GUEST BLOG: Ben Morgan – Learnings from Ukrainian War to date
Although, this war is far from over, I thought it would be good to note some potential lessons from this conflict. So, approximately six months into the war here are my thoughts about the key lessons to-date.
War between states is not a thing of the past.
Recent, military theory is heavily influenced by Alvin Toffler’s book ‘War and Anti War’ that posited the idea that post-Cold War, increasing economic inter-dependence between nations ensures that state versus state warfare with conventional armies will slowly disappear because it is simply no longer ‘good business’ to fight expensive wars that impact global markets. In the liberal democracies, this logic made sense and when Francis Fukuyama’s hypothesised ‘that history was over, the battle was finished and liberal democracy had won’ it was easy to see that the world was entering a new age of limited conventional war. Reason and economics were quelling humanity’s inclination to use force in international relations. Unfortunately, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine demonstrates there were still people willing to use force to achieve political objectives.
Further, this war demonstrates that there is a realm of regional conflict that can take place under the ‘nuclear umbrella’. That nuclear proliferation could make large conventional conflicts more likely. In conventional terms, NATO (or the United States alone) could easily defeat Russia but cannot intervene directly because doing so creates a risk of nuclear escalation. Effectively, the threat of nuclear war may encourage inter-state conventional conflict by preventing outside interventions reinforcing a nation that is attacked by a nuclear power. Attacking conventionally becomes an option more likely to succeed for a an aggressor willing to ‘game’ the situation using conventional forces to achieve its goals while the threat of nuclear escalation deters collective security measures.
In fact it seems that the threshold for nuclear intervention will rise, allowing larger inter-state wars to be fought more often for instance if Russia was to attack Poland or one of the Baltic States it is hard to imagine that NATO would consider a nuclear response. Instead, there would be a contained conventional war. Possibly, Russia could wear down NATO commitment to the point that deal is struck that is advantageous to the aggressor. Extrapolating the idea further is not difficult and there are many nuclear armed states with many different conflicts that will be learning from this war. The de-stabilising effect of this trend is yet to be understood but the potential is significant.
Russian equipment is clearly second rate.
Forty-nine years ago, in the 1973 Yom Kippur War Soviet military equipment was destroyed in vast numbers by the Israelis. The Soviets claimed the Israelis were successful because the Egyptians, Syrians and Jordanians had not used the equipment supplied by the USSR properly. In the 1991 and 2003 Gulf Wars, more Soviet military equipment was decimated by modern NATO equipment. The Ukraine War is the next episode in a fifty-year demonstration that the Soviet and now Russian approach to designing military equipment is flawed.
The Soviet design philosophy of rugged simplicity worked in the 1940, 50s and 60s because mass won wars. The Ukraine War is demonstrating that at this time ‘quality beats quantity’, in the early days of the war sophisticated NATO anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles helped stop the Russian offensive and more recently network enabled, GPS guided artillery systems are helping Ukraine turn the tide. NATO’s investment in technology and quality has not been matched by Russia because of arrogance and corruption; and their army is struggling with equipment that is clearly inferior.
The accuracy and effectiveness of terminally guided artillery.
The incredible accuracy and usefulness of tube launched terminally guided munitions is changing the artillery battler. The GPS guided Excalibur round can engage precision targets at ranges of approximately 40km. Or the Bonus shell with a range of 35 km, that releases two smaller bombs that guide themselves towards tanks or other vehicles, detonating above them taking advantage of the thinner armour of their rooves.
Although these weapons are not discussed extensively in the main stream media, they will be a key point of discussion within the military because of their effectiveness. The impacts of weapons like this on the battlefield; not just their accuracy but how they reduce both the logistics burden of supplying artillery ammunition and the technical burden of ensuring accurate survey at both the gunline and observer’s position and will significantly increases tube artillery effectiveness. Essentially, it allows tube artillery to economically destroy point targets, a new battlefield effect.
The importance of long-range precision strike.
Historically, Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (MLRS) like HIMARS were seen as weapons of ‘mass effect’, a battery or battalion of MLRS effectively wiping out a large area; destroying a whole artillery unit or breaking up an armoured formation or destroying a defensive position or logistics hub. When they were designed their target was massed Soviet armour and artillery. Today, after years of investment in precision guidance the Ukrainians can use HIMARS to snipe at long-range against small targets like command centres or bridges. Using the rocket’s very accurate internal GPS guidance systems they need only one or two rockets to attack most targets rather than firing a volley of rockets.
The impact on the battlefield is impressive with scores of Russian ammunition dumps and command centres destroyed with less logistic cost to the Ukrainians. Instead, of tens of rockets that were historically needed to guarantee destruction, they need only a couple which means less re-supply trucks, less coordination of road movement and greater tactical flexibility.
Drone warfare.
Drones now have a pretty significant history of use in war and over the last 20-30 years have become relatively common. However, this war has seen the spread of drone technology from specialist units like special forces or artillery spotters using sophisticated drones to a battlespace full of drones. Many, commercially purchased and pressed into service as field expedients. Videos of Ukrainian mortar teams using drones linked to their I Phones or I Pads, to spot the fall of shot are readily available. It is an interesting development, because the widespread availability of sophisticated ‘tech’ provides armies that have educated soldiers with enormous opportunities for new and ‘disruptive’ tactics. At the other end of the drone spectrum this war has demonstrated the use of large sophisticated drones to spot artillery targets, gather information or even to mount attacks against large well-defended targets.
Another important lesson of the war is about drone counter-measures. It is interesting to note that the effects of sophisticated Switchblade drones sent to Ukraine have received limited coverage. It is likely that during this system’s operations in Afghanistan, Russian intelligence working with the Taliban built a clear picture of its capabilities and is effectively jamming the system. A sophisticated system like Switchblade, may be difficult to re-engineer and it is interesting to note that some reports state that Ukrainian soldiers prefer commercially purchased but easy to use drones with ‘homemade’ explosive charges because they are simpler to use. Perhaps this is an example of the rapid tactical evolution that well-educated, network enabled armies are capable of when required. The fact remains, that all armies now need to acquire anti-drone capabilities.
Combined arms operations.
Drones, Javelin and Stinger missiles, NATO artillery and HIMARS can all be defeated by the proper application of combined arms tactics, uniting the combat effects of tanks, armoured vehicles, intelligence gathering devices, aircraft, artillery and infantry together on the battlefield. Russia failed to use combined arms tactics. Instead, it has built a war machine that looks good on parade but cannot fight.
The first failure to apply effective combined arms planning and tactics was Russia’s inability to secure air-superiority. Even with months to plan and build up a force with massive numeric advantage; Russia failed to sweep the Ukrainian air force out of the sky. This failure continues to impact on the campaign. Ukrainian HIMARS systems and other new artillery systems should be being hunted down and destroyed by Russian attack helicopters and aircraft instead the roam relatively freely.
At the tactical level Russia’s combined arms grouping the Battalion Tactical Group (BTG) is a massively ‘over gunned’ battlegroup that in theory, deploys an infantry battalion (500-1000 soldiers) with armour and artillery in support. Battlegroups are not a new concept being a standard way of operating in NATO armies for many years. Recently, battlegroup sized organisations are increasingly becoming the tactical ‘building block’ of armies evolving into the smallest unit operating independently as a combined arms team.
The difference with the Russia’s BTG is that it lacks ‘balance’. BTG’s have roughly three times the artillery that would be allocated to NATO battlegroup. This may sound like a good thing, providing more firepower. However managing artillery is not easy, its movement and land use needs to be coordinated with other forces, its resupply needs to be organised and there are technical issues like repairs, maintenance and survey that all need to be taken into account. A small battalion headquarters is not equipped to manage a large artillery force.
BTGs are also unbalanced because they lack infantry. A NATO battlegroup or BTG has two-three companies each with a strength of between 120-140 fighting infantry soldiers. At posted strength (i.e. the best case) Russian airborne companies have around 50-60 fighting soldiers and their motor rifle companies around 80-90. Infantry are vital because they are the soldiers that seize and hold ground and most importantly in this war, they hunt out the Javelin teams and drone operators hiding in woods and villages. Infantry also take the most casualties. If you don’t have enough infantry, you don’t have a balanced and effective combined arms organisation.
Mission command tactics.
The Ukrainian army has been trained by the United States and United Kingdom since 2014 and is using a tactical model called ‘mission command’ that allows for devolved and decentralised leadership. In this model, junior commanders are told their commander’s intent and given objectives and are then allowed to achieve these goals in whatever way they wish. Ukrainian junior commanders have a sense of authority and responsibility so if the situation changes tend to be flexible and agile taking advantage of opportunities and quickly rectifying errors.
This is the opposite of the Russian experience. Russian junior leaders have limited authority and rely on senior commanders to ‘direct’ the battle. Russian junior leaders are told what to do and expected to follow those instructions. If the situation changes and there is not an instruction to deal with the change, then they ‘freeze’. The reason Russian senior officers are being killed in large numbers is that they are needing to travel forward to provide direction to their subordinates. A lesson from this war is that the day of poorly trained and led conscripts being directed what to is over, armies must now focus on producing smart and well-trained junior leader. The NATO trend towards smaller professional armies is being vindicated in this war. It is lesson that carries through internationally and armies around the world should be looking at the best way to develop the junior leadership required for tactical agility.
Ben Morgan is a tired Gen X interested in international politics. He is TDB’s Military analyst.
Lessons please, not learnings.
I agree with this.
Me too
Thank you!!
Excellent article Ben. The only thing I would query is the NATO response to an attack on Poland or the Baltics. NATO should threaten a nuclear response to deter such an attack in the first place surely.
I see where you are coming from Cantab but surely this would be largely redundant as Putin & Cronies will realise that NATO would only resort to nukes in response to their use against them i.e. if Russia were to attack Poland etc in a conventional manner then NATO would only respond in kind . .
War between states is not a thing of the past:
Look at it another way. Maybe this war has proven that war is indeed a thing of the past, because it’s been an abject failure for the instigator.
China must be looking on and thinking about the inevitable sanctions and isolation that would result from an attack by them on Taiwan, or any other neighboring state.
Good comment Andrew and yes China will be watching the invasion of Ukraine very very closely . . China appears to be increasingly painting themselves into a corner re Taiwan (indicating that they will be in control of Taiwan during Pelosi’s lifetime etc but given that she is 82 that doesn’t give them long to ‘put up or shut up’) . .
Thanks again Ben a great summary.
Full scale Russian Federation wide war mobilisation and conscription could change the picture.
To overcome the technical advantage held by Ukraine, massed Russian infantry on a broad front, on a scale not seen since WWII, could overwhelm the much smaller Ukrainian forces.
The Russian losses would be huge of course, but would be justified by a tidal wave of patriotic jingoistic war propaganda, to fan public hysteria of Russia being under attack by the US and Nato.
To impose mass Russa wide conscription, internal repression of the Russian people, already tough, will be justified and ramped up to levels not seen in European nations since the rise of Nazi Germany.
Mass internment, concentration camps, and of course that old Nazi stand by, false flag attacks to reinforce the propaganda narrative of Russia being attacked by outside and internal enemies.
Since there is zero sign of Putin drawing back. This can be the only way forward for the Russian Federation to achieve its war aims.
“The Soviet design philosophy of rugged simplicity worked in the 1940, 50s and 60s because mass won wars…”
Putin’s last gamble will be that mass still wins wars.
Agree that if Russia do this they would probably overwhelm the Ukrainians but the question is does Putin have enough support to survive moving to such an escalation?
The oligarchs would be very unhappy with mass conscription. Their sons and daughters would no longer be able to avoid conscription by going to university. Instead of the Buryats and Chechens doing all the fighting, the Moscow and Petersburg elites would be drawn in. Putin knows this would be political suicide so it will never happen. Would Putin ever admit that the ‘special operation’ has become a war? Not likely!
Not so sure that mass as such wins wars. Based on what we saw in the first few weeks of the war, as you note, it might simply result in massive Russian losses. A bit like the British and the Somme. Massed infantry against fixed machine guns.
Modern precision weapons make life very dangerous for infantry if they concentrate in any sort of numbers. The NATO 155 artillery has precision targeted anti personnel rounds, with individual sub-munitions targeting groups of soldiers. Much more advance than the area artillery used by the Russians.
In any event, I don’t believe Putin will go in for a general mobilisation. Part of the reason is the change in family make up. Russian families no longer have 4 or 5 children. More like 1 or 2, just as in Western nations. The ability of such societies to accept mass casualties is vastly less than 2 or 3 generations ago. So that rules out mass mobilisation, just as it does in western societies. Except in extremis. Wars of choice, as this is for Russia (though not Ukraine) do not fit the definition of extremis.
In my view Putin will try and find a way to end the war, perhaps by a unilateral ceasefire followed by negotiations. I suspect that will happen early next year. The result will be that Russia keeps the Donbass, all the territory in that region they have now. Obviously they keep Crimea. The tough negotiations will be over the south – the land bridge. Russia will want to keep at least some that. Will Ukraine acquiesce? Depends on the summer and autumn fighting.
Whose heads will roll if this happens?
Who advised Zelensky to scrap the initially promising peace negotiations. early in the invasion I wonder if anyone will regret not implementing the Minsk agreements.It would have been far cheaper economically, politically and in terms of Ukrainian lives and infrastructure, to have recognised the inevitable outcome.
So with all this “evidence” Ben provides that Russia is losing, why is Russia still advancing, with the Donbas frontline now buckling, and the Ukrainians failing to retake Kherson, despite the months long announcements.
Here are excerpts of analysis published in the US Marine Corps Gazette, which displays a far better understanding of Russian war craft than most western sources.It’s written by a General Van Riper
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2022/08/a-marines-assessment-of-russias-military-operation-in-ukraine-a-profound-appreciation-of-all-three-realms-in-which-wars-are-waged.html
And by the way Ben, 7 Himars have been blown out of the game so far
Hi Francesca , I read this a few days ago but wasn’t aware it was the guy who was sacked for sinking the US battle group in exercises . If he is the author it adds an extra cachet to his arguments which seem to fit the general evidence .
Every supporter of the war believes Russia is invincible?
Why’s that?
Even if you think Russia was right to invade Ukraine Francesca. Why on earth do you think they will win?
Maybe you could tell us why that is, Francesca.
Take your time.
=
Well they do have 7,000+ nukes, including the new SATAN 2 system (which is a 50 megaton MERV). In theory they could use them in Ukraine without repercussion (after all, no one in the West is going to risk the same for their cities which is why they will only complain a lot about it but not really do anything, just like now).
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/238325-russia-unveils-new-class-rs-28-satan-2-nuclear-missiles
So yeah, Russia can definitely “win” if they want.
Because they have ;
Military superiority : Anyone who believes Ukraine has military superiority over Russia is a self deluding fool .
Economic superiority : Anyone who believes that the most self sufficient nation in the world will exhaust their resources before Ukraine is a self deluding fool . Has it been 14 days yet ?
Moral authority : Never again is a phrase I read from a Russian writer . Never again will they allow a war upon their land that kills 30? 20? million Russians . With a national psyche steeped in wars forging a fortitude , resolve and realism about war unmatched by inculcated Hollywood fantasies imagined by the western public they are not going to be defeated by a de facto Nazi ruled government supported by the merchants of death – America – and enabled by European
elites who are so stupid they will ruin their countries economically because they are American bitches .
Now I realize you will say show me the evidence blah blah blah , but evidence of inevitable Ukraine defeat is abundant if you choose to look but ! I believe it’s futile because you in your self righteous indignation will refuse to believe anything that invalidates your world view .
Your welcome .
ra
August 16, 2022 at 9:18 pm
Because they [Russia] have ;
Military superiority : …..
Economic superiority : …..
The US had Economic superiority and Military superiority over both Vietnam and Afghanistan, but it didn’t save them.
These advantages won’t save Russia either.
A PEOPLE UNITED!
CAN NEVER BE DEFEATED!
Well said Pat and Francesca da Rimini is obviously a male.Women don’t tend to support wars.
perhaps you could kick it off by explaining how Ukraine is winning
“…kick it off by explaining how Ukraine is winning”
Easy.
A people who fought so hard for their freedom in the recent past are not likely to give it up now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzNxLzFfR5w&t=24s
Even if the US and Europe try to cut a separate deal with Putin. Ukraine will still resist.
Vietnam and Afghanistan prove that no matter how powerful a super power is, no matter how much death and destruction they cause the bigger power will still lose against a determined insurgent population.
Ukraine is starting off from a much stronger position than the Vietnamese and Afghans, no matter how long it takes Ukraine’s ultimate victory over the Russian Federation is pretty much assured.
The Russian Federation plutocrats and strongmen around Putin won’t know what hit them, and in defeat will not comprehend how it happened.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/world/how-zelensky-harnessed-the-immense-power-of-the-citizen?
Your turn.
None of what you say is reflected on the battlefield.
Ukraine, even with all the intelligence capabilities , training , volunteers weaponry and money from the collective west was unable to save the Azov battalion in Mariupol, has been threatening to retake Kherson for several weeks but has made no advances against a numerically weaker force, in 8 years was able to kill civilians in Donbas but was unable to defeat the DPR/LPR, who are fighting for their land.
And the Ukrainians for all their vaunted “unity “are a divided people.Zelensky has been flat out purging opposition, “traitors” and collaborators in the secret services
“Despite purges of their ranks since 2014, there are still too many saboteurs and traitors in their midst: more than 650 investigations into state treason by security service officers have already been opened.”
A lot more Russian sympathisers in even Kiev than there would be in a truly united nation .
https://carnegieendowment.org/eurasiainsight/87585
Francesca August 17, 2022 at 10:28 pm
None of what you say is reflected on the battlefield.
Ukraine….
So what?
Pro war commentators said the exact same thing in the early days of the Vietnam war.
As One American general was later to put it.
“We won every battle, but we lost the war”
Even if what you say is true (which it isn’t),, even if Russia were winning every battle, Russia will still lose.
They just won’t realise it.
And they, (and you), will be left wondering what happened?
Well said Pat!
Putin is a bad actor – so is Zelensky – Ukraine Government just denied 94 % of workers the right to join a union or bargain collectively this despite warnings against doing so from ILO and EU.
When will Ukrainians realise that they are being used as surrogates to fight the war against Russia that the US is to gutless to do directly themselves.
Most observers thought Trump was bad (he was) but he didn’t start any wars not like this administration – Taiwan will be next!
It’s pretty obvious the Russians are fighting this war in what can best be described half-arsed. It reminds me a bit of the Vietnam and Afghanistan wars, where the supposed far more powerful US ended up humiliated and defeated from what is on paper a far inferior power.
The difference, perhaps, is that Russia is deliberately deploying their old munitions (which would otherwise just end up rusting away in warehouses) because they don’t see the need to use the more modern (and expensive) options to achieve their military goals. After all, you can fire off 1,000 howitzer shells for the price of a single cruise missile! The former would undoubtedly do far more damage, both physically and psychologically (the constant sound of shelling 24/7 is very effective for wearing out and demoralising troops).
Russia might well simply be playing the “long-game”. I wouldn’t underestimate either their real capability or resolve if push came to shove. And of course they always have “the nuclear option”… which would end this war immediately.
One Poseidon Nuclear torpedo shot up the British rear end will bury them under a tidal wave 200 feet high, why bother with the big guns when your older weapons do the job adequately. Yeah I know, stating a opinion makes you a Nazi or Russian sympathizer in this Woke B/S war, the ones in the know are well aware the West is screwed like a cheap $2 hooker it’s become. Face reality, Country 404 is a war started by the West and soon to be won by the East. Do we really want to pick a fight with Russia and by extension China who produces 90% of the Worlds medicine?
Seems to me that the armchair corporals here like Ben hunkered down in their trenches under Russian bombardment are missing the bigger picture. It is that the US Euro world is being dragged kicking and screaming into a multipolar world. Their supremacist views and assumptions are under siege. You don’t have to be pro Putin or pro Ukraine,
The rising empires of Germany, Italy and Japan also attempted, dragging kicking and screaming, the established US and Euro empires into a multipolar world. Nobody in their right mind still supports that failed attempt to create a multipolar world.
The liberation of the world from the scourge of imperialism, will never come from another imperialism.
That statement Pat is quite correct if you believe that the people opposed to Empire are also imperialists. And if they are not it is equally wrong.
Id suggest that Russia is a nationalist state wanting to be a regional hegemon. is that imperialist? Id suggest not. China could be similar, again jury out. Now add India, Iran, Brazil, South Africa to nations breaking free of the US hegemony, are they imperialist?
Get a life Nick J. Of course Russia and China are imperialist nations. Ask Chechnya or Tibet. India is as well. And Iran – look at Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen. You are incredibly one eyed Nick J. Do you have COVID induced brain fog or something?
I have a life which is more than your brain appears to have.
Nick J, at least my brain is not crammed full of pro-Putin propaganda as yours is.
You appear brain dead, the number of baseless assumptions you make. Because I call out the dishonesty of the Western media and politicians, does that make me pro Putin? You really need to start thinking in a non binary sense. By example your later comment re Putin and Russian vets, would you call for the American administration to be dismissed because I took photos of a black vet begging in Times Square recently, and another of a sleeping homeless man outside the NYSE in Wall Street? Does that prove anything about Biden or neo Cons, any more than your Russian vets do about Putin?
“….One Poseidon Nuclear torpedo shot up the British rear end will bury them under a tidal wave 200 feet high, why bother with the big guns when your older weapons do the job adequately. Yeah I know, stating a opinion makes you a Nazi or Russian sympathizer fingrinn
Maybe not. But it does make you a genocidal supporter of a nuclear holocaust.
Who cares what label is stuck on it.
Jeeze Pat I’m starting to feel triggered, nice to know you still make uninformed comments and allegations based simply on stating facts. Genocidal support, what bovine byproduct it simply reinforces your low level of debate and intelligence
You wrote:
“One Poseidon Nuclear torpedo shot up the British rear end will bury them under a tidal wave 200 feet high, why bother with the big guns when your older weapons do the job adequately.”
In your own words you are an admitted supporter of genocide.
If his war aims are not met Vladimir Putin has made the same threat.
The ex-KGB warlord would be proud of you.
Simply stating facts Pat. For context I was curious about comments on Russian TV about burying England under a 200 foot tidal wave hence research on how it was possible (Poseidon) so you can cut out your pathetic little comments which in reality is based solely on my previous comments challenging your narrow worldview. Lets called it what it is Pat.
Simply making the valid point Russia has been pretty tame so far, handle it.
Nick do you consider slamming rockets into apartment buildings ‘tame’?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulN1A41jf1Y
What about turning Mariupol into rubble, was that ‘tame’?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDVLmOVDaOY&t=6s
Driving over 6 million Ukrainians from their homes, is ‘tame in your opinion?
As of August 22, 2022, there are over 6.6 million refugees from Ukraine recorded
Threatening nuclear genocide against Britain is that ‘tame’?
What other monstrous crimes do you call tame?
Read the map Ben. Get the real casualty figures. Maybe order hypersonic missiles from Russia (you won’t get them in the West for 10 years).
“You won’t get them in the West for 10 years” – so where the f**k are you living Nick J?
Vladivoskok?
If you’d been paying attention James you might have noticed the Russians using them en masse whilst the US haven’t got past prototype. Even that failed on launch.
If you had been paying attention my question is where do you live if it isn’t in the West?
Feel free to use the below link if you are not sure which countries are generally accepted to make up ‘the Western world’ . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world#/media/File:Western_World_Latin_America_torn_countries.png
James, lovely map, yes that’s the West as we know it. If I was nice i would add a big arrow to the Natz rural electorate I’m in. But James, Im not rude enough or interested enough to ask where you live.
Once again we have an amazing array of geopolitical experts on here. Makes interesting reading, as material for a modern-day comedy in the style of Archie Bunker.
The testimony of Pavel Filyatev is telling. As a soldier in the Russian Army he said that 20% of the army disagreed with the war and Putin’s politics. He also said that compensation frequently was not being paid to war veterans. This bears out what I found in Alexander Nevsky Lavra in St Petersburg – many maimed Afghanistan war veterans forced to beg for money. Putin must go!