Excellent analysis. As a former field artillery officer (US Army) I've wondered why Russian counter-battery fire hasn't largely shut Ukrainian artillery down given Russia's numerical and technical advantage. I will note, I've been out of that line of work for many years.
Thanks for the in depth explanation of what you see going on - I have not read much written about ISR in UKR but thought it would be critical.. Some of my thoughts, as an ex-FAC(A), but way out of touch these days. I think that RU has prepared it's forces for NATO/WW3, so a total war. This is why this op is called an SMO. They still need to keep their main forces and abilities prepared for war, not showing them to everyone in UKR. If they decide it is a 'war', then the NATO++ SIGINT aircraft will immediately be targeted, as will the satellites, and probably many NATO installations. So much of what we have seen could well be 'deception' through limitations on equipment and usage, thus the lessons learned may be false once war starts proper - the relatively small role of airpower for example.
Still reading this - fascinating insight into modern hi tech warfare. Are we reaching a point where this type of war is becoming pointless or even unthinkable?
Wow ! thank you for this detailed overview of ISR. I know absolutely nothing about military matters, but you have provided me with an appreciation of just how technical and complex a modern battfield is. Keep up the good work.
Hi, lot's of interesting information and analysis.
One part did cause me to raise a few eyebrows though, when you talked about the 'Gerasimov Doctrine'. To the best of my knowledge, it doesn't exist. The notion was invented by the west (Mark Galeotti to be more precise, after which the MSM and intelligence services ran with it), to be able to point to Russia as the evil mastermind behind whatever bad happened in the world ("it's Russian hybrid warfare! It's Russian meddling/interfering! That's what they do, they have a whole doctrine for it!"), and by attaching Gerasimov's name to it, they tried to label the very thing they were doing themselves (colour revolutions, coups, rigging elections, assassinating people, spreading disinformation through manipulated media, etc) as something foreign, and Russian in particular.
They didn't invent this notion out of thin air, there was something akin to this which was much older, the Primakov Doctrine. That was focused on foreign policy and Russia's place in the world, and not a military policy or doctrine.
Gerasimov in turn, wrote an article in February 2013 called 'the value of science in prediction' (that's the translation at least), in the 'Voyenno-Promyshlennyy Kurier' (I hope I got that name right). It's not a long article, and in it he describes how the rules of war have changed, and how as a result the classical distinction between military operations and civilian ones have become so blurred that it's no longer valid to distinguish them at all. He does this based on what the West had been doing (Arab, spring, colour revolutions, etc), and describes, in general terms, what challenges that poses for the traditional military.
There's two graphic's in his article, one called 'Change in the character of warfare - Achievement of political goals' and the other is 'The Role of Nonmilitary Methods in the Resolution of Interstate Conflicts - The primary phases (stages) of conflict development'. It is analytical in nature, it is not proscribing anything like a practical doctrine.
The article was published in a, by western standards, rather obscure publication, and was pretty much missed by mainstream annalists in the west, until Mark Galeotti picked it up, who recognised the author, and who was instantly intrigued. He then wrote an article about it, came up with the name 'Gerasomiv Doctrine' and pretty much made up a lot of stuff that's not in the original article. Now his article did catch the attention of the rest of the western media pack, and like 'chinese whispers', his article got twisted and subverted in turn, leading to the purely western invention now paraded as the 'Gerasimov Doctrine'.
Galeotti wrote another article a couple of years ago, in which he apologised for having invented the term and inadvertently created a shitstorm based on a lie.
Eventually these capabilities will lead to a LOT of space junk floating around. Russia is already sounding the alarm on this issue. Using civilian assets only brings this eventuality about faster. NATO really needs to think long and hard about this one, as they could quickly screw themselves in the event space goes hot.
Humanity simply doesn't have the capability to "clean" space. Even a tiny bolt or nut at orbital velocity is unstoppable by anything that we can currently put into space. We are many generations away from understanding gravity enough to leverage it to do work.
As the shade of Gen. Ulysses Grant allow me address this familiar logistics problem. How far away did you say the enemy artillery was? Deploy your best forces at the most propitious points and initiate a series of sweeping and powerful assaults. Move decisively to seize and destroy the enemy artillery where it is.
Why ever would you sit and allow your positions to be hit to disadvatage? Move at once. I would send Gen. Sheridan to sweep around the flank and make the enemy position untenable. All this slow-mo stuff is why Gen. McClellan failed to prevail.
I wonder if we aren't deliberating over a cold dish, so to speak?
In some respects NATO has signaled that they are resigned to Ukr's defeat and are transitioning to Plan B (or C or D if you like). Generally speaking this means, make a show of supplying Ukr w weapons etc to ensure they dont quit or capitulate, while prepping for a long and determined effort to sabotage and bleed Russia by asymmetric means in whatever final shape Ukr takes after Russian victory.
The thing we must understand about the Globalist mindset is that it's not about victory or defeat per se. It's about power and control of their own captive populations. Russia, Ukr, China, Iran....all just tools to use for controlling domestic opinion and behaviors.
So the ultimate problem for Russia is how to secure real peace against a fanatical global cartel intent on world denomination at almost any cost. It's the reverse of the Cold War. Russia must outlast the Globalistas and wait for their corrupt system to collapse.
Feb 16, 2023·edited Feb 16, 2023Liked by Simplicius
Neither Russia's nor Nato goals are clear in this conflict. Denazification is impossible since Russia will not occupy Galitzia or Ruthenia. On the other hand, Nato's goal of taking back Crimea is also impossible. Russia could be aiming to take all lands east of the Dnipr river which is a reasonable long term strategic goal for stability. But Nato's adamant refusal of diplomacy or negotiations could hide a multilayered purpose. First, to destroy all Eastern Europe, including Poland and the Baltics, in order to create a buffer desert zone to isolate the rest of Europe from Russia. But going further a faction of the hidden powers that be ( basically cyclopean capitals hidden in tax havens) could be targeting a total destruction of ALL adversaries, in order to rebuild the world by brand new global institutions that will be presented as the guardians of perpetual peace. Think about it. Their fake economic schemes are collapsing by the day. When the bubble burst, they will need to divert the people's attention in order to get away with their countless crimes. Boris Johnson by the way, with his Churchillian imperial brain, looks like he wants the whole Europe destroyed, assuming that Britain will be, once more, spared
Personally i always assumed the Russians had anti satellite satellites, who knows. But anyone expecting the long alleged new offensive to be 1000 tanks rampaging across the steppes is dreaming.
Im beginning to think this will just be another 5 years of grinding.
One question that seems to be untouched: how in the world Western arms can still reach the front? How is it possible that the RuAF has not pulverised the complete heavy transportation infrastructure?
In my views, if the RuAF could focus on this, it would bleed out the ukies faster.
Excellent analysis. As a former field artillery officer (US Army) I've wondered why Russian counter-battery fire hasn't largely shut Ukrainian artillery down given Russia's numerical and technical advantage. I will note, I've been out of that line of work for many years.
Excellent information and assessments.
Thanks for the in depth explanation of what you see going on - I have not read much written about ISR in UKR but thought it would be critical.. Some of my thoughts, as an ex-FAC(A), but way out of touch these days. I think that RU has prepared it's forces for NATO/WW3, so a total war. This is why this op is called an SMO. They still need to keep their main forces and abilities prepared for war, not showing them to everyone in UKR. If they decide it is a 'war', then the NATO++ SIGINT aircraft will immediately be targeted, as will the satellites, and probably many NATO installations. So much of what we have seen could well be 'deception' through limitations on equipment and usage, thus the lessons learned may be false once war starts proper - the relatively small role of airpower for example.
another awesome piece of analysis
Still reading this - fascinating insight into modern hi tech warfare. Are we reaching a point where this type of war is becoming pointless or even unthinkable?
Wow ! thank you for this detailed overview of ISR. I know absolutely nothing about military matters, but you have provided me with an appreciation of just how technical and complex a modern battfield is. Keep up the good work.
Hi, lot's of interesting information and analysis.
One part did cause me to raise a few eyebrows though, when you talked about the 'Gerasimov Doctrine'. To the best of my knowledge, it doesn't exist. The notion was invented by the west (Mark Galeotti to be more precise, after which the MSM and intelligence services ran with it), to be able to point to Russia as the evil mastermind behind whatever bad happened in the world ("it's Russian hybrid warfare! It's Russian meddling/interfering! That's what they do, they have a whole doctrine for it!"), and by attaching Gerasimov's name to it, they tried to label the very thing they were doing themselves (colour revolutions, coups, rigging elections, assassinating people, spreading disinformation through manipulated media, etc) as something foreign, and Russian in particular.
They didn't invent this notion out of thin air, there was something akin to this which was much older, the Primakov Doctrine. That was focused on foreign policy and Russia's place in the world, and not a military policy or doctrine.
Gerasimov in turn, wrote an article in February 2013 called 'the value of science in prediction' (that's the translation at least), in the 'Voyenno-Promyshlennyy Kurier' (I hope I got that name right). It's not a long article, and in it he describes how the rules of war have changed, and how as a result the classical distinction between military operations and civilian ones have become so blurred that it's no longer valid to distinguish them at all. He does this based on what the West had been doing (Arab, spring, colour revolutions, etc), and describes, in general terms, what challenges that poses for the traditional military.
There's two graphic's in his article, one called 'Change in the character of warfare - Achievement of political goals' and the other is 'The Role of Nonmilitary Methods in the Resolution of Interstate Conflicts - The primary phases (stages) of conflict development'. It is analytical in nature, it is not proscribing anything like a practical doctrine.
The article was published in a, by western standards, rather obscure publication, and was pretty much missed by mainstream annalists in the west, until Mark Galeotti picked it up, who recognised the author, and who was instantly intrigued. He then wrote an article about it, came up with the name 'Gerasomiv Doctrine' and pretty much made up a lot of stuff that's not in the original article. Now his article did catch the attention of the rest of the western media pack, and like 'chinese whispers', his article got twisted and subverted in turn, leading to the purely western invention now paraded as the 'Gerasimov Doctrine'.
Galeotti wrote another article a couple of years ago, in which he apologised for having invented the term and inadvertently created a shitstorm based on a lie.
Eventually these capabilities will lead to a LOT of space junk floating around. Russia is already sounding the alarm on this issue. Using civilian assets only brings this eventuality about faster. NATO really needs to think long and hard about this one, as they could quickly screw themselves in the event space goes hot.
Humanity simply doesn't have the capability to "clean" space. Even a tiny bolt or nut at orbital velocity is unstoppable by anything that we can currently put into space. We are many generations away from understanding gravity enough to leverage it to do work.
As the shade of Gen. Ulysses Grant allow me address this familiar logistics problem. How far away did you say the enemy artillery was? Deploy your best forces at the most propitious points and initiate a series of sweeping and powerful assaults. Move decisively to seize and destroy the enemy artillery where it is.
Why ever would you sit and allow your positions to be hit to disadvatage? Move at once. I would send Gen. Sheridan to sweep around the flank and make the enemy position untenable. All this slow-mo stuff is why Gen. McClellan failed to prevail.
Excellent piece. Great perspectives.
I wonder if we aren't deliberating over a cold dish, so to speak?
In some respects NATO has signaled that they are resigned to Ukr's defeat and are transitioning to Plan B (or C or D if you like). Generally speaking this means, make a show of supplying Ukr w weapons etc to ensure they dont quit or capitulate, while prepping for a long and determined effort to sabotage and bleed Russia by asymmetric means in whatever final shape Ukr takes after Russian victory.
The thing we must understand about the Globalist mindset is that it's not about victory or defeat per se. It's about power and control of their own captive populations. Russia, Ukr, China, Iran....all just tools to use for controlling domestic opinion and behaviors.
So the ultimate problem for Russia is how to secure real peace against a fanatical global cartel intent on world denomination at almost any cost. It's the reverse of the Cold War. Russia must outlast the Globalistas and wait for their corrupt system to collapse.
Neither Russia's nor Nato goals are clear in this conflict. Denazification is impossible since Russia will not occupy Galitzia or Ruthenia. On the other hand, Nato's goal of taking back Crimea is also impossible. Russia could be aiming to take all lands east of the Dnipr river which is a reasonable long term strategic goal for stability. But Nato's adamant refusal of diplomacy or negotiations could hide a multilayered purpose. First, to destroy all Eastern Europe, including Poland and the Baltics, in order to create a buffer desert zone to isolate the rest of Europe from Russia. But going further a faction of the hidden powers that be ( basically cyclopean capitals hidden in tax havens) could be targeting a total destruction of ALL adversaries, in order to rebuild the world by brand new global institutions that will be presented as the guardians of perpetual peace. Think about it. Their fake economic schemes are collapsing by the day. When the bubble burst, they will need to divert the people's attention in order to get away with their countless crimes. Boris Johnson by the way, with his Churchillian imperial brain, looks like he wants the whole Europe destroyed, assuming that Britain will be, once more, spared
Personally i always assumed the Russians had anti satellite satellites, who knows. But anyone expecting the long alleged new offensive to be 1000 tanks rampaging across the steppes is dreaming.
Im beginning to think this will just be another 5 years of grinding.
Great article. I have been puzzling over how an offensive can be conducted in the face of this unblinking eye over the whole battlefield.
Please don't use capitalisations without first defining them! Thank you.
One question that seems to be untouched: how in the world Western arms can still reach the front? How is it possible that the RuAF has not pulverised the complete heavy transportation infrastructure?
In my views, if the RuAF could focus on this, it would bleed out the ukies faster.
Another Zombie General back from the dead:
https://twitter.com/mdfzeh/status/1626527890794766336
With the way Russia keeps necromancing Generals, a Ship Captain, and a few others, we need to be scared of Russian skills in necromancy...
...
...
Of course only 3 Russian Generals were ever confirmed to have died.