Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[Barrister]

It low-key bothers me that in WW2 vernacular, we seem to be unable to say "German Army" or "German Air Force"...no...we gotta be all edgy and throw out the "Wehrmacht" and "Luftwaffe".  While not giving that courtesy to other non-English militaries. 

The Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy

The Irrelevant Example

Edit: ok I partially take it back, could be just British indeed

We used to have a Royal Canadian Air Force, Royal Canadian Navy, etc.  Now it is just the Canadian Armed Forces 

OK breaking radio silence.

https://www.canada.ca/en/air-force.html

https://www.canada.ca/en/navy.html

While both the RCN and RCAF are part of the overall Canadian Armed Forces, they reverted to their traditional names under Harper.

[crazy canuck]

It low-key bothers me that in WW2 vernacular, we seem to be unable to say "German Army" or "German Air Force"...no...we gotta be all edgy and throw out the "Wehrmacht" and "Luftwaffe".  While not giving that courtesy to other non-English militaries. 

The Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy

The Irrelevant Example

Edit: ok I partially take it back, could be just British indeed

We used to have a Royal Canadian Air Force, Royal Canadian Navy, etc.  Now it is just the Canadian Armed Forces 

OK breaking radio silence.

https://www.canada.ca/en/air-force.html

https://www.canada.ca/en/navy.html

While both the RCN and RCAF are part of the overall Canadian Armed Forces, they reverted to their traditional names under Harper.

Ah, thanks for the correction.  That makes me feel better. 

[Barrister]

More broadly - it is interesting how some military gets referred to by specific names, whereas others don't.

Off the top of my head - the IDF and JDF (Israeli/Japanese Defence Forces).  Bundeswehr gets used for Germany (also Luftwaffe).  This might not be the most common but in the pro-Ukraine circles I see plenty of references to AFU - Armed Forces of Ukraine.

But on the other hand... I have no idea what the Mexican army is called, or any number of European forces.  "Finnish Army" would seem to be sufficient, for example.

[Josquius]

The JDF will come out of its constitutional status as honestly not an army, seriously, and the heavy role the US had in setting it up and governing it.

I guess the IDF has historic reasons, an outgrowth of settler militias, as I don't think there's any constitutional restrictions there.

But yes. Funny the Germans in ww2 keep the German names.

[Sheilbh]

It low-key bothers me that in WW2 vernacular, we seem to be unable to say "German Army" or "German Air Force"...no...we gotta be all edgy and throw out the "Wehrmacht" and "Luftwaffe".  While not giving that courtesy to other non-English militaries. 

Well also of course the Kaiser in English refers to Kaiser's in unified Germany, not the Austrians - but also a bit weird that they get Kaiser and Russian's the Tsar (or, indeed, Persians the Shah) while, say, the French, Mexicans, Japanese, Ethiopians all have emperors.

I don't think there's a reason - I wondered if it might almost be the opposite of what you suggest, to emphasis otherness, but I'm not so sure - beyond what gets picked up in English and becomes part of the language.

I could be totally wrong but in my head Churchill and the BBC at the time referred to the Luftwaffe and the Nazis which is probably part of it in terms of shaping English usage. 

Off the top of my head - the IDF and JDF (Israeli/Japanese Defence Forces).  Bundeswehr gets used for Germany (also Luftwaffe).  This might not be the most common but in the pro-Ukraine circles I see plenty of references to AFU - Armed Forces of Ukraine.

PLA too.

Or use "Nazi" instead of "German". That always gives me the impression that people want to see the Nazis as some kind of clique that committed all the crimes instead of a broad responsibility by the German people.

As mentioned by Noel Coward in Don't Let's be Beastly to the Germans (his satirical war song that many people, including Churchill, thought was serious and borderline treasonous)

I'd add that I think the greatest British film ever made is The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp which is in part about the good Germans v the Nazis. I think it tends to be a fairly common distinction - and not a million miles from often seeing "Putin's war" nowadays.

[Josquius]

It low-key bothers me that in WW2 vernacular, we seem to be unable to say "German Army" or "German Air Force"...no...we gotta be all edgy and throw out the "Wehrmacht" and "Luftwaffe".  While not giving that courtesy to other non-English militaries. 

Well also of course the Kaiser in English refers to Kaiser's in unified Germany, not the Austrians - but also a bit weird that they get Kaiser and Russian's the Tsar (or, indeed, Persians the Shah) while, say, the French, Mexicans, Japanese, Ethiopians all have emperors.

We recognise the HRE as the legitimate heir of Rome? :p


The non European ones of course derive their emperorness from a totally different source.
(though not sure on Ethiopia?)

[Norgy]

I think the Mexican emperor scored low on voter confidence, yes. My God, European countries have had a lot of weird foreign interventions. "Hey, let's put an emperor in Mexico". "Sure, just let me drink my absinthe first".

More broadly - it is interesting how some military gets referred to by specific names, whereas others don't.

Off the top of my head - the IDF and JDF (Israeli/Japanese Defence Forces).  Bundeswehr gets used for Germany (also Luftwaffe).  This might not be the most common but in the pro-Ukraine circles I see plenty of references to AFU - Armed Forces of Ukraine.

But on the other hand... I have no idea what the Mexican army is called, or any number of European forces.  "Finnish Army" would seem to be sufficient, for example.

In Norway the ground forces are just "Hæren", or "The Army" directly translated. And, well, so is "Marinen". The Navy. Not that we have much to show for in either case.

[celedhring]

More broadly - it is interesting how some military gets referred to by specific names, whereas others don't.

Off the top of my head - the IDF and JDF (Israeli/Japanese Defence Forces).  Bundeswehr gets used for Germany (also Luftwaffe).  This might not be the most common but in the pro-Ukraine circles I see plenty of references to AFU - Armed Forces of Ukraine.

But on the other hand... I have no idea what the Mexican army is called, or any number of European forces.  "Finnish Army" would seem to be sufficient, for example.

I think that's because those armed forces have got involved in widely reported conflicts so the media naturally ends up using specific names for them instead of generic "xxxish army". That's not the case for the Germans/Japan, but they had a bit of a branding inssue hence the new names being pushed 

[viper37]

I liked that
https://tinyurl.com/37u99r3j

[Josquius]

https://themilitaryanalyst.com/2024/11/27/ukrainian-russian-tactics/

The Ukrainians are using sophisticated tactics to undermine Russian attacks, which usually follow the same format give or take the restrictions on armour supply.

A typical Russian attack will start with some kind of artillery preparation if that's available. However if possible, and depending on the type of terrain, Ukrainian drone forces will use them to deter artillery, by chasing it down to force it into hiding or destroy it.

The most successful Russian attacks are those that originate from recently conquered towns, where they accumulate their forces before attacking, ideally a short distance from the frontline. This shortens the ability of Ukrainian forces to attack before the Russians reach the contact line.

However in the south particularly, where there are vast areas of fields and very few settlements, this Russian method doesn't work so well and leads to very high casualties and armour loss. With nowhere to congregate they have to travel in the open from their launch point, exposing themselves to observation drones. As they reach the rear of the contact line Ukrainian artillery starts to pick off the forward most vehicle, slowing or stopping the column. They continue to strike the vehicles with artillery while any that try to get around the blockage, are attacked by suicide drones and immobilised by strikes on tracks or engines.

The Russians have developed a tactic of making the most of the Ukrainian fire traps, by ordering troops to get out of the vehicles at the first sign of a stoppage – even if they're not yet at the contact line. These troops then spread out and aim to get into the tree lines where they shelter – although many are harassed and killed by drones.

The Russians will do this over and over again, using the process to get as many men as they can into the tree lines. This accumulation eventually becomes strong enough to attempt an infantry assault on the next target, backed up by yet another armour attack. They use similar techniques to get into villages and towns.

A typical Russian armored column attack - this one was repeated 7 times over three days and destroyed every time
This process eventually becomes overwhelming for the defence and forces a retreat. However it's immensely costly for the attackers in men and machines, while leaving the defenders relatively unscathed but eventually overwhelmed.

The Russian tactic is based on manpower – they expect the first and even fourth attacks to fail in forcing a Ukrainian retreat, but by the fifth or so attacks the number of men is high enough to force an assault.

However this process has deep flaws that aggregate the way the Russians operate. Units are split up and scattered over multiple tree lines or buildings. Their overall commanders seem to have little control over them at a strategic level and coordination is limited or even non-existent. Russian forces attacking each other isn't uncommon.

The orders they're given are basically 'that's what you have to take, get there and take it, no matter the cost and don't go after anything else'. Troops know what they're supposed to aim for and they know they can't go back. How they get there is down to them based on where they end up.

As each new wave of troops gets delivered orders may change.

This process leaves many units with high casualty levels. They are still expected to push forward, regardless of losses. It also ends up with seriously demotivated troops who just don't move and frequently get cut off from others. There are clear indications that many of these never hear from their command again, lose any logistical support and if in the wrong place end up picked off by Ukrainian drones, snipers or artillery. Some just starve to death.

Ukrainian defences however are not always so easily pushed back. Given terrain that improves their chances, prepared defences and sufficient manpower, the Ukrainians can set up a devastating kill zone on a wide front that exhausts Russian reserves and they simply give up because it becomes too costly.

Yet as soon as the Russians realise they are up against an immovable position, they continue to find a way around it and will if necessary, move in a different direction to get around it strategically.

Ukrainian forces also use counter attacks and preemptive attacks to spike Russian preparations, often to huge effect.

Ukrainian planning is also far more flexible and inclined to moderate its logistical and operational requirements as scenarios present themselves. This makes them far more responsive to most situations, however some old guard commanders have not been as successful or adaptable.

Russian operational planning seems to be the 'box of supplies' method. That's what we give you to get the job done. If it isn't enough then it just doesn't happen.

Russia also suffers from fear syndrome. This became very clear on two occasions in recent weeks, one of them in Northern Kursk. Russian commanders in the field lied about their success when they'd failed, thinking they could put it right. When they'd couldn't put it right and had no more left in the box to try again, higher command realised what was going on and arrested as many as six generals and senior officers.

The reason they lied was because they were under such severe pressure, deadlines for success, laid down by Putin himself, the risk of failure – knowing what would happen to them if they failed. This kind of system doesn't work well for motivating people. So they lied and failed anyway.

There's a strange cooperative aspect of both side's tactics. The Ukrainians have their system of defence and the Russians have their system of attack. The defence only works because of the way the attacker attacks. The attacker knows what point he can or can't overcome the defence, but the basis of the defence doesn't change, because neither does the attack. Is it a system stuck in repetition?

In some ways the outcome of the defence is predetermined by the scale of the attack. If one is greater than the other it wins. You have to ask if a change in either sides tactics could upturn the way the war operates?

Ukrainian M-777 fires at Russian lines
The Germans in WW-1 and the British, eventually found a way to break the way the front operated. The Germans used the Stosstruppen to infiltrate the front and break the lines, the British invented the tank.

Russia doesn't have the type of men or the discipline to create Stosstruppen type operations. Ukraine does. Neither side is going to come up with a new invention.

Are they stuck in a pattern? If so how do they get out of it? Is there some way to change it in Ukrainian favour? I feel it's already too late. There is a sense of end game looming in 2025. One way or another this war is ending. It must end with Ukraine surviving, free and supported by Europe. What happens to Russia? As long as its nuclear weapons don't end up in the wrong hands, I really don't care but it will pay a price for its behavior.

The Analyst

Slava Ukraine!

militaryanayst.bsky.social

[Crazy_Ivan80]

It's an utter bizarity that not more russians surrender. What a fucked up bunch.

[Barrister]

It's an utter bizarity that not more russians surrender. What a fucked up bunch.

Russians aren't afraid to shoot their own troops if they try to surrender.

[Josquius]

I think the brainwashing helps too.
A lot of them genuinely believe the Ukrainians will do the sort of thing the worst of the Russians have actually done to captured Ukrainians.
Also I suspect opportunities to surrender are quite low for these guys. They're far from the Ukrainian front line being picked off by drones.
And I heavily suspect a lot of Ukrainians aren't keen on risking their lives to try and get a twitchy Russian to surrender before just dropping a grenade on him.

I did share a cool video a while ago with a ukrainian finding a group of old Russian guys isolated in the woods and tricking them into surrendering.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

It's an utter bizarity that not more russians surrender. What a fucked up bunch.

Russians aren't afraid to shoot their own troops if they try to surrender.

I know. Still seems to be the better option though

[Legbiter]

Tucker Carlson is back in Moscow. Is he going to go to a russian supermarket again and stare at the bread selection just dumbfounded?