How to Beat Russia [pdf]

[Idiot_in_Vain]

I hope Ukraine can beat Russia and liberate it's territory in 2014 borders, but it's far from a done deal. Currently Russia produces more ammo than all NATO countries combined. Ukraine allies need to open new assembly lines for ammo production, as a successful attack on the pretty well prepared Russian defences will take a ton of artillery shells.

Looks like Russia mobilized over half a million soldiers so far (while officially stating 300K). Their military factories are working on 3 shifts 24/7. When they produce enough equipment and weapons no doubt they'll do a new wave of mobilization. Long term Russia can mobilize more soldiers than Ukraine, so NATO has to compensate by supplying Ukraine with big amount of artillery, tanks, fuel, equipment and most importantly ammo.

[jemmyw]

The production question is a little more subtle than that. Russia has been running down it's huge stocks of Soviet era artillery ammo and it's not producing enough to replace it. Plus it's not all in great condition as some of it is very old. So far Ukraine has been able to be far far more efficient than Russia, which has just been using a bombardment philosophy. Note that it's not just ammo but also barrels as they also get used up and need replacing. Russia can no longer maintain the kind of bombardment it was doing last summer. And they have nearly no capacity to replace the sophisticated guided missiles they've used up, whereas those are available to NATO, and we've seen those be a lot more effective than the dumb artillery.

NATO has large stocks of 155mm shells. But they can also buy them because it's become a standard outside of the non Russian influence world. South Korea has a huge production and stock that is under negotiation.

Numbers around mobilization are really iffy. I watched an opposition Russian politician yesterday saying no more than 200,000 had been drafted, so your number is the opposite direction to his. I bet even the Kremlin doesn't know the true number due to the way the regions were instructed to draft.

[sixstringninja]

Russia will most likely mobilize and throw about 500k of soldiers at the war. This has been done before by Russia in previous wars. We will probably see the fruits of support and resources by the end of this summer. I’m hoping.. praying that the Ukrainians are able to fight off this zombie invasion

[Gys]

From the summary:

> Evidently, Ukraine will prevail.

> The report is based on open-source intelligence information and a series of 20 extensive interviews with combat-experienced Ukrainian commanders and soldiers.

> This report pursues two simple questions throughout ten dimensions: What are the Ukrainians doing particularly well? And what can we in NATO, the EU, and beyond learn from them?

Interesting research although it seems a little subjective.

[medo-bear]

what happens if ukraine begins to lose this war? does nato send in troops?

[m000]

> Evidently, Ukraine will prevail.

Also, if you need to write "evidently", then it's probably not that evident.

[denton-scratch]

I found the article to read like pro-Ukraine propaganda.

The only "seed of doubt" they throw in is that to win territory, Ukraine will have to pivot from small-unit warfare to brigade-level operations, and they will find that pivot difficult. It will require not just lots of armour and ammunition, but a big change in training and command. I think the authors may have understated that problem.

I also thought the authors might be in danger ot urging NATO commanders to "fight the last war", i.e. the Ukraine war. The Ukrainian doctrine might be applicable in the defence of e.g. Baltic states; but Ukrainian terrain and conditions are rather particular.

The observation that NATO should drastically accellerate the development cycle for weapons systems, build less huge, expensive weapons and lots of cheap, simple disposable weapons is bang on. NATO's weapons systems aren't designed for use by a mobilized population; they're designed to enrich big arms companies. By contrast, Ukrainians are building weapons from off-the-shelf drones and homemade grenade release mechanisms.

[joseftexas]

Delusional research. Why not 20 similar interviews of French Foreign Regions? There are many Russians, Americans and French there that joined Wagner. Also, Russia has this at SMO level, meanwhile Americans had it at war level with Afghanistan, Vietnam and Iraq. All 3 concluded with American defeats especially humiliating with the recent Kabul flee. It is best the research higlights why this war shouldnt happen in the first place and analysed Minsk 1 and 2 failures by West (especially French and Germans to adhere to). Also, China is entering this war with military support (sending drones, equipments and mercs). Ukrainians will prevail...like Libya where many of its people suffering and participate in fresh trades. I dont think this is what we want how Ukrainian prevail.

[naxter]

The important part is missing in the headline: "What armed forces in NATO should learn from Ukraine’s homeland defense"

Indeed we learned that WW1 style trench warfare is still a thing, so you need cannon fodder, howitzers and shells.

Alternatively, one might try diplomacy like Bismarck (who was fired by the emperor before WW1 and replaced by neocon equivalents).

[hdjjhhvvhga]

Yes and no. Note that NATO has excellent aircraft and they were successfully used in the past, whereas Ukraine has almost none.

I'd add "put a lot of anti-missile defence around your power plants" as trying to break civilians seems to be Putin's favorite ploy.

[devd00d]

I hope Russia doesn't have the internet and manages to get this guide. #plansFoiled

[Idiot_in_Vain]

Not a problem. There's one person making the important decisions in Russia and he doesn't know how to use the internet.

[Gys]

They probably have their own version of this research based on a series of 20 extensive interviews with combat-experienced Russian commanders and soldiers...

[rogerthis]

Looks like a consulting company report (I could say a name, but there are more that apply).

Also, despite "...with combat-experienced...", it feels like no skin in the game.

[roenxi]

Russia is struggling to invade Ukraine. The report starts off with

> Provide basic military training and basic medical training to large parts of society

as an opening recommendation. Are they serious? Why would we bother? It is obvious that the Russian army can't challenge the NATO army as it stands.

[rainworld]

10. The best stories win the strategic information war.

But stories are just that, stories. And the war is not being decided in the information space.

[tomalaci]

I've been following daily updates about Ukraine war from few popular channels that I can highly recommend. For those interested:

- Denys Davydov (Ukrainian, most frequent updates, also has telegram channel which has a lot more battleground details than what youtube allows to show)

- Jake Broe (US army veteran mostly providing American perspective)

- Arthur Rehi (Estonian providing decent summaries)

[haspok]

The fact is that the example of Afghanistan clearly shows what a puppet state is like, and what happens if it is left without a supporting army. There were US soldiers backing the afghan government, yet when they left (actually, even _before_ they left) the whole country collapsed.

There are no US or other NATO soldiers in Ukraine (apart from privateers). They get material support, but nobody else is fighting for them. Yet they repelled the initial, vastly overpowering Russian attack, and they have been able to hold their lines for the past year pretty well.

The EU or the US is not fighting a war against Russia in a classical sense. If they were you would notice, because we are talking about nuclear powers. It would most probably be a rather short war.

[Kratacoa]

And you're seriously oversimplifying the situation, lacking in depth knowledge on the topic. Following the news, given the often precarious state of journalism, is not enough to have a "contrarian" (actually mainstream) opinion.