In the last few weeks, many have questioned the speed of Ukraine's offensive.
Most doing so haven't ever been on a high intensity battlefield. Fewer still have fought in those conditions.
While debate usually centers on forces, tactics, equipment, few discuss "conditions." 2/
Today, it was 93 degrees in Kherson. Humidity 36%, making it "feel hotter."
Most soldiers are carrying 50-80 pounds of gear.
Having traveled to many parts of Ukraine with my military counterpart, the terrain is tough: hills, marshes, rivers/streams, few improved roads. 3/
Drawing circles & arrows on a map in an air-conditioned, well-lit room is different than gaining ground in the heat, where there are mines, trenches, obstacles, when you're under fire & when you find yourself "coffee-breath close" in trench fighting. 4/ pbs.org/newshour/world…
Yes, "the moral is to the physical as 3 is to 1" is a true statement. Thanks, Napoleon.
But the physical is extremely important & it's often ignored.
Soldier exhaustion in offensive operations- over tough terrain, in the heat - is something all good commanders must consider.5/
But here's something interesting...
In the 80's the Army sent me for a masters in physiology before teaching in the Department of Physical Education at @WestPoint_USMA.
Now, lots of military folks quote Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, Jomini, Mahan, SLA Marshall. I've been known to do that.
But a little-known (but favorite of mine) is a guy named Ardant Du Picq.
An obscure French regimental commander, he wrote a great book called "Battle Studies" 9/
Interestingly, the influence for DuPicq's writing was he & his unit were once caught in a minefield in Sevastopol (Crimea) during the Franco-Prussian War.
Watching his soldiers experience FEAR caused him to reflect more on all he had ever learned about tactics. 10/
He suggested that fear compounds physical & emotional stress. It compounds the effects of fatigue, especially since soldiers are "rest deprived" anyway.
Fear affects offensive operational tempo. (Studies at our National Traning Center states it affects decision-making, too).11/
This isn't just theory & research.
I've personally been physically & emotionally exhausted in combat. And I didn't face anything near what Ukrainian commanders & soldiers are facing.
I've also experienced fear in battle. amany times. All soldier -if they're honest- have. 12/
These factors affecting operations, kinetic engagements, plans, decision-making, individual actions are many & varied on the modern battlefield.
Battle is, in my view, the most intense human endeavor imaginable. It is also the most unnatural and contrary to human nature. 13/
That's why I wrote this tweet 🧵today:
1. To describe how soldiers physiologically react to battle 2. To remind how tough this offensive operation is for Ukraine. 3. To suggest to analysts who haven't been there to refrain from the "Ukraine needs to step it up" narrative. 14/14
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The great @ErinBurnett did a lead in to this story tonight at 7 ET, and I was hoping she'd ask me about this.
This could either be a big deal, or no big deal.
Suvorikin is an RU air force general. He's been with Prigozhin in several conflicts. 1/4 cnn.com/europe/live-ne…
"General Armegeddon" & "Putin's Chef" share the same approach...scorched earth, terrorize civilians, commit unchecked war crimes, pay no attention to the rules of land warfare or international law.
Oh, and they don't really care for/lead their own troops, either. 2/4
Surovikin (and others) may be on some "Wagner VIP list," but I suspect that may only means they are "honorary members of the PMC."
Hell, I'm an "honorary member" of the 3d ACR, the German 12th Armored BDE, and a few others. This is an honorific in the military. 3/4
"The greatest distance on the battlefield is the 6 inches between the ears of the commander...and that's the commander at EVERY level."
Words of wisdom from a much respected military mentor of mine.
What's that mean & how does it relate to the weekend's events in RU? A 🧵 1/13
Good commanders of military organizations serve their country, their leaders, the people (in the US case, that is why we "support & defend the Constitution").
That service is based -to paraphrase 1 of Clausewitz's many trinities of war - on "trust." 2/
1. Soldiers trust each other...that makes for cohesion & effectiveness.
2. Military leaders trust government/civilian leaders to do what's right in policy, strategy, accountability.
3. The people trust their government leaders to keep the nation secure, to be legitimate. 3/
It hit me we're thinking of Prigozhin in the wrong way.
His actions have confused us these last 48 hours (and beyond) because we see him as the leader of a large mercenary body, fighting for pay (or freedom from jail) instead of what soldiers fight to defend (the state). 1/4
After some research, I'm now concluding he fits the definition of a modern day warlord, with these attributes:
Here are the characteristics of a warlord: · an individual with limited military skills, who is accountable to no one, who has no true ideology... 2/4
...who rules through patronage, who flourishes only when the central government is weak, and who further fragments the politics, the unified military action, and the economics of a central government.
There is no contribution to a nation's power, only the individual's. 3/4
2 decades ago, I met a unique person at West Point.
An Ivy League English Literature Professor teaching Plebes (Freshmen), Elizabeth Samet was writing a book about how cadets were facing the wars that would define their generation. 1/11
In that book, she describes what it was like coming to a place like @WestPoint_USMA, and learning the military culture.
She would teach cadets about war, masterfully using literature to describe what they would soon face.
But she would also learn so much from her students...and graduates, as they wrote to her after experiencing what she had only read about in the classics.
The book, "Soldier's Heart," is one of my favorites, and it holds a special place on my bookshelf as she signed it for me. 3/
A former President is being indicted - for the 2d time - & there's non-stop coverage.
Some good analysis, some not so good.
Many keep bringing up how "those in the military are likely the most upset about Trump absconding with intel secrets."
Yes, but there's more. 1/
Having read the indictment (4x's now), the amount & type of classified information Trump took, hid, did not secure, and refused to give back is, IMHO, gobsmacking.
Many analysts have called them "war plans." I doubt any documents fit into that specific contingency category. 2/
The documents were likely extremely detailed intelligence assessments, w/ potential foe (& friendly) capabilities & weaknesses & US capabilities we would not want anyone - especially foes - to know.
Many have said, this isn't a document issue it's a national security issue. 3/