They Begin To Suspect Something...

No, really. 

„Können keinen Unterschied machen“: Kommen US-Abrams-Panzer für die Ukraine zu spät?

Translation:  “Can’t make a difference”: Are US Abrams tanks coming too late for Ukraine?

After that, this German outlet begins to wax all tactical-operational (translation). 

The tanks give the Ukrainian armed forces a valuable boost for combined arms maneuvers against Russia. However, some Western experts and Ukrainian officials believe that the volume, timing and problematic logistics do not currently allow for the impact that the Abrams could have for Ukraine. A total of 31 tanks "couldn't make a difference," although Kiev was "very grateful" for the supplies, said Oleksiy Honcharenko, a member of the Ukrainian parliament. This year, it looks like the Abramses are coming too late to really counter Ukraine's grueling efforts in the south and east of the country, the lawmaker told Newsweek. At the same time, it is also clear that the war will continue next year.  

So, on, and on, and on--non-stop coping  with the destruction of the myths of NATO TOE and even Mark Galeotti, this sleek fellow whose "expertise" is primarily in writing about Russia's organized crime--I have no idea how writing about racketeering or money laundering makes one a "specialist" in combined arms operations--figured it out that:

I speak about it in my latest video. And as I am on record for years--NO weapon system, short of nuclear weapons, in NATO's (primarily American) arsenal can make a difference in the outcome. Wars are not fought the way it is taught in ANY Western military institution. Until Western military leaders throw away everything they know about war, starting from the WW II and the way USSR fought it, and learn the actual history and how they misconstrued West's "victory" in the Cold War, nothing will allow them to see the military reality. 

Yesterday, while visiting Barnes and Noble I bought Douglas Macgregor' Margin of Victory. I already covered the most important parts of it and I am disappointed, despite my respect for him and his stance on war. But, recall what I said recently about all those rankings? Ranking anything is usually when someone has nothing to say and Macgregor's book's full title is:

Margin of Victory: Five Battles that Changed the Face of Modern War

Sadly, my suspicions have been confirmed:

1. Macgregor is simply illiterate in anything concerning Russia/Soviet history and continues to reside in the Solzhenitsified and Beavorised version of this pop-history. While he gives his dues to Operation Bagration, he completely loses the plot insofar as Deep Operations (Deep Battles) are concerned because the genesis of all that is in WW I Brusilov's Offensive whose scope and scale, including development of new tactics for artillery (Wall of Fire) and superb operational planning by Russians paved the way to the ideas which later manifested themselves already at Kursk. This monstrous battle by Brusilov and Russian Army  even in the words of a late Russophobe John Keegan was described as: "the Brusilov Offensive was, on the scale by which success was measured in the foot-by-foot fighting of the First World War, the greatest victory seen on any front since the trench lines had been dug on the Aisne two years before". How Battle of Mons, which was dwarfed in scale and consequences by Brusilov and Russian Army, entered the list is known only to Macgregor himself. British didn't really change any face of war in terms of ground operations in the XX century, Russian wrote a book on it. 

2. And, of course, Battle of 73 Easting. I understand that Macgregor who fought it with his formation has a special spot for it, but in a larger scheme of things, insofar as the US combined arms warfare is concerned, it was an anomalous battle which merely confirmed what was known by anyone who ever served in military--Iraqi Army was a backward, badly trained, consummate third world military incapable to fight modern war. Lieutenant-General Klokotov's conclusion should be repeated by any American officer who really wants to know what REAL war is, but it will not be.

“I would like to emphasize here that the Persian Gulf war was taken as the standard in studying the strategic nature of possible war. It would appear that this position, adopted in the draft ‘Fundamentals of Russian Military Doctrine,’ is dangerous. The fact is that this war [was] ‘strange’ in all respects [and] cannot serve as a standard.”

Stated in 1992 this cannot be anymore construed by anyone as the case of a professional envy by Russians--Russian military history dwarfs that of the US, especially wars winning record, but as a warning. Macgregor's conclusions, especially in terms of force structure for the US and possibility of the full spectrum domination are reasonable, but impossible to realize because the US is simply not wound as a nation for REAL continental wars. And even American ground war technology reflects it through all those weapon systems which belong to primarily parades or attacking civilians. 

The issue of combat air is altogether--a separate can of worms. In the end, however, the United States doesn't have General Staff and has no experience of command-controlling and building armed forces as Russia does. Frankly, I was disappointed, for all my respect for the Colonel. Until the US Army exorcises myths about Patton, Gulf War and similar PR events and learns real military history, it will not be able to fight anyone better than rag-tag forces. Maybe, it is for the better. 

Ah, Poor Dreamers.

Forget about England of knights in shining armor, Shakespeare, Admiral Nelson or, for that matter, Field-Marshal Bernard Viscount Montgomery. Great Britain doesn't produce anyone of this caliber anymore. She just doesn't, but she still loves to pretend that she matters by telling to herself fairy tales about London City's significance in the world of finances, or other meaningless financial legerdemain, which allegedly move the world around--whatever it takes to continue with palliative therapy for the cancer stricken patient in the geopolitical hospice. That is Great Britain today.  

For the country who had any serious military encounter with clear political goal 40+ years ago, it goes without saying that with the armed forces which wouldn't be able to fill Wembley to 70% capacity for the FA Cup final between Chelsea and Liverpool, it is somewhat... preposterous waxing all doctrinal and strategic but that is exactly what they do. The British Army Review (yes, they have such a magazine) published the piece titled: How We Will Fight In 2026. 

The piece is written by Major General (and no, not the one from Gilbert and Sullivan's opera) Colin Weir who thinks hat "WE" meaning the United States and whatever will be left of the British Army may fight in the 2026 and, this is when I begin to suspect that the human material they get into the Army is not exactly of high quality. Reason being of Weir intending to fight "deep battle". Oh God, Lord the Merciful. OK, let's start from the start--not a SINGLE officer in Pentagon, let alone General Staff in London has any idea what is the "deep battle" and how it is practiced in real modern war, period. It is not even the theorem, it is an axiom. 

Weir is an Afghan War veteran and... it means nothing in terms of combined arms multi-domain operations of the scale such as SMO. Generally, most of  NATO's views on modern warfare must be thrown into the trash can, because they are nothing but white board fantasies. I'll give Weir a hint--truck load of Russian highest officers went through Soviet-Afghan War which was much more brutal, with the "Civilized World" supporting anyone who would fight Soviets, unlike it was with NATO's Afghan contingent, and whose lessons are really applicable primarily from the historical review prospective. And here is the thing, being educated historian, Weir begins to look for historical symmetries in WW II. This is the dead-end. For starters, by the time Allies landed in Normandy, Wehrmacht was a pale shadow of itself having its guts torn out by the Red Army... Exactly!! It is the same as applying "lessons" and symmetries from the Gulf War to the warfare of the 21st century. Those, as Lieutenant-General Klokotov stated, cannot serve as standard. 

The whole idea that British Army can somehow aggregate by 2026 a required force, equip it and train it to fight Russians is beyond ridiculous. Average Russian combined arms officer school (academy) takes full 4 years to prepare a competent lieutenant who goes out in the Armed Forces to hone his theoretical and practical skills starting from the platoon commander level. In a few years, sometime at the level of a company commander, if he shows a promise, he may get into the battalion level command structure and even be offered Combined Arms Academy for yet another two full years of study as an officer to be ready to go to the brigade (Deputy Chief of Staff and later Brigade Commander) level. For VKS and Navy those terms are even longer. In related news: Sandhurst takes 44 weeks, roughly 300 days in preparing British officers. 

The higher mil.ed school for British officers is Joint Services Command and Staff College. Just the course in Higher Command and Staff lasts whole... 16 weeks, while Advanced Command and Staff Course lasts 7 months (for reservists). So, make your own conclusions that more and more British top brass sounds like people under the influence of some very serious substances. Obviously, those stupid Russkies after all their study, for those excellent officers, still attend the Military Academy of the General Staff for yet another two years (if they pass entrance exams)--what a silly bunch those Russkies are. Why some Russian corps or army commander should have at least 4 (5)+2+2=8 (9) years of military academic study alone just to have a grasp of how to run armed forces of the 21 century. Hey, 44 weeks plus another whatever... and you have the guys who are ready to fight the army with the firepower that Russia fields. Some really potent shit they smoke there. 

But that brings us to this "WE" issue (no, not first truly dystopian novel by Zamyatin). WE is the United States Armed Forces, who, not unlike British Armed Forces, are NOT fighting Russkies unless someone else is doing it for them. Great Britain out of own resources is not capable to even fight a high intensity police operation in one of the provinces in Afghanistan. But still they continue to pretend that white board strategic sophistry somehow can substitute military history, military experience and military education which Russians honed, for all troubles, throughout XX century and now demonstrate why Svechin, not Tuckhachevsky or Triandafilov, carried the day. So, what's left for British Armed Forces is to continue to supply weapons to Kiev's regime and "train" whatever is left of VSU, part of whose horrendous losses can be easily attributed to this very NATO "training". I wonder what kind of "Deep Battle" can British Army fight with its... two combat ready brigades. Hm... looks like I am beginning to lose patience with this pseudo-military BS.