Thread by @snekotron

Another theory thread, prompted by a strange article demonstrating some of the typical cognitive biases of Western analysts. /1 warontherocks.com/2022/06/not-bu…

Kofman and Lee argue, as I have argued that there is a lack of personnel in Russian units. However, for them, the problem is a lack of light infantry and not the general manpower shortages associated with downsizing to brigades. There is this bizarre light infantry fetish. /2

The observation that Russian units are centered on vehicles and that there aren't enough dismounts because men have to be manning vehicles is well-taken. It is an issue, though I am not sure how relevant this is given the nature of this war in its current stage. /3

I quote: "The Russian military is well-suited to short, high-intensity campaigns defined by a heavy use of artillery. By contrast, it is poorly designed for a sustained occupation, or a grinding war of attrition."

But ask yourself this: What does attrition look like here? /4

Ukrainians sit in trench, Russians drop shells and rockets on them until they die. While the role of the various assault forces (LDPR, Chechen, Wagner, Spetsnaz) is important, can the Russian army do the job with less loss of life if they were to use infantry to clear trenches?/5

Followers of my account know my criticism of brigadization, that it stripped the mass from combined arms units needed to conduct deep exploitation attacks, but given the war that is being fought here, and given the personnel limitations of the Russian Federation, /6

I don't see much of an alternative but to use an abundance of tanks and artillery to smash trenches and emplacements. I can see how more infantry to screen vehicles can help, but not at the cost of reducing the mechanized component. /7

Furthermore, there is this frankly strange disparagement of the capability of conscripts. Quote: "250,000 conscripts in the military, with their generally poor suitability for military operations, and political restrictions on employing them in conflicts." /8

Every major war has been fought and won by conscripts, so don't knock them. Conscripts are soldiers, and they should be trained to fight, and I don't agree with the Russian authorities viewing their deployment as politically untenable. However, Kofman/Lee then say this: /9

"Having mobilized substantial manpower, and with access to Western military support, Ukraine now appears positioned to sustain this fight."

So conscripts who are properly trained in basic military skills are poison but Ukrainian Volkssturm are the backbone of their military? /10

In conclusion, I don't see why an article like this was written other than the routine proof of fealty to the academic and policy establishments. We understand the constraints of the Russian armed forces, but this is being addressed with more firepower, not more infantry. /11

However, if Washington policy types think that the future of war will be determined by the enhanced role of light infantry in their "maneuver battalions" (lol), then they should by all means be encouraged to do so. /12 END