It is 59 days since the Russian invasion of #Ukraine began. Today I will update my analysis of Russia’s shift to the east and examine the prospects for Russian success there. 1/25 (Image - @UAWeapons)
2/25 I will conduct my analysis using the construct of ‘fighting power’. This is something we use in the Australian Army to describe the optimal development & combination of the intellectual, physical and moral aspects of war. More here: researchcentre.army.gov.au/sites/default/…
3/25 The intellectual component of fighting power is knowledge and it application - of war, warfare, tactics, logistics, command and control. This includes organisational concepts, building a learning culture, adaptation, etc.
4/25 The physical component is a military organisations capabilities and functional effects. This includes equipment, training infrastructure, weapons, ammunition, trucks (HT @TrentTelenko), personal equipment, sensors, physical comms networks, etc.
5/25 Finally, the moral component is all about culture, values and legitimacy. Importantly, it includes #leadership, purpose, and the will to fight of individuals and teams.
6/25 The best military institutions are able to develop each of these components, adapt them based on experience and learning, and combine them in optimal ways (different for every operation) in order to succeed at their missions.
7/25 Key intellectual aspects that the have Russians demonstrated – in the east but throughout their invasion – have included the BTG as the core fighting formation, the ability to use ground and air power (but not well integrated) and to conduct warfare on multiple fronts.
8/25 However, there are many shortfalls in this intellectual component which will tell in their eastern operations. The Russians have not provided suitable logistic support to their combat forces. Nor have they demonstrated the capacity to integrate air and land operations well.
9/25 While some sources have noted additional logistic units deploying to the east, and Russian air sorties have increased, these fall short of a systemic fix. The air and logistic problems weren’t just a quantity issue – they are a systemic problem. These take time to fix.
10/25 Intellectually, the Russians used their combat forces piecemeal, feeding them into the fight slowly rather than generating large, powerful main efforts to achieve not just tactical success, but operational breakthroughs. This has been a significant intellectual failing.
11/25 Their application of combined arms warfare appears to have been sub optimal. Tanks have been employed by themselves without infantry, engineer, aviation support. Once again, this goes against all the lessons of modern combined arms warfare. (Image - @UAWeapons)
12/25 Their approach to command & control is also a problem in the intellectual domain. Russia's initial approach was to fight 3 separate wars in the north, east & south - & another in the air. Russia seeks to fix this with the appointment of a unified commander – GEN Dvornikov.
13/25 But, without a well-structured joint headquarters, trained staff, a joint culture and a functional command and control system (including communications), this may be too little, too late to enable the Russian offensive in the east.
14/25 What about the physical component of fighting power? This is a topic that needs to be caveated up front because we don’t have perfect clarity on the size of the opposing forces in the east. So my analysis uses only open source information only.
15/25 Also, there are many who caution against using force ratios as a basis for planning. I understand the reasons for this (I helped rewrite Army doctrine and have been a combat brigade commander). That said, they remain useful rough order of magnitude guides for planning.
16/25 That said, the Russians do not appear to have sufficient mass to achieve a significant breakthrough in the east, despite the indications that they now have upwards of 80 BTGs there. And, as @kofman_michael notes, because of their losses, it is not clear what a BTG is now.
17/25 Opposing them, there are (according to several sources) up to 15 Ukrainian brigades, each of which has 3-5 combat battalions. This gives them somewhere between 45 and 75 battalion sized organisations opposing the Russians. (Image - @jominiW)
18/25 In such an operation, the Russians need to deploy forces of at least a 3:1 ratio to the defenders. They don’t come anywhere near this. And, by the way, this assumes Russian attacking forces are well led, supplied & coordinated. As we saw in the north, this is unlikely.
19/25 So, in addition to intellectual shortfalls in their fighting power, the Russians lack the physical wherewithal for significant breakthroughs in the east. While there are things we are not seeing, the ‘Donbas Maths’ don’t work in Russia’s favour for a large-scale offensive.
20/25 Finally, the moral component of fighting power. This includes Russian military culture, leadership and will. As we have seen, the Russian military culture is one that is brutal and representative of their behaviour in WW2, Afghanistan, Chechnya and Syria.
21/25 This military culture, and the atrocious behaviour it spawns, has delegitimised Russian operations (even more than their illegal invasion). It also means they are less effective as a military force, and less capable at achieving difficult military objectives.
22/25 But, perhaps leadership is the area most lacking in the moral component of Russian fighting power. Their strategic leaders planned this war poorly and have incentivised systemic targeting of cities and civilians.
23/25 At the tactical level, bad leaders have been responsible for the intellectual failings described earlier in the thread. This is a systemic problem with training, education, and organisational culture. It will not be fixed in the coming weeks.
24/25 Taken together, these three elements of Russian fighting power do not appear to support the prospect of any major Russian gains from their eastern offensive. There may be some successes, but there are multiple challenges that suggest things don't bode well for the Russians.
25/25 That does not mean the Russians are not dangerous, or that they won’t hold onto ground already seized in Ukraine. The Ukrainians are also very capable of mounting an offensive in the east. I will explore these topics in threads this week. End (Image - @War_Mapper)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It is 60 days since the Russian invasion of #Ukraine began. Today, following on from my thread yesterday on the Russian eastern offensive, I will explore whether they can hold the ground they have already seized. 1/25 (Image - @IAPonomarenko)
2/25 During the war, the Russians have seized ground in the north, east and south of Ukraine. As we know, the Russians were forced out of northern Ukraine through a combination of Ukrainian resistance, local offensives as well as poor Russian tactics, leadership, & logistics.
3/25 The Russians still hold large parts of south and eastern parts of Ukrainian territory. This includes a major proportion of Ukraine’s coastline and its seaports. (Image - @War_Mapper)
It is 54 days since the Russian invasion of Ukraine began. As Russia begins its new offensive across a 400km front in the east, I explore their strategic shaping activities to support it in this thread and my @abcnews article. 1/16 abc.net.au/news/2022-04-1…
2/16 Over easter, the Russian military conducted a series of strategic strikes on targets across Ukraine. These are part of Russia's 'strategic operations' to attack Ukraine’s strategic defence capacity while attempting to overwhelm its forces in the east. cna.org/CNA_files/pdf/…
3/16 The Russians have discovered that beating the Ukrainian Army in battle is very difficult. Therefore, the Russians are also trying to destroy Ukrainian ability (supported by the west) to regenerate tired & depleted combat units & deploy new weapons.
It is 53 days since the Russian invasion of Ukraine began. Today I update my analysis of Russia’s shift to the east and examine key variables that will impact on operations in this part of #Ukraine. 1/25 (Image - @RALee85)
2/25 Russia, having ‘reset’ their theory of victory for their invasion of Ukraine, is building up its forces in the east. That said, they will continue strategic strikes across Ukraine, and remain alert to opportunities in the south. Image – UAWardata.com
3/25 As I explored earlier this month, the Russian have two key options to operationalise their strategic objectives. These are options built around either deep or shallow operational envelopments. Noting recent Russian movements, this assessment remains the same.
It is 7 weeks since the Russian invasion of #Ukraine began. Today I examine how the Russians have fared in the ongoing adaptation battle, which is a feature in all wars. 1/25 (Image - @UAWeapons)
2/25 It is impossible for the military to anticipate every eventuality in war. With human capacity for surprise, resilience, and intelligence, as well as selfishness, cowardness and stupidity, there are a range of potential outcomes that are possible in warfare.
3/25 Michael Howard suggested in the “The Uses and Abuses of Military History” that military institutions normally get the next war wrong, mostly for reasons beyond their control. As such, an important virtue for military organizations must be adaptability to unexpected events.
2/5 When each of these is corrupted, military effectiveness is degraded. In essence, if your military does each of these four things (training, tasking, supervision, leadership) poorly, it will resemble a bedraggled group of murderous hobos, not professional soldiers.
3/5 Further, when Russia’s president believes #Ukraine is a non-country, and its generals are comfortable razing cities & killing their inhabitants, the strategic incentive structure further compromises the professional integrity of the Russian military.
These capabilities requested by @ZelenskyyUa are all important. Here’s why: MLRS allows longer range strike on operational targets - the deep battle. Artillery allows for massed fires & suppression on concentrations of Russian combat and support forces in the close fight. 1/10
2/10 Both systems are already in use by the Ukrainian military - they are key elements of their combined arms teams. And there is never, eve enough of them. The more that can be provided (in addition to lethal drones etc), the better.
3/10 The Ukrainians have also demonstrated how to preserve aerial freedom of maneuver in modern warfare. This includes integrated air defence as well as ground attack (fixed and rotary wing).