Combat ops have slowed over the last ~month since Russia seized Severodonetsk and Lysychansk. This pause is likely due to 2 factors. 1) HIMARS disrupting Russian logistics & C2; and 2) Russia culminating due to casualties & munitions expenditures. 5/23
Focus has been on HIMARS, but point 2 is key to understand prospects for UKR offensive: offensives require lots of people, vehicles, and stuff at the front and in reserve. Neither side has enough now to break through lines and exploit. More attrition, less maneuver. 6/23
This dynamic won't change soon. Both sides have suffered heavy losses, esp. to their best forces, though exact numbers are hard to come by. economist.com/europe/2022/07… 7/23
Ukraine has growing stocks of advanced western weapons and, per reports from the field and intelligence leaders like the head of Britain's MI6, a significant advantage in morale. washingtonpost.com/world/2022/07/… 8/23
Russia, however, has deeper reserves of manpower and materiel, and per @MassDara, has retained/recruited better than expected under the circumstances.
The strategic/political levels tell a similar story of two combatants under strain. Ukraine's gov't has held together under Pres. Zelensky, but cracks are showing with the recent firing of 2 top officials, including the head of internal security. reuters.com/world/europe/u… 10/23
Ukraine also faces pressure from the dependence of some of its key allies on Russian energy, and esp. natural gas. Winter is coming, and people in those states will need gas to heat their homes. Will Ukraine's allies stand strong when Russia cuts them off? 11/23
Russia's economy is groaning under the weight of sanctions and embargoes. It has even been forced to turn to *noted arms manufacturer* Iran to replenish its stock of military drones.
Politically, Russia seems relatively stable, but autocracies can often seem relatively stable right up until the point that they become drastically unstable. Putin and the ruling clique likely feel pressure, but how much and what kind is hard to say. 13/23
Operationally and strategically, the war appears to be a stalemate. Current trends seem to be pulling in opposite directions, creating a complex picture of where the war is headed and which side time favors. 14/23
Desire to break this stalemate has shifted UKR focus south to retake Kherson and pushed them to ask for more western weapons including longer-range ATACMS missiles for their HIMARS and GMLRS launchers. 15/23
Can UKR retake Kherson? Likely yes, but the real question is how. If the assault looks like Russia's attack on Severodonetsk, it's probably a dead end. It will cost UKR dearly in scarce manpower and materiel, & would likely be the last major UKR operation of 2022. 16/23
Urban operations of the size needed to take Kherson have an unquenchable thirst for forces. Instead, UKR could use fires & maneuver to isolate Kherson (on the far left of Russia's line), then rely on irregulars, fires, and lack of resupply to wither Russia's defense. 17/23
The downside to this approach is that isolating the city also isolates the civilians living there. The Russians will know this and have little compunction about using them as hostages, human shields, or worse. There are no easy answers here. 18/23
If an offensive is likely to be bloody and costly, why launch it? Why not wait for more Western aid and training? The answer likely lies in the strategic tension between political pressures and military logic. 19/23
Tension between political & military leaders is an old trope. "The politicians don't understand military reality!" "The generals don't understand politics!" These tropes are old because there are truths within them. 20/23
UKR pol. leaders likely want a victory before winter to sustain internal and external support. Even if that victory comes at high cost and runs counter to western military advice to wait until spring of 2023, when UKR forces will be better trained & equipped. 21/23
In this case, both political & military leaders can be "right" b/c they're working from very different assumptions about what drives success in war. In this case, the political imperative to sustain UKR's western lifeline wins the argument, as it should. 22/23
What can the US/NATO and western allies do to ensure UKR success now and over the longer course of the war? More weapons? Different weapons (like ATACMS)? That will be the topic of tomorrow's thread. 23/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Strongly recommend this Ukraine war update. Esp. agree with @KofmanMichael about prospects for offensive and shortfalls in key equipment like APCs. Also loved Col Grabskyi's points about UKR training (all defense, no offense), and timing of offensive. A few quick thoughts. 1/9
Yesterday, I wrote about a possible Ukraine offensive, and I left some things out of the already-long thread. One issue was timing, and how the best window for an offensive might have already passed.
When I raced road bikes we had a saying, "attack when it's hard." Attacking when everyone is fresh means other racers will follow you unless you surprise them. B/c they have the legs to do so. But if you attack when everyone's tired, it's much harder to follow. 3/9
I want to highlight this comment from a brilliant thread by @KofmanMichael, because it's such an important point about weapons systems and tactical/operational adaptation. It also helps explain why weapons systems like GMLRS are almost never "game-changers" by themselves.
Forces adapt to new technology, tactics, techniques, and procedures in warfare. Weapon X provokes countermeasure Y, which prompts tactic Z, and so on. My favorite piece on this process is by Bryan Clark & John Stillion: csbaonline.org/research/publi…
Russian forces will adapt to GMLRS. They may pull key fixed sites like command posts and supply points out of range. They could use more cover & concealment. They could increase their counter-targeting efforts incl. electronic warfare & air defense.
I was reviewing #ukraine maps by @TheStudyofWar, @JominiW, et al yesterday to prepare for this radio interview with @TheWorld and I wondered why the war in eastern Ukraine is an attritional slugfest and not a battle of sweeping maneuver? 🧵 1/11
Many folks thought that the war would feature more armored maneuver as operations shifted east to Donetsk & Luhansk, (& as the weather changed). This makes sense, as it's more open terrain. washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/… 2/11
As @gianpgentile noted in the @WarOnTheRocks podcast below, the area around eastern Ukraine was the sight of some of the largest battles in history, incl. Manstein's "backhand blow" & a bit north in Russia, the massive battle of Kursk. warontherocks.com/2022/05/what-t… 3/11
Despite its rocky diplomatic birth, the Aus, UK, & US alliance (AUKUS) is one of Biden admin's biggest wins. However, aside from the core nuclear submarine initiatives, the rest of the recent implementation fact sheet is worrisome. 1/4 whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/…
The big items are senior meetings (which should happen anyhow) and a list of advanced tech and "innovation." No discussion of exercises, training, command & control, forward posture, or logistics. Lots of shiny baubles, and not much of what makes coalition operations work. 2/4
Instead, I'd want to see:
-Integrate AUS-UK into JADC2 & experiments like Projects Convergence & Overmatch
-Collab. on aerial tankers & maritime logs
-Expand fwd posture in AUS
-Build stocks of key munitions (not small #s of hypersonics)
-Combined exercises & training 3/4
1) The Joint Warfighting Concept's (JWC) failure in a wargame is a problem. The JWC is meant to be a framework for how the entire US Joint Force would fight foes like China & Russia. It's supposed to guide operational and force planning for a decade plus. It's a big deal. 2/10
That it failed miserably after years in development isn't great, but WHY & HOW it failed are the real issues. According to Gen Hyten, it failed because the concept's planners & the US team executing it in the wargame assumed they could gain information dominance. 3/10
I respect @PhillipsPOBrien's work, & I recommend his book How the War Was Won to everyone (seriously, go read it). I also think he makes some great points in this article. However, there are some key misconceptions that matter for improving military analysis. 1/
His argument is that western military analysts overestimated Russian advantages vs. Ukrainian forces b/c they fixated on weapons and doctrine and ignored factors--like logistics, leadership, and morale--that really matter. In the 🧵 below, I'll explain why I partly disagree. 2/
I'm not a Russia analyst, but my Pentagon job and work @CNASdc translates the work of experts like @KofmanMichael, @MassDara, @SamBendett, & @schlickw into policies, strategies, concepts, etc. If the US got Russia wrong, I'm partly to blame, so far as a nameless boffin can be. 3/