Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by pydry | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

pydry

Russia is following Clausewitzian principles pretty assiduously.

They've got a set of 3 clear objectives and their tactics on the ground, e.g.

* prioritizing attrition over the capture of territory.

* avoiding urban fighting where possible (e.g. a multi-year avoidance of zaporizhia and kharkiv).

* minimizing civilian casualties.

Reflect not only the objectives, but the desire to avoid a lot of the "messiness" the author referred to. The fact that Ukrainian civilians fear busification more than drone strikes is a testament to that.

None of the other parties (Ukraine, Hamas, Israel) appear to follow clausewitzian logic, though.

View on HN

If this was remotely true, they'd have won the war already. Russian operational and strategic decision-making has been a bonfire of blazing incompetence since the beginning, which is what led to things breaking down into WWI-style attritional warfare.

Leaving the moral dimension aside, this entire war has been basically two JV teams going at it since the beginning. NATO would have wiped the floor with the Russian military based on their performance so far, and it's surprising considering what a juggernaut everyone claimed the Russian military was pre-war.

>If this was remotely true, they'd have won the war already.

They're invading the largest country in Europe armed by a military bloc constituting 60% of world military spending. Which part of that screamed quick to you?

>Russian operational and strategic decision-making has been a bonfire of blazing incompetence

They somehow managed to achieve a body bag exchange ratio of 44:1 and an extreme busification crisis in Ukraine with a volunteer force.

It's a more impressive showing than Iraq.

>led to things breaking down into WWI-style attritional warfare.

Putin announced the strategy of attritional warfare in March 2022 after the land bridge was secured, so one could hardly argue that this wasnt the plan.

Ukraine has done a good job of playing into their hands by trying to cling on to land long past the point where it becomes defensible and getting enveloped in cauldron after cauldron.

Hence the issue where Ukrainian civilians are now more afraid of their own government's roving kidnapping gangs than living under Moscow's rule.

That part is probably going to be the real kicker in the end.

I suppose if you've completely swallowed Ruscist propaganda, this all tracks.

> Which part of that screamed quick to you?

Congratulations, you’ve shown superior strategic capability than Putin’s entire pre-war military brass.

> where Ukrainian civilians are now more afraid of their own government's roving kidnapping gangs than living under Moscow's rule

Was this written by AI?

>Congratulations, you’ve shown superior strategic capability than Putin’s entire pre-war military brass.

Congratulations on deluding yourself into believing he's losing this war against all of the evidence I guess.

>Was this written by AI?

Have you used it so much that you cant distinguish it from real life any more?

Try talking to some Ukrainians some time - ones that live there.

> he's losing this war against all of the evidence

He’s not winning on the timelines his military brass originally predicted.

Putin and Ukraine are in a stalemate. That takes Russia off the table as a near peer to the U.S.

> Try talking to some Ukrainians some time

I have. They’re not on that part of TikTok.

> Putin and Ukraine are in a stalemate. That takes Russia off the table as a near peer to the U.S.

Ukraine, with currently most capable and experienced military in Europe, supported by western countries, is losing. Slowly and while making Russia pay, but losing nonetheless. And if you consider demographics, it kinda lost already. Most people that escaped west won't get back, and many men that were forced to stay will leave soon after they will be allowed to.

For last few decades US victories were even less clear and made against countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.

>He’s not winning on the timelines his military brass originally predicted.

Untrue. I remember them being asked for a deadline in a press conference in March 2022 and they said (verbatim) "it will take as long as it takes". Theyve not deviated from that position either, because Clausewitz.

That "3 days to kiev" thing was General Mark Milley's prediction to congress, which was later morphed by western propaganda into "Putin's goal" and is now presumed by the terminally naive to have been the overriding goal.

>Putin and Ukraine are in a stalemate

If it were stalemate the body bag exchange ratios would probably be a little lower than 44:1 and the TCC probably wouldnt be kidnapping quite so many men out doing a grocery run.

To be fair, I remember reading about a Russian state media accidentally posting an article written in advance for the capture of Kyiv, right around the time the war started. That was pretty much the assumption in the piece.

If it's the article im thinking of it proclaimed that all of Ukraine and all of Belarus were now part of a glorious "greater" Russia.

I think if they really wanted the latter they could have made it happen by now.

The leadership apparently werent saying anything at all to anyone in the first two weeks or so for opsec reasons, and that apparently led some of the state media propagandists to get a bit creative.

The amount of total financial support provided to Ukraine is lower than that which Russia has earned from the same bloc. And military support is the smaller fraction of this total. So, the support has been important but without Ukraine deciding to resist Russia vehemently, the Donbass would have long been conquered.

I do agree with your criticism that in certain places, such as Bakhmut or Avdiivka, Ukraine has lost many men needlessly when in an indefensible position. Saying that, Russia is making at best incremental gains for huge casualties. They certainly aren't going to conquer the rest of Donbass by this year or even by the 4th anniversary.

>The amount of total financial support provided to Ukraine is lower than that which Russia has earned from the same bloc.

The amount of aid sent during the war totaled up to about $300 billion, which is roughly equal to the Russian military budget for the same period.

Thats not counting all of the "soon to be expired" stuff they handed over in 2022/2023, declaring it was worth $0 because it would have been disposed of.

>Saying that, Russia is making at best incremental gains for huge casualties.

For every body bag they get back theyve recently been handing over 44.

Territorial gains are only relevant for them right now insofar as it serves their overriding goal of attrition.

>They certainly aren't going to conquer the rest of Donbass by this year or even by the 4th anniversary.

If it serves the overall goal of attrition im sure theyd be happy to drag it out beyond February. Theyre not on a deadline.

The problem is that the more the Ukrainian army gets hollowed out by attrition now, the faster and more complete the eventual collapse will be.

> NATO would have wiped the floor with the Russian military

Considering my interests and those of my country I would like to believe, but reality do not provide much support for such hopes.

> and it's surprising considering what a juggernaut everyone claimed the Russian military was pre-war.

It is true, but they improved immensely during 3 years of intense conflict (the same for Ukraine). On the other hand NATO has most experience in bombing people in Africa and Middle-East.

War with Russia wouldn't be the same as battle of Timbuktu.

> Considering my interests and those of my country I would like to believe, but reality do not provide much support for such hopes.

Having served in the US military for 20+ years active and reserve, the level of synchronization and coordination NATO can bring to the fight dwarfs what Russia and Ukraine have been able to achieve. The situation has degenerated into what it is because neither side could effectively coordinate action at scale, or integrate air, land, and naval power tightly. The West can. I've seen it.

> It is true, but they improved immensely during 3 years of intense conflict (the same for Ukraine). On the other hand NATO has most experience in bombing people in Africa and Middle-East.

You don't seem to understand the scenarios the US trains to. First off, there is so, so much more to counterinsurgency than just "bombing people" that it's a whole nother post. And frankly if someone describes military action as just "bombing people," it's a tell they're not speaking from a position of expertise on the issue. The US has maintained the ability to fight a major theater war since 2003; it just hasn't had to exercise it. There is a reason that in conventional combat, the US and allied militaries stomped the Iraqi military flat twice in 15 years. The failures afterward were largely at the political and strategic level from lack of clear direction or unrealistic objectives from the civilian leadership.

There is one military that could credibly challenge the US and NATO allies today, and it's not Russia, it's China.

> minimizing civilian casualties

Russians target civilian objects - apartment complexes, hospitals, metro entrances, passenger trains. Constantly do a second strike when emergency crews arrive. They use drones to hunt civillians who live near frontline.

Gazan civilian casualties eclipsed Ukrainian within about two weeks.

Militaries routinely use civilian objects for military purposes, so that these objects are targeted isnt meaningful in and of itself - like the time a pizza restaurant was targeted and it later emerged that the restaurant hosted a rather large military gathering.

Obviously because Gaza is virtually defenseless and Israel has roughly one active duty soldier for every seven adults in Gaza. It's less of a war than just a massacre.

Ukraine and Russia on the other hand are relatively evenly matched, so killing civilians is much harder.

Ukraine doesn't.

No, they do. They used to shell Donetsk routinely.

You cannot say something that can be considered even sligthly positive about Russia and its strategy.

I think you can explain Russia's poor performance somewhat from Clausewitzian principles:

"primordial violence, hatred, and enmity" - weren't really there - most Russians viewed Ukrainians as their brethren.

"Chance and Probability" - the Russians have proved pretty inflexible. I mean after they failed to take Kyiv in three days they could have gone home and saved a lot of bother, maybe keeping some lands in the south.

"Reason and Policy" - didn't make much sense. Few Russians wanted to go to war so Putin could lord it over the Ukrainians as well as the Russians. This looks more like a political move by Putin to keep power.

If Russia had actually had a clear objective to annex Ukraine they could have mobilised and knocked them out in no time but instead we have a mess and kind of stalemate which to me seems to be moving in Ukraine's favour as they can now hit most targets inside Russia.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com