Russia-Ukraine War 2022 - Page 241 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15228086
It's being reported that Putin is getting more involved in the operational level decision making. This is bad news for Russia. Historically, this doesn't go well when a non-military leader starts making operational decisions.

I'm trying to understand why/how Igor thinks Ukraine is at the edge of having its back broken. He seems to have been claiming this for weeks now. What exactly is going right for Russia that has him thinking like this?

A massive supposedly #2 or #3 military power, has failed in two campaigns (Kyiv, Kharkiv... more importantly, do regime change), and is stalled on the main battle front. Kherson, Mariupol, Melitopol are probably the only real strategic wins here, but that was weeks ago now.
Last edited by Rancid on 18 May 2022 16:34, edited 1 time in total.
#15228088
@Rancid

It's almost like Putin is making the same mistakes as Adolf Hitler in that Adolf Hitler got involved in operational planning instead of permitting his generals to do their job with disastrous consequences for Germany.
#15228090
Politics_Observer wrote:@Rancid

It's almost like Putin is making the same mistakes as Adolf Hitler in that Adolf Hitler got involved in operational planning instead of permitting his generals to do their job with disastrous consequences for Germany.


It's also a clear sign of the failures of Russia during this war. The good news is, this sort of involvement by Putin will help accelerate more failures/blunders. To this I say "yes PUtin, please go ahead and interfere with the generals" :lol:

Somehow though, Igor thinks Russia is "steam rolling" Ukraine. :lol:
#15228094
Another great news from thriving Mother Russia, announced by the Kremlin (Peskov) itself - the Moskvitch is back! :lol:



Rancid wrote:It's being reported that Putin is getting more involved in the operational level decision making.

Putin involved in war ‘at level of colonel or brigadier’, say western sources

What can a leader do when he experiences such a high level of incompetence among his subordinates, especially in such a top-down organisation as the Russian army, especially in wartime?

He may get involved at level of colonel because he was lieutenant-colonel himself. :lol:
Last edited by Beren on 18 May 2022 16:28, edited 1 time in total.
#15228098
Politics_Observer wrote:@Rancid

It's almost like Putin is making the same mistakes as Adolf Hitler in that Adolf Hitler got involved in operational planning instead of permitting his generals to do their job with disastrous consequences for Germany.


@Rancid

It is not necessarily bad by itself that he is getting involved. Hitler was correct in the objectives that his generals couldn't understand. Military strategy is not the same as a strategy from the person who is leading a country. Hitlers push since day 1 for Caucases oil was correct and people like Halder undermined that plan. Hitler specifically said that Barbarossas initial objective was obviously to defeat the USSR and make them capitulate but specifically to capture the Baku oil. He pushed that after it was clear that Barbarossa was not going to capitulate Russia but his main planners didn't even listen that well. Then Stalingrad only happened in 1943 basically which should have been in 1941 by Hitlers logic.

What I am trying to say that the downside of being involved is that you will be "guilty" of the loss of sorts like the Tsar but the leader taking main charge puts the overall strategic objectives straight. So its a complicated subject.
#15228101
JohnRawls wrote:
@Rancid

It is not necessarily bad by itself that he is getting involved. Hitler was correct in the objectives that his generals couldn't understand. Military strategy is not the same as a strategy from the person who is leading a country. Hitlers push since day 1 for Caucases oil was correct and people like Halder undermined that plan. Hitler specifically said that Barbarossas initial objective was obviously to defeat the USSR and make them capitulate but specifically to capture the Baku oil. He pushed that after it was clear that Barbarossa was not going to capitulate Russia but his main planners didn't even listen that well. Then Stalingrad only happened in 1943 basically which should have been in 1941 by Hitlers logic.

What I am trying to say that the downside of being involved is that you will be "guilty" of the loss of sorts like the Tsar but the leader taking main charge puts the overall strategic objectives straight. So its a complicated subject.


Maybe, but history still suggests, this is a bad move.

It is not strategy he is engaging in, but operational level stuff too. Micro managers usually fail.
#15228102
Rancid wrote:Maybe, but history still suggests, this is a bad move.

It is not strategy he is engaging in, but operational level stuff too. Micro managers usually fail.


Soviet system is micromanagement basically top to bottom command. In an ideal world it works better than the NATO decentralised system but we don't live in an ideal world which is the problem. Communications break, orders don't arrive, high level commanders not present on the field don't fully understnad what is happening on the field and so on.

It is like video games in a sense whatever you play. Age of Empires and other strategy games is basically the Soviet System that works when you have instant top to bottom and bottom to top feedback loops and communications. Can it work in real life? Well yes, Soviet Army wasn't as bad as the current Russian army and Soviets defeated plenty of their own enemies.

NATOs system is a bit different although very similar. NATO system is also centralised and top to bottom but the difference is that NATO/European military theory accepts German military thinking or basically Claushwitz and his best student Moltke. Discipline is required but warfare is an free artistic activity that requires localised decision making on place not necessarily by highest leadership all the time.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15228104
JohnRawls wrote:
Soviet system is micromanagement basically top to bottom command. In an ideal world it works better than the NATO decentralised system but we don't live in an ideal world which is the problem. Communications break, orders don't arrive, high level commanders not present on the field don't fully understnad what is happening on the field and so on.

It is like video games in a sense whatever you play. Age of Empires and other strategy games is basically the Soviet System that works when you have instant top to bottom and bottom to top feedback loops and communications. Can it work in real life? Well yes, Soviet Army wasn't as bad as the current Russian army and Soviets defeated plenty of their own enemies.

NATOs system is a bit different although very similar. NATO system is also centralised and top to bottom but the difference is that NATO/European military theory accepts German military thinking or basically Claushwitz and his best student Moltke. Discipline is required but warfare is an free artistic activity that requires localised decision making on place not necessarily by highest leadership all the time.


I thought it was Napoleon that innovated this localized decision making style, not the Germans?
#15228106
Rancid wrote:I thought it was Napoleon that innovated this localized decision making style, not the Germans?


Clausewitz introduced the concept of the fog of war which if you accept forces you to adapt to it.

War is the realm of uncertainty; three quarters of the factors on which action in war is based are wrapped in a fog of greater or lesser uncertainty. A sensitive and discriminating judgment is called for; a skilled intelligence to scent out the truth.


The TLDR of which is that you need to manage the fog of war and also revolve your tactics and strategy around it meaning that any planning is deficient in a sense that it is not possible to fully calculate, analyse and see everything at the moment nor are the actions that you take provide certain outcomes. The solution to this for the Prussians was a centralised military system but also decentralised decision making on lower levels. The orders need to be simple and understandable while the lower level personal are responsible for fullfilling them how they see fit on all levels. Discipline is strict with certain hierarchy but the decision making is not rigid as to be able to work with opportunities that arise from uncertainty and fog of war.
#15228107
Rancid wrote:It is not strategy he is engaging in, but operational level stuff too.

It seems he's commanding BTGs, which is pretty much analogous to if Hitler had been commanding divisions during Operation Barbarossa. I wonder if he was directly involved in the river-crossing fiasco as well.
#15228112
Beren wrote:It seems he's commanding BTGs, which is pretty much analogous to if Hitler had been commanding divisions during Operation Barbarossa. I wonder if he was directly involved in the river-crossing fiasco as well.


That would be fucking hilarious if he's the jackass that ordered the river crossing attempt.
Last edited by Rancid on 18 May 2022 20:38, edited 1 time in total.
#15228113
There is a saying, "No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy". That is why US leadership is empowered down to the platoon or even squad level. There is a leader on every tank capable of commanding the whole formation if necessary. Not only are they trained and commanded to execute their orders they are able to make command decisions to respond to the actions of the enemy. This is virtually the opposite of the Russian method.

Putin was a lieutenant colonel of the KGB. He was not a trained combat commander. Not trained in combat at all. Unlike US officers and noncoms who are all trained in combat operations to some extent regardless of their specialties, Putin was not as I understand it.
#15228122
Rancid wrote:That would be fucking hilarious if he's the jackass that ordered the river crossing attempt.

I'd imagine he got angry when he was reported again that things don't go to plan, while a river-crossing is somewhat symbolic as well, so he decided to intervene and pushed the BTG-commander(s) directly and personally, perhaps on phone or radio or something like that, so he most likely intervened at general rather than colonel level and stepped over a general actually.
#15228130
Beren wrote:Everything's just going fine for Russia, comrades. 8)


One just must love Lukashenko's demeanor. :lol:

This is a really heavily edited video with background music and stuff.

Economically the rouble is now at a three-year high. The western plan was always to make Russia economically unable to continue the war. Now the plan is to have Ukraine win militarily?
#15228133
Wulfschilde wrote:Economically the rouble is now at a three-year high. The western plan was always to make Russia economically unable to continue the war. Now the plan is to have Ukraine win militarily?


There is no "Western Plan". It is Ukraine's plan. Originally the Russian army was thought to be formidable. It has turned out to be very unprofessional. It is poorly commanded, poorly equipped and poorly motivated. Naturally, when it became clear that Ukraine could defeat the Russian Army, the plan changed. But from the start the "West" has only contrived to provide stuff and information. I do not want to take anything away from the Ukrainian Army which has fought magnificently.

I would bet a bunch of money on the fact that Putin is not aware of the scope of his defeat and has no clue what the real casualties have been.
#15228134
Wulfschilde wrote:This is a really heavily edited video with background music and stuff.

Economically the rouble is now at a three-year high. The western plan was always to make Russia economically unable to continue the war. Now the plan is to have Ukraine win militarily?

Russia GDP is -10 to -20 percent this year. We have cut off most technological exports to Russia and especially semiconductors. China is not willing to help and suffer secondary sanctions. In the economic sense we got them where we wanted them. Also without EU and US parts they can't really produce modern weapons including tanks and apcs funnily enough. I think that we did a good job.
  • 1
  • 239
  • 240
  • 241
  • 242
  • 243
  • 307
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Yes. THis is not a new statement, I've stated thi[…]

Not according to the article. The article says […]

Roe V. Wade to be Overturned

Please show evidence of this nonsense claim. I […]

Homeless update: Northern California

I recently attended two small discussion groups at[…]