I'd have to agree with you there. War is a most terrible thing and even if you "win" it often is a most costly and painful affair. I think the point you make is correct that it's likely that NATO or the UN is going to have to enforce some sort of border agreement. Unfortunately, that's the way things are when you aren't a super power.
I can see the Ukrainian Forces develop into a very niche specialist outfit, in particular with emphasis on drone warfare. They will obviously have to demob after the cessation of hostilities but they will definitely have a core of good professional fighters.
Thank you so much for the conversation by the way!
The Ukrainians received a lot of training from our side prior to the current conflict. One example being OP UNIFIER which was the CAF contribution that trained the Ukrainian Forces.
I think a big advantage that the Ukrainians have currently is that the western/NATO battle doctrine encourages (theoretically) initiative and action at all rank levels whilst the Russian doctrine seems to require strict obedience to hierarchy. Something that was trained into us was "if you have no idea what to do next, win the war/act decisively".
What do you think might be some good steps for Ukraine after the conflict and if they are victorious? I think one of the areas that Ukraine was definitely lacking in at the outset was their Naval forces. I'd suggest that a small professional submarine force would be a good place for them.
I would argue that one of the major advantages that our friends in Ukraine have is that they are using both playbooks. Consider, for the great majority of the twentieth century, the Ukrainian Forces were a vitally integral part of the USSR and thus learned to fight in the Soviet style. However, upon the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Ukrainians began to develop closer ties with NATO and NATO aligned countries, thus learning some of our battle strategy, which was, for the most part, designed to counter the USSR and their way of warfare. So essentially, they know what the Russians will likely try and also they know what steps should be taken to counter those actions.
I suspect we have strayed somewhat from the original topic under discussion, but that's fine with me!
Ah, wonderful that you're familiar with Sun Tzu! Indeed he did write about this, in particular how the acme of generalship was to "balk the enemy's plans". The whole concept has just been refined and reframed using twentieth and twenty-first century terms and context. However, his basic premise remains as true as it was back then.
Now, most state on state conflict these days isn't phalanx on attack helicopter as both sides have broadly equivalent firepower and capabilities. As such it really does come down to doctrinal differences. For instance, in the First Gulf War, Iraqi C2 was crippled via precision attacks which severely hampered their ability to respond to Coalition ground attack. Yes, the Abrams and the Challenger tanks heavily outclassed the Iraqi armour, however, it was due to the Coalition having overwhelming situational awareness and being able to exploit the weaknesses that developed after the initial strikes.
I must say, I am truly enjoying this discussion! You bring up some really good points!
Actually yes. A not insignificant part of battle planning is to try and disrupt the opposing side's OODA loop. The whole idea was to make it so you could react faster and more appropriately.
Lots of the tools and information processing systems used in the modern battlefield are designed to quickly take raw data and present that into a format which the decision maker can use to actually make the correct decision.
Which is why I am leery of using AI in this fashion. Oh sure, if you want to use it to create a briefing note on the forecasted widget usages, meeting minutes about the feasibility of a Christmas party at Montana's or so on, that's fine but to actually parse and data that will result in application of lethal force is a whole different kettle of fish.
Now yes, there are currently systems that are Auto Engage, but they are very much not AI and the only thing they are generally used for is anti air defense where you have a very limited window in which to successfully prosecute a threat.
It can be, but that's not the context in which it is being used here. The actual warfighting significance of the "battle rhythm" is derived from the older OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) Loop concept which was how a conflict was to be prosecuted until you were victorious. The idea being that if you could get through your OODA loop faster and more correctly than the opposing side you would outmaneuver and outfight them.
You would thus have a warfighting battle rhythm which set up the inputs that would feed into a however you were processing the information leading to a decision point that would result in an executable plan to be carried out. You would then observe the follow on impacts of that execution and then the process starts all over again.
The crux of the idea is that, due to the abundance of practical cases and information gleaned from various exercises, you know exactly how fast you can gather the info, process it, decide and execute and this you can set up a timeline for your entire operation.
Never turns out that way in practice though due to what our friend Mr. Clausewitz referred to as "friction". It can also lead to indecision as you get stuck on the "observe" and "decide" parts and then folks start chucking the responsibility for that decision upwards as they seek a perfect solution. Which is why I tend to advise "an okay plan applied immediately and vigorously is far better than a perfect plan ten minutes too late".
Frieren: nods sagely