uplateagain
13 hours ago edited
The problem the Russians are having all stem from their military being fundamentally structurally flawed. Their officer corps is over-rated, because it is in truth not a meritocracy. Promotion is achieved there through political connections to a far greater degree even than is common in the West..... and we can get quite political in our military associations and advancements. They are ridiculous about it.... especially at the higher ranks. That ends up meaning their senior military is rife with incompetence and corruption. Instead of identifying problems, assuming responsibility, and dealing with them, it's all about keeping problems hidden and passing blame when they are exposed. There was a time near the end of the Soviet Union when as much as 40% of the Russian interceptor force of MiG-25 jets was functionally inoperable, because the engines used pure grain alcohol as a coolant, and once the troops discovered that, it was routinely drained out of the jets and consumed or sold on the black market. The problem persisted for years, because nobody would take responsibility for admitting there was a problem and do something about it.

Russian Army tactical doctrine is sound in theory for the kinds of forces they have developed. But there seem to be relatively few officers who actually know how to execute it.... at least while dealing with the other (unforeseen) problems they suddenly find themselves overcome-by. They don't seem to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. And more importantly, they don't seem to know what leadership is, and it is not uncommon for Russian soldiers to be brutalized by their own officers. General Mikhail Mezentsev was recorded on a non-secure phone call demanding one of his troops... a private... be mutilated (he demanded an ear be cut off) because the general saw him improperly wearing a piece of uniform. Nobody seems to know anything about battlefield management or combined arms operations and they routinely violate operational security with predictable results. They can't seem to be able to set up a simple and secure supply train, and fail to adequately assess future logistical requirements. They don't trust and can't count on their troops and their troops can't count on them. And that brings up the second structural problem.

The second (and in my opinion even bigger problem... because if they didn't have it they could likely overcome the first) is the total lack of a competent NCO corps. Good NCOs can generally make up for bad officers. Because they lack competent NCOs, their troops are inadequately trained... and even more poorly motivated. The junior officers have to do everything that's required to keep individual troops functioning, much less begin the development of unit cohesion or concern themselves with learning how to lead a small unit in combat and deal with unforeseen contingencies. Put green Russian troops in a suddenly hot situation and it instantly becomes a complete fustercluck, with nobody seeming to have any idea how to assess or respond to threat. Equipment is poorly maintained, and troops have no confidence that anyone supposedly in leadership has any idea what they are doing..... because in truth, they don't. Not by Western standards anyway. NCOs are the folks that keep the total disarray from happening, train and focus the unit, develop unit cohesion, handle all the daily falderall, and develop leadership and initiative. The Russians don't have them. And no amount of experience and guidance from the top is ever going to make up for that. Not in a modern military conducting operations at the speed and with the lethality of the modern battlefield.

Because of these structural flaws, I really don't think it is going to make a whole lot of difference which multi-star is giving out the orders from the top. For as long as historians can remember, the Russian way of making war has been to put together huge masses of men and machines and march them right into the teeth of the enemy's best, eventually overcoming them essentially by force of sheer numbers... and without regard to casualties. It was sort of thought that with the development of modern weaponry and tactics, they'd become rather a force based not only capable of massive firepower, but additionally of competency and finesse. That doesn't seem to be the case, and the modern Russian army simply doesn't have enough bulk to it to be readily successful even in Ukraine because of the lack of that competency and finesse. After WWII, it was reported in several places that senior German officers hated fighting Americans because they could never be counted-on to do what they were supposed to do, and instead seemed all too often to operate on individual initiative rather than follow a comprehensive and predictable plan. The head of the German Kriegsmarine, was once quoted, "The reason that the American Navy does so well in wartime is that war is chaos, and the Americans practice chaos on a daily basis." ― Karl Dönitz

It's an idea nobody would ever even consider applying to the Russians.

Will they ultimately win in Ukraine? Likely yes. If they want-to badly enough. They have enough ultimate resources that they should be able to outlast the Ukrainians, even while getting their butts kicked all too often by Ukrainian forces deployed in inferior numbers in individual skirmishes. But it's clearly not 100% guaranteed.

And when you start talking about Putin taking personal responsibility for overall operational control.... the image that immediate popped into my head was that of Hitler in the Fuererbunker, commanding fine German infantry to disastrous results.

There was a time not long ago when liberals at least pretended to support free speech. Those days are gone, and never coming back. //

None of the people who now claim Musk’s ownership of Twitter is a huge problem saw any problem at all with Twitter’s suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story ahead of the 2020 presidential election — a major case of actual misinformation that arguably affected the outcome of the election.

You cannot get them to admit this, though, in part because they will not admit it to themselves. Epistemic closure on the left makes it impossible for someone like The Atlantic’s Adam Serwer, for example, to understand the Musk takeover of Twitter as a potential victory for authentic free speech. For Serwer, the entire debate about free speech on Twitter is a canard, “a disingenuous attempt to frame what is ultimately a political conflict over Twitter’s usage as a neutral question about civil liberties, but the outcome conservatives are hoping for is one in which conservative speech on the platform is favored and liberal speech disfavored.”

That pretty much sums up what the left is telling itself about all this. Allowing conservatives to speak their minds on Twitter about, say, transgenderism or abortion or critical race theory, can’t possibly be considered “free speech.” To them, it’s just “hateful conduct” conservatives engage in as part of a power dynamic, which in turn warrants censorship.