A good essay, well argued and laid out, and very rational. The flaw, and mirroring other comments, is that you appear argue that because something is irrational - it will not or is unlikely to happen. Now that is also the way I think, but not the way IMHO the world at large works. The stupidity and venality of assorted politicians should never be underestimated. Add to this the almost certain sub-optimal outcome of group/committee decision making and I would say there is a near 100% chance of someone somewhere doing something stupid and irrational. So altogether a dangerous time.
Oh, I agree that much of politics is irrational, and I have often said as much. My point was that irrationality is nonetheless constrained by what it's actually possible to do: in this case not much.
I think I may have been too black and whte in my comment [on reflection], but what is possible to do and what someone believes is possible to do are of course different things. My fear is that - based on the serial miscalculations of the West to date - that "they" believe it might be possible to do what is not. I judge Western decisions makers to be poorly advised on the whole and fed information from sources which tailor it [?] - reflected in the media but also the [serious?] think tank type places. It is career limiting to be an outlier on opinion these days. The PMC writ large? Easier to go with the flow than use the thing that is supposed to exist between ones ears? Anyway - no offence intended but I retain my doubts that any of this has a sane outcome.
If the word idiot means anything it means being incapable, the things he does do nothing, the origins of the word are in the 'personal' and not the 'public'
If you prefer to say irrational, which some do, this means incapacity born of inattention to reality, and preferring to believe this is un necessary
Aurelien demonstrates the opposite is required when it come to war
Hmmm...i wonder. When an opponent seems irrational or deluded you must always consider the possibility that you simply dont understand their objectives.
Re Ukraine we assume that what Natostan says is actually connected to their real objectives. Thus, the statements seem irrational, disconnected from reality/capabilities. But it's possible that their true objectives have little if anything to do with their apparent or stated objectives.
Taking a step back, what must Natostan have to sustain current power structures including the corruptocrats holding it together? Perpetual conflict. An Enemy. Natostan doesn't need or even want to win. (It could be argued that the end of the Cold War was a disaster for Natostan). The aim, then, of the propaganda and seemingly irrational talk by Natostani officials is aimed at their own people. It's a brain f% to perpetuate the fear of Russia and China and the need for uninterrupted war spending without actually being at war per se.
Natostan has no real intention of sending troops against Russia. At most they might put some sacrificial lambs in Odessa or Lviv, but only w the aim that Russia attack and provide the necessary fuel for more fear and war hysteria at home. Higher war spending, draconian police powers, oppressive policies justified by the omnipresent National Security Threat.
At the end of the day, Russia and China are most important as boogeymen used to frighten and silence domestic audiences growing increasingly restless under a clearly gangster government.
I see you’ve been brushing up on strategic planning. Clausewitz is a classic reference, though a limited one with respect to a Russian involvement. “The” reference studied everywhere including in US military academies, by think tanks and scholars is “Strategy”, written by Aleksandr Andreyevich Svechin (of whom Gerasimov is an avid student), and as a detail filler, “The Evolution Of Operational Art” by Georgii Samoilovich Isserson. Svechin’s tome is the distillation of two years teaching and theorizing at the premiere Soviet military academy, and a career’s worth of practical experience, plus voracious reading and studying military history including such as the American Civil War.
Read that and as you do, reflect on what Russia has been doing the past two years. Read Isserson to understand how technology affected how operational art evolved according to technological advancements in the effective range of weaponry available to armies over the ages, and many other fascinating war fighting tactical changes that were necessitated, and why.
Your aside regarding Tukachevski warrants greater detail. Though, as you noted, other essays be required. Still, he represented an alternate strategic plan (war of destruction) to Svechin’s prognosis (given the nation’s inferior situation with industry) for the best Soviet way of war in any upcoming war (WWII), and which the Tukachevski rendition was rapidly proven not a happy plan, but the one the Red Army started with in that war.
Svechin’s very very detailed description of the sort of holistic strategic plan, and what he referred to as “permanent” mobilization of all fronts: social, economic, political, class, and military met with much criticism from the military establishment types, and his penchant for taking the piss out of that establishment didn’t endear him. Eventually Soviets regrouped after a very bad start, and adopted much of Svechin’s ideas, though as reward he was disappeared and likely executed. So goes offending one’s elders, yes? His book just reverberates repeatedly with what we’ve witnessed unfolding in Ukraine.
Many points you made could I contribute to with examples, but I will not. But for one…
The Russians SMO operational plan fairly quickly moved from assaulting well fortified cities (Mariupol, Bahkmut), and much losses, to ramping up industry to produce the necessary weapons to thoroughly process such fortifications using artillery, drone surveillance and attacks, and glide bombs. Only after the iron rains do they allow the smoke to clear, assess things, process their enemy further as needed, then send in smaller assault groups (BTG) to push west, and mop up. It is now a well proven formula. And done with minimal losses. Meanwhile, rear area attrition goes on to destroy command, supply, transport, and energy systems.
You spent a lot of effort to describe how unready is NATO for any face off. What’s astonishing is how the western “strategy” failed to mobilize almost every aspect of the holistic war planning Svechin’s book outlined. For a while I kept wondering, “what’s the plan?” Until it just became evident that it really believed Russia was a paper tiger. There was no plan for what if it’s not. No ramping up of industry, no economic planning to gear for war, no social, class or political coordination, but for the PR infowar apparatus to go into hyperdrive. So, in lieu of all that, what’s left for USNATO is, “well, we still got nukes, so…” it’s a dangerous point. We see already Russia’s full understanding; activated non-strategic nuclear warfare training for other than specialist army groups underway. How to load an Iskander or a MiG.
These are not happy times.
A very cynical plan was all there was: use Slavs to kill Slavs, weaken and distract Russia. Looked at this way, the plan succeeded as soon as Russia moved into Donbass, and continues the success as long as Russians are dying. As for Ukrainians, well, people will get kilt. Neocon ethics at work.
Thank you, that's very useful. It's a long time since I had to concern myself with Soviet military planning , and then it was the RAND translations and Sokolovsky's Military Strategy. I agree there's no plan, other than one based on raciclaist assumptions about Russia quickly falling apart: even that I would describe as a heroic assumption, rather than a plan.
Sokolovski edited that book, circa 1963, one of whose writers (there were numerous contributors from various military branches) isas Valentin Larionov, the same who added an introductory essay to Svechin’s 1927 book. Obviously much had transpired in the interim. “Military Strategy” is heavily weighted toward the reality of nuclear war preparations and planning, and it fundamentally changes the concept of war from Svechin’s apprehension that an upcoming war for Soviet Russia would necessarily mean war of attrition. The writers of Military Strategy (1st and 2nd edition) rethought future war planning under very different circumstances and types of weapons. It became necessarily an emphasis upon the massive use of nukes in a preventive, or retaliatory first strike. Whether or not much remained afterwards to warrant any drawn out follow on was debated.
Military strategy had its critics among more conservative Russian military establishment quarters. But it seemed not to deviate too much from its 1st edition to its 2nd. There’s a very detailed Notes published by The US Air Force (and Rand) that goes almost statement by statement to divine differences between the two editions. I don’t know how deeply or inclined you are to wade into that.
My guess is that only further developments of weapons technology since ‘63 will have changed any particular parts of that revamped violent Initial Phase of War understanding, and as an understanding of current Russian nuclear doctrine, holds up.
To date, the fighting in Ukraine, and what I can make of the Russian strategy, is more a reflection of the Svechin take, a war of attrition, requiring a very focused economic mobilization. I think the recent announcement of a noted economist to be Minister of Defense makes clear that Russia understands this well. Though the background of some nuclear escalation certainly means that the Military Strategy outline remains highly relevant. These are interesting but terrible times.
Your essays are always useful too, and enjoyable reading. I’m no milstrat expert, just a reader. I hope you did not think of my comments as didactic. Meant only as informative.
When all the msm bs was being blabbed back in March ‘22, about impending Russian military collapse etc, and taking apart the perceived Russian strategic defects, I had to bone up on Russian thinking. Svechin’s book is so detailed about each aspect of a mobilization/war plan. I am tempted to do a chapter by chapter review. The opening commentaries from real experts is an incredible bonus, and then there are 3 critical appendices from contemporary Russian military establishment commenters, two of which are utterly dismissive, the other full endorsement. It’s worth getting ahold of, but can also be downloaded from various sites. I found a US war college source to download from, but then decided I wanted a hard copy for my shelf.
the psyops war of the MSM is also contradictory, like Russia is both just about ready to wage war on all of Europe and NATO, and its so completely incompetent it fails at beating the mighty Spartan (Ukrainian) warriors so of no concern. And if its such a massive problem for the West that they, and I quote "Must not let Russia win no matter what", then what exactly is NATO waiting? if that premise is true, and Russia will soon flood across into Europe, shouldn't you be sending all the NATO and US armies you can quickly muster to stop them? But here's some patriots and tanks, you dumb Slavs, go kill them for us?
“Contradiction” is a logical concept. When logic is irrelevant to belief, there’s no such thing. All things are possible, and barely so is as good as obviously so. Possible and probable blur.
One thing I find ironic, is that the previous generation of US diplomats spend 60+ years keeping Russia and China apart, since they knew all too well they would stand no chance if the Dragon and the Bear formed an Alliance. The current generation of Celebrity Politicians (aka Rock Star Blinken) have systematically dismantled all of their hard work, and now Russia and China have formed that very alliance the US was trying to prevent for so long, and with other pretty formidable powers like Korea and Iran, and even a neutral India, South Africa, and others worldwide who join everyday.
This. I was bewildered by the same almost a year ago. Kissinger was a horrible human being, but about keeping China and Russia divided where US strategic interests are concerned he was not wrong.
Re: “The West has wanted to bring down the current system in Russia for a long time, and more recently its leaders have also been afraid of growing Russian military power.”
The West wanted far more than bringing down the current system in Russia. It really wanted to dismember Russia into ineffective statelets –see the statements by Soros the elder, or Estonia’s Prime Minister Kaja Kallas- and continue with its (interrupted) rape of Russia’s natural resources and people (see Marat Khairullin: Russia I am Trying to Forget”). IMO the West had no idea of the true depth of Russian military capability until the SMO started. Perhaps the Russians did not either; but they had no choice-this conflict is existential for them, and for those of us who do not consider a future dominated by Western financial parasites a worthwhile one.
Ishmael Zechariah
Note, please, that Turkey is still a NATO member, and I assure you: we will have no part or parcel of confronting Russia in this gambit, irrespective of what “Biden”, “Blinken” , “Nudelman” or any other ziocon orders us to do. The common Turkish citizen now considers “The West” the primary enemy; especially after its craven acquiescence to the Gazan genocide.
So they should surrender and seek an accomodation with Russia, that is: negotiate about a security relationship based on the Dec 21 proposal from Moscow. Can we expect that? After feeling so super-superior for much over thirty years? If I look around here in this failed nation state of Germany I do not see any readiness to question this dilusional habit and shed all arrogance. At what point will realism set in? It is a very strange feeling for me being a citizen of this war-mongering state of Germany, opposing this direction that most seem to support, knowing that in spite of that I will have to suffer the consequences and still hoping for a thorough defeat of the ›West‹. But I do.
Very much appreciated - thank you! Obviously your lifetime of experience in back-room negotiations is coming through here, and is invaluable. Like some of the other commenters, I'm concerned about the basic terminal simplicity and even stupidity of the people who filter to the "top" in our societies. Not just the politicians, who seem to be mostly sock puppets these days, but the real brokers of power have got there through force of personality and a willingness to "team play" in the political process, more than actual competence. Vide the infamous "war game" in the Pentagon for what would happen if they attacked China. First and second run-throughs, they were destroyed. So they backed-up, rewrote the game program to eliminate the enemy's capacity from the equation, and lo and behold, this time they won! So nothing to see here. (described by a frustrated designer of the original program). More theatre.
"As the military phase of the crisis in Ukraine enters its long final stage, with the broad outcome now unmistakeable for all with eyes to see, you would hope that pundits, whatever their personal views on which football team they would like to win, would nonetheless accept reality, and start punditing about Europe and the world after a Russian victory. Yet such is the grip of conventional thinking and the fear of letting go of hallowed beliefs about the world, that this is hardly happening. Indeed, from all points of the ideological compass we hear of a menacing new stage in the evolution of the crisis, that of NATO intervention, or, as I suppose we should write it, NATO INTERVENTION. For some, the only way to “defeat” Russia and to “stop Putin,” is for NATO to “get involved,” whereas for others such intervention is a desperate US imperialist expedient which will simply provoke World War III and the end of the world."
I have said all along that this was coming, the result of Russian dithering and indecision in a war that Russia never wanted and does not want to have to fight. The West, by contrast, is absolutely itching for more war.
At every stage of intervention, we have heard that escalation is reckless, unpopular, ineffective and brings us that much closer to a nuclear exchange. All this has been true, and at every stage, the West has escalated anyway.
Anyway, NATO has a plan of sorts. Once Ukraine runs low on warm live bodies to soak up Russian munitions, then NATO will intervene.
This never really was about Ukraine or Ukrainians. Nobody in Kiev, Brussels or Washington cares about them any more than they care about the feelings of the chickens that go into McNuggets. No, this will not be popular with the population of any NATO member. Nobody will ask them.
Disappointed to see you poluting another comment section with your super duper NATO gonna crush the naive & weak Russians idiocy.
How many waves of NATO wunderwaffen have been sent to Ukraine?
And what have they achieved?
This substack article systematically obliterates your super duper NATO drivel.
What you perceive as Russian weakness is grown men managing a war to achieve the outcome they have set.
When this Zio American proxy war kicked off- Russia did not want war and was not prepared for war.
But after a certain point they concluded they had to prepare for full on war.
That takes time.
They have played for time, while at the same time attritting AmeriNATO.
Russia is setting up to take control of most of Ukraine. They will likely leave the Lviv/Polish border area as a poison pill for Poland.
There is not a damn thing NATO can do about this- short of nuclear war- in which case all discussion about strategy & outcome is moot- the "west" will be a smoking irradiated moonscape- likely much of Russia to.
Take your super duper NATO and stick it where the sun don't shine.
You've likely read the criticism of Zelensky by a former aide, in which he alludes that Zelensky is being kept 'in a warm bath', implying that he is told whatever he wants to hear so that he won't snap and start laying about him with a stick. Well, this article is like a warm bath for anyone who thinks NATO is about as likely to run a marathon hopping on one foot as it is to directly and openly intervene in Ukraine, regardless the bombast from Madeleine-Albright devotees who still picture this gigantic, ferocious, unstoppable military machine. Ahhhhh....common sense, nothing so comforting as that! Very well done, and the participation of the Ghost of Clausewitz was both inspired and more believable than the Ghost of Kyiv.
Other disagreeable facts which get in the way of a smooth narrative in which a muscular NATO flexes offstage a few times, and then strides into the ring to make Ivan slide to the canvas with X's where his eyes just were: immediately after Macron mused about NATO forces possibly entering to help out the beleaguered Ukrainians, polls suggested 70% of the French population was opposed to the idea. More to the point, NATO countries have steadily taken a reef in their recruiting goals, which only makes missing the target a little less embarrassing. The Bundeswehr, despite ambitious plans for a force of 203,000 by 2031, sank by 1,500 in 2023 to its present 181,500. The British Army has not met an annual recruiting target since 2010, while recent analysis (admittedly by one of the UK's biggest defense contractors with an obvious vested interest) of its Air Defense capability rated it as 'negligible' and comparing unfavourably to that of Poland. The US Army today constitutes the smallest full-time force since 1940, the year before the country entered the Second World War.
There's something to marcjf's argument that the persuasion of common sense seldom imposes much of a braking effect on ideological loonies, but that eventuality looks more and more like a nuclear conflict rather than simply letting slip the dogs of war only to learn they are more like the cute puppies of war. While rippling off a wave of nukes is indeed a terrifying prospect, the actual process is a lot more complicated than most people think, mostly because of the possibility of it being short-circuited by ideological loonies. And considering the inevitable counterstrike, there is no plausible way you could sell a nuclear war with the world's biggest nuclear-weapons power simply because they were beating Ukraine in a war they actually did not start.
My sincere admiration for an excellent and well-argued piece of work.
However, there remains in the neocon foreign policy majority in DC a firm belief that Russians can be impacted by fear of US nuclear first strikes. So they'll talk it up to the maximum extent possible. It's brinkmanship. I can't imagine VVP being susceptible to this, but I know a lot of otherwise very smart people are buying into this exercise in bullshit. The goal is a negotiation when they've already lost and there's no real angle for Russia to negotiate.
Ask yourself this: when have they told the truth during this entire escapade?
You propose rational arguments, but I doubt the decision makers are rational. On some level, this is a religious war and belief takes precedence over reason. Anyway, that has been the case so far. Or would you call the western sanctions rational?
The main problem for NATO is that, outside officialdom and its media lackeys, there is zero enthusiasm for a direct war with Russia. Sending troops to the UA theatre would be very unpopular in all NATO countries, not to mention a draft. OK, maybe not the case for Poles and Baltics, but they will not go alone without US/UK/FR/DE going in first.
As a matter of fact, and in the particular case of France, any attempt to send combat troops might backfire. French generals would certainly get the tanks rolling, but not the Donbass, but to the Elysee Palace to remove Macron by force. This has been recently suggested by anti-Establishment politicians like Florian Philippot, overtly asking the generals to disobey such orders.
I think the basic assumption is that if NATOs airfare got involved it would achieve air superiority. Then it could turn it into every other turkey shoot against third world shitholes we've had for years, where our ground forces just move in on already defeated enemies bombed from the air with impunity.
I can't comment on if this is possible, though I suspect that its a riskier strategy then anywhere else its been tried.
If this is tried and fails in Ukraine then NATO forces will be subject to the same attritional factors as the Ukranians, and it will not take many casualties before NATO voters rebel.
New subscriber here. Thank you for your insights and this well-written piece. I recently started writing on Substack myself and will certainly use your essays as inspiration.
I agree that one of NATO’s main problems is the lack of consensus among its members. Perhaps this is a good thing. However, I suspect that any intervention in Ukraine would not be aimed at achieving a military objective but rather at creating enough ambiguity about their capabilities and intentions to force Russia to escalate in a way that would backfire later.
As far as I can tell from open sources there are about 70 000 US combat troops in Europe, more or less non of them close to Ukraine. That seems to imply that the additional 20 000 military stationed in Poland in 2022 have been withdrawn.
And on the efficiency of NATO let me remind you of the scaling up of the rapid response force to 300 000 that Stoltenberg spoke of two years ago.
What has happened since? Absolutely nothing, at least according to the fact sheet on the NATO site. They are still at 40 000.
As to the future development in Ukraine, let me paraphrase that great English band we both know and love:
Excellent essay . It needs to be read by every Politician and Political Commentator in NATO . Unfortunately it is unlikely that any of them ever will .
A good essay, well argued and laid out, and very rational. The flaw, and mirroring other comments, is that you appear argue that because something is irrational - it will not or is unlikely to happen. Now that is also the way I think, but not the way IMHO the world at large works. The stupidity and venality of assorted politicians should never be underestimated. Add to this the almost certain sub-optimal outcome of group/committee decision making and I would say there is a near 100% chance of someone somewhere doing something stupid and irrational. So altogether a dangerous time.
Oh, I agree that much of politics is irrational, and I have often said as much. My point was that irrationality is nonetheless constrained by what it's actually possible to do: in this case not much.
I think I may have been too black and whte in my comment [on reflection], but what is possible to do and what someone believes is possible to do are of course different things. My fear is that - based on the serial miscalculations of the West to date - that "they" believe it might be possible to do what is not. I judge Western decisions makers to be poorly advised on the whole and fed information from sources which tailor it [?] - reflected in the media but also the [serious?] think tank type places. It is career limiting to be an outlier on opinion these days. The PMC writ large? Easier to go with the flow than use the thing that is supposed to exist between ones ears? Anyway - no offence intended but I retain my doubts that any of this has a sane outcome.
Exactly. Expect idiots to do idiotic things. That's what idiots do. And that's why I'm increasingly worried.
If the word idiot means anything it means being incapable, the things he does do nothing, the origins of the word are in the 'personal' and not the 'public'
If you prefer to say irrational, which some do, this means incapacity born of inattention to reality, and preferring to believe this is un necessary
Aurelien demonstrates the opposite is required when it come to war
By the way, thanks for recommending this link/writer.
Hmmm...i wonder. When an opponent seems irrational or deluded you must always consider the possibility that you simply dont understand their objectives.
Re Ukraine we assume that what Natostan says is actually connected to their real objectives. Thus, the statements seem irrational, disconnected from reality/capabilities. But it's possible that their true objectives have little if anything to do with their apparent or stated objectives.
Taking a step back, what must Natostan have to sustain current power structures including the corruptocrats holding it together? Perpetual conflict. An Enemy. Natostan doesn't need or even want to win. (It could be argued that the end of the Cold War was a disaster for Natostan). The aim, then, of the propaganda and seemingly irrational talk by Natostani officials is aimed at their own people. It's a brain f% to perpetuate the fear of Russia and China and the need for uninterrupted war spending without actually being at war per se.
Natostan has no real intention of sending troops against Russia. At most they might put some sacrificial lambs in Odessa or Lviv, but only w the aim that Russia attack and provide the necessary fuel for more fear and war hysteria at home. Higher war spending, draconian police powers, oppressive policies justified by the omnipresent National Security Threat.
At the end of the day, Russia and China are most important as boogeymen used to frighten and silence domestic audiences growing increasingly restless under a clearly gangster government.
I think you´re absolutely right! I think it perfectly ADDS POLITICALLY to what Aurelien wrote here from a military point of view.
The essence of the human social dynamic is chaos. Rationality is not a strong suit. Sapiens is an emotional creature. Ego, greed, anger, fervor, fear.
I see you’ve been brushing up on strategic planning. Clausewitz is a classic reference, though a limited one with respect to a Russian involvement. “The” reference studied everywhere including in US military academies, by think tanks and scholars is “Strategy”, written by Aleksandr Andreyevich Svechin (of whom Gerasimov is an avid student), and as a detail filler, “The Evolution Of Operational Art” by Georgii Samoilovich Isserson. Svechin’s tome is the distillation of two years teaching and theorizing at the premiere Soviet military academy, and a career’s worth of practical experience, plus voracious reading and studying military history including such as the American Civil War.
Read that and as you do, reflect on what Russia has been doing the past two years. Read Isserson to understand how technology affected how operational art evolved according to technological advancements in the effective range of weaponry available to armies over the ages, and many other fascinating war fighting tactical changes that were necessitated, and why.
Your aside regarding Tukachevski warrants greater detail. Though, as you noted, other essays be required. Still, he represented an alternate strategic plan (war of destruction) to Svechin’s prognosis (given the nation’s inferior situation with industry) for the best Soviet way of war in any upcoming war (WWII), and which the Tukachevski rendition was rapidly proven not a happy plan, but the one the Red Army started with in that war.
Svechin’s very very detailed description of the sort of holistic strategic plan, and what he referred to as “permanent” mobilization of all fronts: social, economic, political, class, and military met with much criticism from the military establishment types, and his penchant for taking the piss out of that establishment didn’t endear him. Eventually Soviets regrouped after a very bad start, and adopted much of Svechin’s ideas, though as reward he was disappeared and likely executed. So goes offending one’s elders, yes? His book just reverberates repeatedly with what we’ve witnessed unfolding in Ukraine.
Many points you made could I contribute to with examples, but I will not. But for one…
The Russians SMO operational plan fairly quickly moved from assaulting well fortified cities (Mariupol, Bahkmut), and much losses, to ramping up industry to produce the necessary weapons to thoroughly process such fortifications using artillery, drone surveillance and attacks, and glide bombs. Only after the iron rains do they allow the smoke to clear, assess things, process their enemy further as needed, then send in smaller assault groups (BTG) to push west, and mop up. It is now a well proven formula. And done with minimal losses. Meanwhile, rear area attrition goes on to destroy command, supply, transport, and energy systems.
You spent a lot of effort to describe how unready is NATO for any face off. What’s astonishing is how the western “strategy” failed to mobilize almost every aspect of the holistic war planning Svechin’s book outlined. For a while I kept wondering, “what’s the plan?” Until it just became evident that it really believed Russia was a paper tiger. There was no plan for what if it’s not. No ramping up of industry, no economic planning to gear for war, no social, class or political coordination, but for the PR infowar apparatus to go into hyperdrive. So, in lieu of all that, what’s left for USNATO is, “well, we still got nukes, so…” it’s a dangerous point. We see already Russia’s full understanding; activated non-strategic nuclear warfare training for other than specialist army groups underway. How to load an Iskander or a MiG.
These are not happy times.
A very cynical plan was all there was: use Slavs to kill Slavs, weaken and distract Russia. Looked at this way, the plan succeeded as soon as Russia moved into Donbass, and continues the success as long as Russians are dying. As for Ukrainians, well, people will get kilt. Neocon ethics at work.
Thank you, that's very useful. It's a long time since I had to concern myself with Soviet military planning , and then it was the RAND translations and Sokolovsky's Military Strategy. I agree there's no plan, other than one based on raciclaist assumptions about Russia quickly falling apart: even that I would describe as a heroic assumption, rather than a plan.
Sokolovski edited that book, circa 1963, one of whose writers (there were numerous contributors from various military branches) isas Valentin Larionov, the same who added an introductory essay to Svechin’s 1927 book. Obviously much had transpired in the interim. “Military Strategy” is heavily weighted toward the reality of nuclear war preparations and planning, and it fundamentally changes the concept of war from Svechin’s apprehension that an upcoming war for Soviet Russia would necessarily mean war of attrition. The writers of Military Strategy (1st and 2nd edition) rethought future war planning under very different circumstances and types of weapons. It became necessarily an emphasis upon the massive use of nukes in a preventive, or retaliatory first strike. Whether or not much remained afterwards to warrant any drawn out follow on was debated.
Military strategy had its critics among more conservative Russian military establishment quarters. But it seemed not to deviate too much from its 1st edition to its 2nd. There’s a very detailed Notes published by The US Air Force (and Rand) that goes almost statement by statement to divine differences between the two editions. I don’t know how deeply or inclined you are to wade into that.
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD0600081.pdf
My guess is that only further developments of weapons technology since ‘63 will have changed any particular parts of that revamped violent Initial Phase of War understanding, and as an understanding of current Russian nuclear doctrine, holds up.
To date, the fighting in Ukraine, and what I can make of the Russian strategy, is more a reflection of the Svechin take, a war of attrition, requiring a very focused economic mobilization. I think the recent announcement of a noted economist to be Minister of Defense makes clear that Russia understands this well. Though the background of some nuclear escalation certainly means that the Military Strategy outline remains highly relevant. These are interesting but terrible times.
You can download Svechin’s Strategy here:
https://zlib.pub/book/strategy-tgq58isbu1o0
Your essays are always useful too, and enjoyable reading. I’m no milstrat expert, just a reader. I hope you did not think of my comments as didactic. Meant only as informative.
When all the msm bs was being blabbed back in March ‘22, about impending Russian military collapse etc, and taking apart the perceived Russian strategic defects, I had to bone up on Russian thinking. Svechin’s book is so detailed about each aspect of a mobilization/war plan. I am tempted to do a chapter by chapter review. The opening commentaries from real experts is an incredible bonus, and then there are 3 critical appendices from contemporary Russian military establishment commenters, two of which are utterly dismissive, the other full endorsement. It’s worth getting ahold of, but can also be downloaded from various sites. I found a US war college source to download from, but then decided I wanted a hard copy for my shelf.
Thank you for always good writing!
the psyops war of the MSM is also contradictory, like Russia is both just about ready to wage war on all of Europe and NATO, and its so completely incompetent it fails at beating the mighty Spartan (Ukrainian) warriors so of no concern. And if its such a massive problem for the West that they, and I quote "Must not let Russia win no matter what", then what exactly is NATO waiting? if that premise is true, and Russia will soon flood across into Europe, shouldn't you be sending all the NATO and US armies you can quickly muster to stop them? But here's some patriots and tanks, you dumb Slavs, go kill them for us?
“Contradiction” is a logical concept. When logic is irrelevant to belief, there’s no such thing. All things are possible, and barely so is as good as obviously so. Possible and probable blur.
in psyops one has to have two elements, the carrot and the stick, both at the same time
You may observe that this has worked very well
Study the Yugoslav wars, USA wanted the repeat of that scenario. Unfortunately for them, Russia ain't Serbia.
...but NATO countries are increasingly likely to get their wish. At home.
One thing I find ironic, is that the previous generation of US diplomats spend 60+ years keeping Russia and China apart, since they knew all too well they would stand no chance if the Dragon and the Bear formed an Alliance. The current generation of Celebrity Politicians (aka Rock Star Blinken) have systematically dismantled all of their hard work, and now Russia and China have formed that very alliance the US was trying to prevent for so long, and with other pretty formidable powers like Korea and Iran, and even a neutral India, South Africa, and others worldwide who join everyday.
They must be spinning in their graves.
This. I was bewildered by the same almost a year ago. Kissinger was a horrible human being, but about keeping China and Russia divided where US strategic interests are concerned he was not wrong.
Zbigniew Brzezinski!
„As unlikely as it might be…!“
Re: “The West has wanted to bring down the current system in Russia for a long time, and more recently its leaders have also been afraid of growing Russian military power.”
The West wanted far more than bringing down the current system in Russia. It really wanted to dismember Russia into ineffective statelets –see the statements by Soros the elder, or Estonia’s Prime Minister Kaja Kallas- and continue with its (interrupted) rape of Russia’s natural resources and people (see Marat Khairullin: Russia I am Trying to Forget”). IMO the West had no idea of the true depth of Russian military capability until the SMO started. Perhaps the Russians did not either; but they had no choice-this conflict is existential for them, and for those of us who do not consider a future dominated by Western financial parasites a worthwhile one.
Ishmael Zechariah
Note, please, that Turkey is still a NATO member, and I assure you: we will have no part or parcel of confronting Russia in this gambit, irrespective of what “Biden”, “Blinken” , “Nudelman” or any other ziocon orders us to do. The common Turkish citizen now considers “The West” the primary enemy; especially after its craven acquiescence to the Gazan genocide.
So they should surrender and seek an accomodation with Russia, that is: negotiate about a security relationship based on the Dec 21 proposal from Moscow. Can we expect that? After feeling so super-superior for much over thirty years? If I look around here in this failed nation state of Germany I do not see any readiness to question this dilusional habit and shed all arrogance. At what point will realism set in? It is a very strange feeling for me being a citizen of this war-mongering state of Germany, opposing this direction that most seem to support, knowing that in spite of that I will have to suffer the consequences and still hoping for a thorough defeat of the ›West‹. But I do.
Same here, as an Englishman. I feel nothing but contempt for western leaders except for Orban & Slovakia leader Fico.
Yes. Sometimes I think: thank god they are so stupid. Imagine they were smart!
But I am not sure whether a western failure of the battlefield is not exactly the real danger. The nuclear option is the option of the loser.
Very much appreciated - thank you! Obviously your lifetime of experience in back-room negotiations is coming through here, and is invaluable. Like some of the other commenters, I'm concerned about the basic terminal simplicity and even stupidity of the people who filter to the "top" in our societies. Not just the politicians, who seem to be mostly sock puppets these days, but the real brokers of power have got there through force of personality and a willingness to "team play" in the political process, more than actual competence. Vide the infamous "war game" in the Pentagon for what would happen if they attacked China. First and second run-throughs, they were destroyed. So they backed-up, rewrote the game program to eliminate the enemy's capacity from the equation, and lo and behold, this time they won! So nothing to see here. (described by a frustrated designer of the original program). More theatre.
If you can’t win a war win an imaginary one. Discovered by Will Shryver.
Brilliant piece, thank you for such a clear and logical run-through. Whole lot of hot air in the media these days...
"As the military phase of the crisis in Ukraine enters its long final stage, with the broad outcome now unmistakeable for all with eyes to see, you would hope that pundits, whatever their personal views on which football team they would like to win, would nonetheless accept reality, and start punditing about Europe and the world after a Russian victory. Yet such is the grip of conventional thinking and the fear of letting go of hallowed beliefs about the world, that this is hardly happening. Indeed, from all points of the ideological compass we hear of a menacing new stage in the evolution of the crisis, that of NATO intervention, or, as I suppose we should write it, NATO INTERVENTION. For some, the only way to “defeat” Russia and to “stop Putin,” is for NATO to “get involved,” whereas for others such intervention is a desperate US imperialist expedient which will simply provoke World War III and the end of the world."
I have said all along that this was coming, the result of Russian dithering and indecision in a war that Russia never wanted and does not want to have to fight. The West, by contrast, is absolutely itching for more war.
At every stage of intervention, we have heard that escalation is reckless, unpopular, ineffective and brings us that much closer to a nuclear exchange. All this has been true, and at every stage, the West has escalated anyway.
Anyway, NATO has a plan of sorts. Once Ukraine runs low on warm live bodies to soak up Russian munitions, then NATO will intervene.
This never really was about Ukraine or Ukrainians. Nobody in Kiev, Brussels or Washington cares about them any more than they care about the feelings of the chickens that go into McNuggets. No, this will not be popular with the population of any NATO member. Nobody will ask them.
As ridiculous as it sounds at first, I think more people in Moscow care about Ukrainians than in Brussels or Washington
Not ridiculous at all. For that matter, Putin cares more about Ukrainians than does anyone in Kiev.
You didn't read the article - NATO is incapable of intervening.
We've heard that one before at every stage of escalation. Obviously NATO is reading something different than Aurelien.
Lest anyone doubt:
https://x.com/mtracey/status/1793092810700476583?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1793092810700476583%7Ctwgr%5E3ec1c0c1b65099099e4138be4e59f08377ec903c%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nakedcapitalism.com%2F2024%2F05%2Flinks-5-22-2024.html
It's coming.
This link worked for me:
https://x.com/mtracey/status/1793092810700476583?
Disappointed to see you poluting another comment section with your super duper NATO gonna crush the naive & weak Russians idiocy.
How many waves of NATO wunderwaffen have been sent to Ukraine?
And what have they achieved?
This substack article systematically obliterates your super duper NATO drivel.
What you perceive as Russian weakness is grown men managing a war to achieve the outcome they have set.
When this Zio American proxy war kicked off- Russia did not want war and was not prepared for war.
But after a certain point they concluded they had to prepare for full on war.
That takes time.
They have played for time, while at the same time attritting AmeriNATO.
Russia is setting up to take control of most of Ukraine. They will likely leave the Lviv/Polish border area as a poison pill for Poland.
There is not a damn thing NATO can do about this- short of nuclear war- in which case all discussion about strategy & outcome is moot- the "west" will be a smoking irradiated moonscape- likely much of Russia to.
Take your super duper NATO and stick it where the sun don't shine.
Try not arguing with points I didn't make.
Anyway, American weapons are hitting Russia now.
Little steps do add up.
You've likely read the criticism of Zelensky by a former aide, in which he alludes that Zelensky is being kept 'in a warm bath', implying that he is told whatever he wants to hear so that he won't snap and start laying about him with a stick. Well, this article is like a warm bath for anyone who thinks NATO is about as likely to run a marathon hopping on one foot as it is to directly and openly intervene in Ukraine, regardless the bombast from Madeleine-Albright devotees who still picture this gigantic, ferocious, unstoppable military machine. Ahhhhh....common sense, nothing so comforting as that! Very well done, and the participation of the Ghost of Clausewitz was both inspired and more believable than the Ghost of Kyiv.
Other disagreeable facts which get in the way of a smooth narrative in which a muscular NATO flexes offstage a few times, and then strides into the ring to make Ivan slide to the canvas with X's where his eyes just were: immediately after Macron mused about NATO forces possibly entering to help out the beleaguered Ukrainians, polls suggested 70% of the French population was opposed to the idea. More to the point, NATO countries have steadily taken a reef in their recruiting goals, which only makes missing the target a little less embarrassing. The Bundeswehr, despite ambitious plans for a force of 203,000 by 2031, sank by 1,500 in 2023 to its present 181,500. The British Army has not met an annual recruiting target since 2010, while recent analysis (admittedly by one of the UK's biggest defense contractors with an obvious vested interest) of its Air Defense capability rated it as 'negligible' and comparing unfavourably to that of Poland. The US Army today constitutes the smallest full-time force since 1940, the year before the country entered the Second World War.
There's something to marcjf's argument that the persuasion of common sense seldom imposes much of a braking effect on ideological loonies, but that eventuality looks more and more like a nuclear conflict rather than simply letting slip the dogs of war only to learn they are more like the cute puppies of war. While rippling off a wave of nukes is indeed a terrifying prospect, the actual process is a lot more complicated than most people think, mostly because of the possibility of it being short-circuited by ideological loonies. And considering the inevitable counterstrike, there is no plausible way you could sell a nuclear war with the world's biggest nuclear-weapons power simply because they were beating Ukraine in a war they actually did not start.
My sincere admiration for an excellent and well-argued piece of work.
However, there remains in the neocon foreign policy majority in DC a firm belief that Russians can be impacted by fear of US nuclear first strikes. So they'll talk it up to the maximum extent possible. It's brinkmanship. I can't imagine VVP being susceptible to this, but I know a lot of otherwise very smart people are buying into this exercise in bullshit. The goal is a negotiation when they've already lost and there's no real angle for Russia to negotiate.
Ask yourself this: when have they told the truth during this entire escapade?
You propose rational arguments, but I doubt the decision makers are rational. On some level, this is a religious war and belief takes precedence over reason. Anyway, that has been the case so far. Or would you call the western sanctions rational?
Boomerang sanctions, whilst not forgetting the destruction of the N2 pipeline.
The main problem for NATO is that, outside officialdom and its media lackeys, there is zero enthusiasm for a direct war with Russia. Sending troops to the UA theatre would be very unpopular in all NATO countries, not to mention a draft. OK, maybe not the case for Poles and Baltics, but they will not go alone without US/UK/FR/DE going in first.
As a matter of fact, and in the particular case of France, any attempt to send combat troops might backfire. French generals would certainly get the tanks rolling, but not the Donbass, but to the Elysee Palace to remove Macron by force. This has been recently suggested by anti-Establishment politicians like Florian Philippot, overtly asking the generals to disobey such orders.
I suspect that tractors in Paris is the least of what Macron will be facing if he makes any attempt to send French soldiers off to the Russian front.
Adduciing unelectable, far-right loonies like Philippot does not do much to support your case.
I think the basic assumption is that if NATOs airfare got involved it would achieve air superiority. Then it could turn it into every other turkey shoot against third world shitholes we've had for years, where our ground forces just move in on already defeated enemies bombed from the air with impunity.
I can't comment on if this is possible, though I suspect that its a riskier strategy then anywhere else its been tried.
If this is tried and fails in Ukraine then NATO forces will be subject to the same attritional factors as the Ukranians, and it will not take many casualties before NATO voters rebel.
The game has changed, but the playbooks have stayed the same.
New subscriber here. Thank you for your insights and this well-written piece. I recently started writing on Substack myself and will certainly use your essays as inspiration.
I agree that one of NATO’s main problems is the lack of consensus among its members. Perhaps this is a good thing. However, I suspect that any intervention in Ukraine would not be aimed at achieving a military objective but rather at creating enough ambiguity about their capabilities and intentions to force Russia to escalate in a way that would backfire later.
I totally agree, Aurelien.
As far as I can tell from open sources there are about 70 000 US combat troops in Europe, more or less non of them close to Ukraine. That seems to imply that the additional 20 000 military stationed in Poland in 2022 have been withdrawn.
And on the efficiency of NATO let me remind you of the scaling up of the rapid response force to 300 000 that Stoltenberg spoke of two years ago.
What has happened since? Absolutely nothing, at least according to the fact sheet on the NATO site. They are still at 40 000.
As to the future development in Ukraine, let me paraphrase that great English band we both know and love:
Never mind the NATO
here’s the red army!
Excellent essay . It needs to be read by every Politician and Political Commentator in NATO . Unfortunately it is unlikely that any of them ever will .
They know. They don't care.
No. They don’t know. And those who know are marginalized.