re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict

This is TL:DR and stream of consciousness interrupted by multiple phone calls and I don't have the impetus to proof much less try to polish a turd this afternoon, take it for what it is and isn't.

quote:

---

From Simplicius The Thinker

An exploration of how Russia's warfighting doctrine differs from the West.

---

I have no choice but to be brief with this but I will try to get my major points down.

In total, this sounds like a thesis worked backward from a conclusion and I find it fundamentally flawed but nevertheless it appears to flow somewhat logically from beginning to end.

I feel the major point is that Russia's doctrine is designed around total war with a peer/near-peer. OK, the logic flows, however:

When was the last time Russia fought a near-peer? You are telling me by well reasoned choice they decided to build a low tech military to fight a litany of lower tier militaries even though the losses would inevitably be much higher for them compared to a high tech and highly trained army AND this has nothing to do with their low value on the live of the soldiers?


A short note about the US ATGMs vs weapons like the RPG 28 and 32. He noted the low proper engagement numbers. First, let's get an inconvenient truth out of the way: grunts ain't real good at killing shite. Lots of steel downrange per kill, it is what it is. What is not discussed, and in fairness he likely did not have the numbers, is the percentage of proper engagements with RPG 28/32 in similar conditions. How often do you think the unguided RPG 28 hits home in combat conditions? It ain't gonna be 19% unless they are at very close range. Then how effective will it be against a modern MBT.

Sure there are situations where I would prefer an RPG 28/32 or even a M72 to a high tech weapon like the Javalin but at any reasonable standoff against a modern tank with the chance to even just peruse an FM beforehand I will take the Javelin.

The last point is about the concept Russia is better prepared for total war. I don't buy it. The closest thing we have had to total war on this planet in the last 50+ years was Desert Storm. One of the biggest takeaways was the utter devastation of air superiority/supremacy. Russia can't achieve this against Ukraine much less a fighting force like the USAF and Navy. They still don't have it after a year, so much for the massive arsenal of Russia overcoming its tech shortage.

Also the idea Russian doctrine makers don't see high tech weapons as important is not accurate. Look at their grand plans with the Su-57 and the T-14. Don't tell me they don't want these in the fight... they just can't build them.


In the end, I see the blog as an artfully crafted excuse for why Russia does not have a modern military and I don't buy the "they are just designed for total war" argument. As it stands they would never last long enough to crank up to "total war". I also would not bet on the Russian industrial machine outproducing the US industrial machine even if nationalization might give them an advantage.