵
Obviously Russia’s operations didn’t force a quick and simple surrender like Putin expected.
Now caught in a corner and looking for a way out Russia may default to their love of artillery “fires” warfare to create leverage and pain during negotiation.
🧵
The 🇺🇸 military uses precision fires to support maneuver.
Russia relies on more massive fires than the 🇺🇸
Artillery and rockets are used as their decisive weapon using large scale bombardments making up for their inability to combine “war fighting functions” for operations
🧵
Russia’s historical doctrine will fail a 21st century battlefield.
Ukrainians casualties as devastating as they could be doesn’t mean they are losing. These old tactics will prove counter-productive and is simply and attempt for Putin to create leverage.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Another day, and Putin is no closer to achieving his strategic objectives 1) Limit western influence in Ukraine (NATO) 2) Install a puppet govt.
No matter what you see on TV Russia is losing this war.
Russia’s strategy has & will continue to backfire.
🧵
Let’s look at effects based doctrine to better understand. EBO was designed to understand the strategic objectives and develop operational and tactical objectives that support them.
🧵
Decimating Ukrainian cities creates “effects” that only undermines Russia’s objectives in Ukraine. If Putin does “double down” as you’re hearing on T.V. understand this operational approach only undermines Russia’s original strategic objectives
We awake in the 🇺🇸 to another day of Russia losing their war in the 🇺🇦
Lots of questions about how can Russia lose when they have a much more massive force, so let me explain from my Army War College education
1.
strategic objectives must be supported by operation and tactical ones. If they don’t align it’s hard to win.
Take Iraq for example. Somehow out strategic objective became a friendly democracy in the Middle East, but would war be the operational way to achieve this?
2.
If Russia’s strategic objectives were to defeat Ukrainian forces in Russia populated areas and destroy Ukrainian military capabilities then that limited mission would have a chance for success.
Russia is in deep deep trouble. Even if they capture Kiev it’s like grabbing a tiger by it’s tail. Even if they win phase 3 (dominate) they will lose phase 4 (stabilize).
War is a TOOL for a political objective and I just don’t see Ukrainians accepting a Russian puppet govt.
Military planners often underestimate the will of the people. There was clear difference when we trained the Peshmerga vs the Iraqi Army or the Afghan one. Armies have to WANT to fight. The Ukrainian resolve is simply extraordinary.
The Russians are in a corner that would force them use a level of violence that would only unite the Ukrainians and the global community further.
Even if this week looks like a Ukrainian loss, THEY will not lose this war.
Damn. Biden is a strong leader. 4 Presidents and he was the only one with the courage to end this war and not pass it to another administration.
That’s why over 60 percent of Veterans agree. And I’m on them. #Afghanistan
First and foremost, what we achieved in terms of moving people out of the country has been nothing short of extraordinary. Out of the initial chaos, our military and the Commander in Chief moved out 120,000 people. The largest NEO of its kind in history. Incredible.
The losses we took to meet this mission were tragic, and personally hit me hard. We expect to lose people in combat operations, but the heroes we lost died helping other people reach a better life. It was a gut punch for us all.