• Ukrainian’s shock offensive on Russia’s Kursk region came as a surprise even to Ukraine’s soldiers.
  • “We joked that it wasn’t April 1st,” a Ukrainian soldier told The Economist.
  • The country’s troops did suspect that an invasion was imminent after they were issued new equipment.
  • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    While soldiers should be well informed and educated, it is insane to say that an army can rely on ad-hoc strategy and bottom up leadership. That might work for guerilla warfare tactics, but it does not create a coherent force in any other situation.

    There should be civilian control of the military, but internally militaries require command hierarchy for the most significant decisions.

    The president/parliament says we attack this country with these wargoals, the general says we attack this region, the commander says we attack this town, the officer says we attack this road, and I decide where to walk and what to shoot. There is no time to have a committee meeting about this and it is bad for opsec for every soldier to know where every other soldier is going.

    • index
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      33
      ·
      3 months ago

      That might work for guerilla warfare tactics

      Like the guerrilla used in Afghanistan by the talibans which proved successful in defeating the strongest army in the world?

      • Knoxvomica@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        3 months ago

        Which took 20 years after the country that fully occupied them decided to leave.

      • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Decentralized command is/was official doctrine in the Swedish military too. A single squadron in the woods, with a few fighter jets and a remote airstrip, is an independent entity in the Swedish military, intended to operate behind enemy lines, independent of the rest of the military.

        However this only works for guerilla warfare, and Ukraine isn’t at the point of insurgency yet. There is some partisan warfare in occupied Ukraine, but the majority of Ukraine’s army is not behind enemy lines. It would be a lot harder for Ukraine to protect civilians and rearm if they downgraded to guerilla tactics.

        Not to mention, comparing Afghanistan with Ukraine is such a nonsensical comparison. Russia is dedicating their entire army to Ukraine, and conscripting tens of thousands of soldiers. Russia loses more soldiers in a day than the US lost during the entire 20 year occupation.

        Believe me, Russia would not have a fun time trying to occupy the entirety of Ukraine, and that’s why they won’t win this war. But the fact that Ukraine still has a coherent military has helped them defend their country, and helped preserve Ukraine from descending into complete chaos.

      • Lightor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        Stop talking about history like you know anything.

        It was so effective because the US was pressured about collateral damage. Clearly Russia doesn’t care about that. If we could have just bombed every single building in Afghanistan it would have been cake.

        Jesus, you can’t have a conversation without constantly misrepresenting things and ignoring obvious facts.