Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff open their recent book, The Coddling of the American Mind: how good intentions and bad ideas are setting up a generation for failure, by listing three “Great Untruths” which they say have spread widely in recent years. The third of these is “The Untruth of Us Versus Them”. That is the belief that “Life is a battle between good people and evil people”. Not the least of the reasons why this great untruth needs to be tackled is that, as Haidt and Lukianoff put it, “It harms the individuals and communities who embrace it.”
Perhaps no country is in a greater state of ‘us versus them’ than Britain is at present. And few countries will be experience a harm such as Brexit is doing to individuals and communities here.
The effects of the prevalence of this great untruth can be seen all around. It can, obviously, be seen at any time by logging on to social media. But for some years it has also been seeping into people’s real-world behaviour, with crowds of Leavers and Remainers stalking College Green in Westminster in the seeming belief that they are only one holler away from persuading the world of their own point of view.
One place that would ordinarily be assumed to be capable of ameliorating or at least giving respite to such moments of division is that of the arts. But in recent decades, even the arts have become awash with – rather than immune from – politics. Whether it is Daniel Barenboim lecturing audiences about Brexit after his concerts, or the now annual row over whether there are more EU or Union flags at the last night of the Proms, nothing is safe from this great untruth which is penetrating everywhere.
Of course no sector in the arts is as repetitiously and predictably political as the world of the theatre and theatre people. I was recently struck by an observation made by a theatre critic. Discussing the strangely – and predictably – political nature of almost all new drama, he observed that the modern theatre doesn’t really think of its job as being to entertain. I asked what job it thinks it has. His perceptive reply was that most theatre companies that put on new plays think that their role is to be a kind of “think tank”.
This is probably why I, like many others, rolled my eyes and sighed when I first heard that Channel 4 were making a drama about Brexit starring Benedict Cumberbatch. But I take the eye roll back, as I should have realised that James Graham, who wrote Brexit: an Uncivil War, is far too good a writer to have merely pandered to his commissioners. Despite press stories suggesting that Cumberbatch had been trying to change the script to make Cummings a blackly evil figure, the writer and director clearly held out and produced a drama of considerable subtlety.
True, Graham’s script made every politician look like a walk-on nitwit. But there was almost no effort to veer into what we might call Cadwalladr-ism: that is, the belief that the Brexit vote of 2016 did not arise from decades of British discontent with the EU, but rather because Russian bots manipulated the British people into voting against an arrangement that anybody could see was in their own interests.
There was one scene in which the non-official Leave campaign, Leave.EU, is seen being told about a firm called Cambridge Analytica. But other than that, and the occasional suggestion that by employing a different data firm the official Vote Leave campaign had an unfair advantage, the drama did not veer into conspiracy territory.
Instead, it did that rarest thing of the last two and a half years. It took the views of people on both sides seriously. It presented Remain campaign chief Craig Oliver as being genuinely fearful of the toxic politics which he claimed the campaign had unleashed. It presented passionate and committed campaigners for the Remain side. And it presented Leave voters not in the derogatory light in which they have come to be presented (old, white, racist, poor, working class), but in the accurate light in which they deserve to be depicted.
It says a lot about the creators that they allowed the most passionate and moving scene to take place in a focus group in which one woman is accused by another of being “nervous about a person with a different colour skin and different accent”. This unsubtle accusation of racism provokes a superbly acted and passionate response. The woman responds with fury and eventually tears:
“You can sit there and say ‘I’ve had all my life’ coming from your big city. The past few years have been fucking awful! If you must know! And all I hear all the time is ‘Shut up! Don’t talk about it! Don’t mention it. Ever.’ Well I’m sick of it! I’m sick of feeling like nothing, like I have nothing! Like I know nothing. Like I am nothing. I’m sick of it!”
This is the moment when Craig Oliver realises his side may have lost: such is the depth of the feeling that Graham depicts here. And what is striking is that it is a depth of feeling which critics of those who voted Leave in 2016 have spent so little time attempting to address.
For the past two and a half years, there have been politicians and pundits who have simply doubled down and said that: yes, people like that woman are awful racists. There are those who have said that the voters may not be racists, but that they have failed adequately to understand the issues. The most benign treatment of these people since the vote has been to say that they themselves may not be evil racists but that they have certainly been led astray by evil racists, and that these lines of manipulation can be traced to a range of sinister figures ranging from Jacob Rees-Mogg to Vladimir Putin.
But it is thinking like this that has embedded the great untruth of ‘us versus them’ in British life. It is why people from both sides have been stomping around College Green and why people who used to be serious people have spent the last two years disgracing themselves on social media.
Nothing in Parliament or the press has been able to heal this divide. Most of what has happened has only deepened it. But this piece of drama – screening as it did to millions of people who will have very different views from each other – dared to do something different.
It dared to suggest to people that their fellow citizens are not illiterates or Nazis but people with views and concerns which deserve to be listened to. Whether or not there is a way out for Britain, one minor realisation from Graham’s work is that there is at least some way out from irrelevancy for the creative arts.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeDon’t you ever wonder what the Ukrainian civilians are thinking?
I watch all sort of News programmes on the TV and I learned yesterday that Zelensky’s government had lost five advisers in his intimate circle and a similar number in administrations throughout the country. That doesn’t sound to me as if the war has full support amongst the civilian population.
But how can we tell when we are only given one side. You have an open forum but there is no open forum in the MSM
You mean those that were sacked due to corruption?
Brave Ukrainians will fight to the last man or woman. Rather dead than red.
Well, the 10m Russians in Ukraine certainly don’t support Zelensky.
And based on the videos I’ve seen of forced conscription at gunpoint in Zakarpattia, neither do the Hungarians there.
You mean those that were sacked due to corruption?
Brave Ukrainians will fight to the last man or woman. Rather dead than red.
Well, the 10m Russians in Ukraine certainly don’t support Zelensky.
And based on the videos I’ve seen of forced conscription at gunpoint in Zakarpattia, neither do the Hungarians there.
Don’t you ever wonder what the Ukrainian civilians are thinking?
I watch all sort of News programmes on the TV and I learned yesterday that Zelensky’s government had lost five advisers in his intimate circle and a similar number in administrations throughout the country. That doesn’t sound to me as if the war has full support amongst the civilian population.
But how can we tell when we are only given one side. You have an open forum but there is no open forum in the MSM
Ukraine had more than 2,500 tanks at the beginning of the “Special military operation”. They have all been destroyed by the Russians. Why should a hundred (or even more) miscellanous NATO tanks make any difference to the outcome? The Russians will surely destroy them too. At most they can only delay Russian victory. But most likely, these tanks will not even reach the battlefront until the war is over – if then.
Ukraine had more than 2,500 tanks at the beginning of the “Special military operation”. They have all been destroyed by the Russians. Why should a hundred (or even more) miscellanous NATO tanks make any difference to the outcome? The Russians will surely destroy them too. At most they can only delay Russian victory. But most likely, these tanks will not even reach the battlefront until the war is over – if then.
I claim no expertise, but if the Russians are using human wave attacks by poorly trained and ill-equipped troops then their casualty rate is likely to be far high than that experienced by the defenders.
One question I have is “Has the casualty rate experienced by both sides changed over the course of the war?” This may seem a ghoulish question but it surely has some significance for the final outcome – Even the Russians run out of cannon fodder eventually.
Its not the numbers that matter. Its the percentage of available forces lost. The Russian can loose 3 or 4 times more than the Ukrainians and still win. There’s talk of mobilization of another 200,000 Russians. There comes a point where the Ukrainians don’t have the numbers to defend the current line and have to retreat. Similar to Grant’s campaign in the East in 1864-65. If the war continues as a battle of attrition the Russians win because they have a greater population and huge amount of equipment in storage. That’s why the supply of western tanks is so vital. It turns an attrition conflict, which favors Russia, into a manoeuvre conflict, which favors Ukraine.
Is that still the case where an offensive force is considered? I can see that from the point of view of defensive position but at some point during a war of aggression numbers will have a greater psychological impact.
Bad analogy. But going in the right direction.
Grant had an overall four-to-one superiority in manpower in 1864. And that was only possible because of three years of attrition warfare.
Remember, the South could only recruit from a free population of 4 million, while the North had 20 million.
Ukraine is a third the population of Russia, but with a million already under arms.
Even with another call-up, Russia will have only a marginal superiority–and now, a clear qualitative inferiority.
“huge amount of equipment in storage” most of which is inoperable as they are discovering. Parts sold year ago.
Cope and seethe.
The Russians are managing the manufacturing side of things far far better that the West, which relies too heavily on over-engineered pap that looks good in a brochure and gives huge profits to corporations but that when asked to scale up, takes years.
When did you last hear of the much-vaunted switchblade ? The companys website looks amazing. But operationally, in theatre, it’s total junk.
https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/return-industrial-warfare/
Cope and seethe.
The Russians are managing the manufacturing side of things far far better that the West, which relies too heavily on over-engineered pap that looks good in a brochure and gives huge profits to corporations but that when asked to scale up, takes years.
When did you last hear of the much-vaunted switchblade ? The companys website looks amazing. But operationally, in theatre, it’s total junk.
https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/return-industrial-warfare/
This is true, but how many men can Russia throw into the meat grinder before it starts to cause unrest? It’s one thing using prisoners and peasants from Siberia and the Caucuses as cannon fodder, it’s quite different when you start mobilising large numbers from Moscow and St Petersburg
Because this isn’t what the Russians are doing, you’ll wait forever for the unrest you seem to be expecting any minute now.
Check your assumptions and then the world starts to make more sense.
Because this isn’t what the Russians are doing, you’ll wait forever for the unrest you seem to be expecting any minute now.
Check your assumptions and then the world starts to make more sense.
The Ukrainians do not have a manpower issue. They’ve up to a 1million mobilised or trained/training. The Russians can deploy more of course if they further enforce conscription, but they haven’t got the Ukrainian’s anywhere near a reinforcements problem. Nor is this likely. Russia may have the theoretical manpower but can’t sustain heavy losses without victories without morale collapsing and risk of social unrest. They already have a ‘go-forward’ problem.
Of course that doesn’t mean losses aren’t tragic and desperate, but one Ukrainian soldier is proving worth a good number of Russians . Fighting on your home soil against a known barbarous invader a force multiplier.
Why have the lessons of Vietnam, Afghanistan etc still not been learned – even of Russia (invaded by the Germans). Cause a country enough grief and they will NEVER back down – the Kurds -still fighting and will forever etc etc. Learning history, repeating blah blah – the imbecility of psychopathic tyrants and the gormless commoners who let them have their way , blah blah – and round and round we go. I guess this is why the Yanks hang onto their guns – it is kinda making more sense these days…………….thought i would never say that !!!!
Difficult to work out what you trying to convey there CS, apols.
But as regards ‘lessons’ I think the v evident lesson demonstrated is NATO/US doesn’t have ‘boots on the ground’. It’s responded to a unified well led population that wants to fight, and fight hard against an invader by arming them and probiding intelligence. That’s quite a different approach. That was much less the case in Vietnam and Afghan. The Tet offensive in 68 showed how riddled S Vietnam was with Vietgong infiltration and supporters of the North. That’s v clearly not the case in Ukraine.
We have been much smarter this time.
Difficult to work out what you trying to convey there CS, apols.
But as regards ‘lessons’ I think the v evident lesson demonstrated is NATO/US doesn’t have ‘boots on the ground’. It’s responded to a unified well led population that wants to fight, and fight hard against an invader by arming them and probiding intelligence. That’s quite a different approach. That was much less the case in Vietnam and Afghan. The Tet offensive in 68 showed how riddled S Vietnam was with Vietgong infiltration and supporters of the North. That’s v clearly not the case in Ukraine.
We have been much smarter this time.
Probably the biggest load of garbage I have read in a long time.
Delusional.
Listen to this Australian in the Bakhmut theatre to help you to understand the reality :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKZpYglZrW4
Why have the lessons of Vietnam, Afghanistan etc still not been learned – even of Russia (invaded by the Germans). Cause a country enough grief and they will NEVER back down – the Kurds -still fighting and will forever etc etc. Learning history, repeating blah blah – the imbecility of psychopathic tyrants and the gormless commoners who let them have their way , blah blah – and round and round we go. I guess this is why the Yanks hang onto their guns – it is kinda making more sense these days…………….thought i would never say that !!!!
Probably the biggest load of garbage I have read in a long time.
Delusional.
Listen to this Australian in the Bakhmut theatre to help you to understand the reality :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKZpYglZrW4
It’s existential for the Ukrainians, so in a population of 40 millions they could easily generate another army from all adult men constituting several millions. Their economy is screwed so they have nothing else to do.
For the Russians it isn’t existential, so Russians won’t accept going on the total war mobilisation required to beat a Ukrainian army of several millions.
“For the Russians it isn’t existential”
Wut ?!
I’m firmly convinced that Moscow would nuke London and Washington rather than lose Sevastopol.
I’m speculating, like you, of course.
But unlike you, it seems, I actually listen to what Putin and Lavrov actually say, rather than have my news shat out to me by the likes of the BBC, CNN and David Patrikarkos of this parish.
“For the Russians it isn’t existential”
Wut ?!
I’m firmly convinced that Moscow would nuke London and Washington rather than lose Sevastopol.
I’m speculating, like you, of course.
But unlike you, it seems, I actually listen to what Putin and Lavrov actually say, rather than have my news shat out to me by the likes of the BBC, CNN and David Patrikarkos of this parish.
How can it become a manoeuvre conflict when the Ukies are dug into concrete bunkers in places like Ugledar, Avdeevka and Artymovsk ?
They’re sitting ducks which is why the Russian Artillery is pounding them into a zombie PTSD state and then Wagner is mopping them up.
Is that still the case where an offensive force is considered? I can see that from the point of view of defensive position but at some point during a war of aggression numbers will have a greater psychological impact.
Bad analogy. But going in the right direction.
Grant had an overall four-to-one superiority in manpower in 1864. And that was only possible because of three years of attrition warfare.
Remember, the South could only recruit from a free population of 4 million, while the North had 20 million.
Ukraine is a third the population of Russia, but with a million already under arms.
Even with another call-up, Russia will have only a marginal superiority–and now, a clear qualitative inferiority.
“huge amount of equipment in storage” most of which is inoperable as they are discovering. Parts sold year ago.
This is true, but how many men can Russia throw into the meat grinder before it starts to cause unrest? It’s one thing using prisoners and peasants from Siberia and the Caucuses as cannon fodder, it’s quite different when you start mobilising large numbers from Moscow and St Petersburg
The Ukrainians do not have a manpower issue. They’ve up to a 1million mobilised or trained/training. The Russians can deploy more of course if they further enforce conscription, but they haven’t got the Ukrainian’s anywhere near a reinforcements problem. Nor is this likely. Russia may have the theoretical manpower but can’t sustain heavy losses without victories without morale collapsing and risk of social unrest. They already have a ‘go-forward’ problem.
Of course that doesn’t mean losses aren’t tragic and desperate, but one Ukrainian soldier is proving worth a good number of Russians . Fighting on your home soil against a known barbarous invader a force multiplier.
It’s existential for the Ukrainians, so in a population of 40 millions they could easily generate another army from all adult men constituting several millions. Their economy is screwed so they have nothing else to do.
For the Russians it isn’t existential, so Russians won’t accept going on the total war mobilisation required to beat a Ukrainian army of several millions.
How can it become a manoeuvre conflict when the Ukies are dug into concrete bunkers in places like Ugledar, Avdeevka and Artymovsk ?
They’re sitting ducks which is why the Russian Artillery is pounding them into a zombie PTSD state and then Wagner is mopping them up.
Re your first point, I was told off the record that this has indeed happened. Re your second point, the answer is also yes: Russian casualties are now happening at a quicker rate. But Ukraine is losing better-trained, more experienced soldiers, so even if the ratio has shifted in Ukraine’s favour, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the war is turning in their favour.
“I was told off the record that this has indeed happened.”
Lol. Well, that’s me convinced, chief.
No video evidence has emerged, but James from Unherd got a tip-off, so it must be true.
Hahahahahahaha
“I was told off the record that this has indeed happened.”
Lol. Well, that’s me convinced, chief.
No video evidence has emerged, but James from Unherd got a tip-off, so it must be true.
Hahahahahahaha
If the Russians were using human wave attacks then we would have seen the videos by now
Exactly. It’s utter bullshit, simply allowing all these keyboard warriors to claim that OK, maybe the Russians ARE winning, bUt LoOk aT tHEir CAsuaLTiES !!
Exactly. It’s utter bullshit, simply allowing all these keyboard warriors to claim that OK, maybe the Russians ARE winning, bUt LoOk aT tHEir CAsuaLTiES !!
Russia has a long history of never giving up no matter what the cost, as was proven in WW2 and in its war with Napoleon. I suspect, sadly, this will be no different. I don’t know what the prison population of Russia is but there will be plenty more troops to be conscripted after the last living Ukrainian is tragically killed. It is the ordinary Ukrainians that are the real cannon fodder with satanic NATO perfectly happy to see them die in their horrible proxy war with Russia.
They gave up in Afghanistan. ( Your comment about NATO rather undermines your credibility. )
Read a history book! Russia has lost wars to Japan, Finland, Afghanistan, Germany (WW1). In fact Russia has only “won” one war WW2 and that was with the help of USA and U.K.
They won the Chechen Wars so decisively that only 20 years later, the Chechens are fighting alongside the Russians.
And you think Afghanistan has any lessons for this war ?
Russia now has a professional army, backed up by militias of the strength of Wagner, the Chechens, the Donetsk Peoples Militia.
Five years ago, one of my wifes cousins was posted with the Russian Army to Sakhalin. She explained the Army now was a very prestigious gig in Russia and the men highly motivated, paid and trained.
Listen to this interview from an Australian in Bakhmut talk about how well equipped the Russians are in comparison to the Ukrainians :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKZpYglZrW4
The whole hour long interview is worth listening to, but particularly 5.21 – 8.15. These 3 minutes pour cold water on almost all the comments in this thread.
They won the Chechen Wars so decisively that only 20 years later, the Chechens are fighting alongside the Russians.
And you think Afghanistan has any lessons for this war ?
Russia now has a professional army, backed up by militias of the strength of Wagner, the Chechens, the Donetsk Peoples Militia.
Five years ago, one of my wifes cousins was posted with the Russian Army to Sakhalin. She explained the Army now was a very prestigious gig in Russia and the men highly motivated, paid and trained.
Listen to this interview from an Australian in Bakhmut talk about how well equipped the Russians are in comparison to the Ukrainians :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKZpYglZrW4
The whole hour long interview is worth listening to, but particularly 5.21 – 8.15. These 3 minutes pour cold water on almost all the comments in this thread.
At last, some sense amid this sea of cope, delusion and nonsense.
They gave up in Afghanistan. ( Your comment about NATO rather undermines your credibility. )
Read a history book! Russia has lost wars to Japan, Finland, Afghanistan, Germany (WW1). In fact Russia has only “won” one war WW2 and that was with the help of USA and U.K.
At last, some sense amid this sea of cope, delusion and nonsense.
Where do you get this nonsense from ? Some NED-funded NGO in Kiev ? The BBC ? CNN ?
If you want to be seriously depressed, but yet much more informed about the way the Russians operationally and tactically deploy, listen to this Australian mercenary actually describing the Bakhmut theatre.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKZpYglZrW4
This “human wave” idea is a complete myth.
Its not the numbers that matter. Its the percentage of available forces lost. The Russian can loose 3 or 4 times more than the Ukrainians and still win. There’s talk of mobilization of another 200,000 Russians. There comes a point where the Ukrainians don’t have the numbers to defend the current line and have to retreat. Similar to Grant’s campaign in the East in 1864-65. If the war continues as a battle of attrition the Russians win because they have a greater population and huge amount of equipment in storage. That’s why the supply of western tanks is so vital. It turns an attrition conflict, which favors Russia, into a manoeuvre conflict, which favors Ukraine.
Re your first point, I was told off the record that this has indeed happened. Re your second point, the answer is also yes: Russian casualties are now happening at a quicker rate. But Ukraine is losing better-trained, more experienced soldiers, so even if the ratio has shifted in Ukraine’s favour, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the war is turning in their favour.
If the Russians were using human wave attacks then we would have seen the videos by now
Russia has a long history of never giving up no matter what the cost, as was proven in WW2 and in its war with Napoleon. I suspect, sadly, this will be no different. I don’t know what the prison population of Russia is but there will be plenty more troops to be conscripted after the last living Ukrainian is tragically killed. It is the ordinary Ukrainians that are the real cannon fodder with satanic NATO perfectly happy to see them die in their horrible proxy war with Russia.
Where do you get this nonsense from ? Some NED-funded NGO in Kiev ? The BBC ? CNN ?
If you want to be seriously depressed, but yet much more informed about the way the Russians operationally and tactically deploy, listen to this Australian mercenary actually describing the Bakhmut theatre.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKZpYglZrW4
This “human wave” idea is a complete myth.
I claim no expertise, but if the Russians are using human wave attacks by poorly trained and ill-equipped troops then their casualty rate is likely to be far high than that experienced by the defenders.
One question I have is “Has the casualty rate experienced by both sides changed over the course of the war?” This may seem a ghoulish question but it surely has some significance for the final outcome – Even the Russians run out of cannon fodder eventually.
Not sure the body count means much except when new bodies can’t be found to enter combat. So far neither side has run out of bodies.
What does win war is logistics. In the US civil war as with all wars, the ability to furnish the weapons and materials of war define who ultimately wins. There are exceptions related to the public opinion eliminating support, Vietnam and Afghanistan are notable. But in the Ukraine war the west can supply goods forever, but Russia can’t. Ukraine might face huge destruction but if citizens decide to continue the fight, their supply lines will not falter.
You assume western countries will not grow weary of shouldering the burden of logistics to the Ukrainians. Certainly, the west can continue far longer than Russia, but whether they will or not is an entirely different question. I do agree that logistics wins wars, but I wouldn’t undersell the advantage of fighting in the defense of your home.
“But in the Ukraine war the west can supply goods forever, but Russia can’t.”
“But in the Ukraine war Russia can supply goods forever, but the west can’t.”
FTFY
https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/return-industrial-warfare
You assume western countries will not grow weary of shouldering the burden of logistics to the Ukrainians. Certainly, the west can continue far longer than Russia, but whether they will or not is an entirely different question. I do agree that logistics wins wars, but I wouldn’t undersell the advantage of fighting in the defense of your home.
“But in the Ukraine war the west can supply goods forever, but Russia can’t.”
“But in the Ukraine war Russia can supply goods forever, but the west can’t.”
FTFY
https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/return-industrial-warfare
Not sure the body count means much except when new bodies can’t be found to enter combat. So far neither side has run out of bodies.
What does win war is logistics. In the US civil war as with all wars, the ability to furnish the weapons and materials of war define who ultimately wins. There are exceptions related to the public opinion eliminating support, Vietnam and Afghanistan are notable. But in the Ukraine war the west can supply goods forever, but Russia can’t. Ukraine might face huge destruction but if citizens decide to continue the fight, their supply lines will not falter.
The Ukrainian war is a war of attrition rather like the Korea war. Both gulf wars achieved success by manoeuvre warfare. The Russians lack the tactical ability to fight manoeuvre warfare and the Ukrainians lack the weapons to fight manoeuvre warfare. That’s why the supply of western tanks has been considered vital. This gives the Ukrainians the ability to breakthrough the Russian lines and destroy Russian logistics. The Ukrainians have demonstrated the ability to breakthrough Russian lines but lacked the numbers and logistics support to fully exploit their tactical success. The Russians are losing at the tactical level but have a marginal win at the operational level because they can sustain attritional warfare. This article doesn’t mention the vital difference between attrition and manoeuvre casualties.
I’m not sure it’s a lack of tactical ability on the Russians’ part so much as a different doctrine, based on overwhelming firepower and as you say attrition rather than Gulf War-style manoeuvre (which itself depended on a good deal of firepower preceding it to degrade enemy logistics and prevent defence in depth).
This is untrue. The initial Russian timetable was to take Kyiv in 3 days. The use of air assault regiment to take the airfield north of Kyiv the infiltration of special forces and then being relieved by armored columns is straight of the theory of deep operations. It’s exactly what an attack on NATO in 1985 would have looked like. The Soivet plans had them reaching the Rhine by H+48 to H+72. That’s not attrition warfare.
In manoeuvre warfare you achieve a numerical advantage at the point of attack and use huge amounts of artillery to suppres infantry defences. The problem is that they can’t co ordinate between artillery, infantry and armor. So instead of being able to stage a breakthrough they have reverted to tactics of 1917-18. Pre planned artillery barrages followed by limted advances to bite and hold. The Russians tried and failed to implement manoeuvre warfare. That doesn’t matter to them because they can win by attrition.
Sorry, the Russian Army is in no way the Soviet.
First of all, they lack the wheeled transport to support any deep penetration. Even if the hare-brained Hostomel attack had succeeded, they would only have reached Kyiv, and got no further.
That would have just started a huge irregular war.
True, memories of the Great Patriotic War still delude Russia’s leadership.
But they conveniently (and fatally) forget that without 400,000 American trucks, any Soviet offensives would have been just as barren of success as Germany’s in 1941-2.
Russian officers are just too intellectually isolated to fight a war like this.
The infinite US logistics chain of WWII allowed the Russians to fight on. That same logistics chain ended the war.
“Russian officers are just too intellectually isolated to fight a war like this.”
Well, their lack of intellect isn’t stopping them winning this war, which doesn’t speak much for NATO, does it ?
Losing a war to stupid jail-bait.
The infinite US logistics chain of WWII allowed the Russians to fight on. That same logistics chain ended the war.
“Russian officers are just too intellectually isolated to fight a war like this.”
Well, their lack of intellect isn’t stopping them winning this war, which doesn’t speak much for NATO, does it ?
Losing a war to stupid jail-bait.
“The initial Russian timetable was to take Kyiv in 3 days.”
Got a quote for this, friend, other that some blowhard speculating on a Russian TV channel ?
Sorry, the Russian Army is in no way the Soviet.
First of all, they lack the wheeled transport to support any deep penetration. Even if the hare-brained Hostomel attack had succeeded, they would only have reached Kyiv, and got no further.
That would have just started a huge irregular war.
True, memories of the Great Patriotic War still delude Russia’s leadership.
But they conveniently (and fatally) forget that without 400,000 American trucks, any Soviet offensives would have been just as barren of success as Germany’s in 1941-2.
Russian officers are just too intellectually isolated to fight a war like this.
“The initial Russian timetable was to take Kyiv in 3 days.”
Got a quote for this, friend, other that some blowhard speculating on a Russian TV channel ?
Correct. Russian artillery tactics is what is winning this war for them.
This is untrue. The initial Russian timetable was to take Kyiv in 3 days. The use of air assault regiment to take the airfield north of Kyiv the infiltration of special forces and then being relieved by armored columns is straight of the theory of deep operations. It’s exactly what an attack on NATO in 1985 would have looked like. The Soivet plans had them reaching the Rhine by H+48 to H+72. That’s not attrition warfare.
In manoeuvre warfare you achieve a numerical advantage at the point of attack and use huge amounts of artillery to suppres infantry defences. The problem is that they can’t co ordinate between artillery, infantry and armor. So instead of being able to stage a breakthrough they have reverted to tactics of 1917-18. Pre planned artillery barrages followed by limted advances to bite and hold. The Russians tried and failed to implement manoeuvre warfare. That doesn’t matter to them because they can win by attrition.
Correct. Russian artillery tactics is what is winning this war for them.
Incredibly optimistic thinking to assume that 100 tanks are going to give Ukraine the ability to break through Russian lines and destroy logistics. The Russians are in a much stronger defensive position now than they were before, so I suspect that the tanks (which likely won’t be functional on the ground for months) will raise the likelihood of a stalemate, rather than a decisive breakthrough for Ukraine.
The Iraqs were dug in too. Didn’t do them any good. The Egyptians and Syrians were dug in as well, guess what they lost. Its shock provided by artillery to suppress atgm and knock out supporting fire. If you co ordinates combined arms you allow your engineering vehicles to clear static defences. This isn’t rocket science it’s an 80 year tactical ability. The difficulty is in getting all arms to work together. That takes training, planning and good leadership from nco level upwards.
Of which western armies have plenty, and the Russian Army clearly lacks.
Follow Girkin’s Telegram Channel.
He’s a war criminal from 2014, but the only sane “voenkor” (war correspondent).
You can translate him in Google translate.
https://t.me/s/strelkovii
Notable absolute dominance in the air. Dug-in means little to a barrage of 2000# bombs on target.
Of which western armies have plenty, and the Russian Army clearly lacks.
Follow Girkin’s Telegram Channel.
He’s a war criminal from 2014, but the only sane “voenkor” (war correspondent).
You can translate him in Google translate.
https://t.me/s/strelkovii
Notable absolute dominance in the air. Dug-in means little to a barrage of 2000# bombs on target.
The Iraqs were dug in too. Didn’t do them any good. The Egyptians and Syrians were dug in as well, guess what they lost. Its shock provided by artillery to suppress atgm and knock out supporting fire. If you co ordinates combined arms you allow your engineering vehicles to clear static defences. This isn’t rocket science it’s an 80 year tactical ability. The difficulty is in getting all arms to work together. That takes training, planning and good leadership from nco level upwards.
I’m not sure it’s a lack of tactical ability on the Russians’ part so much as a different doctrine, based on overwhelming firepower and as you say attrition rather than Gulf War-style manoeuvre (which itself depended on a good deal of firepower preceding it to degrade enemy logistics and prevent defence in depth).
Incredibly optimistic thinking to assume that 100 tanks are going to give Ukraine the ability to break through Russian lines and destroy logistics. The Russians are in a much stronger defensive position now than they were before, so I suspect that the tanks (which likely won’t be functional on the ground for months) will raise the likelihood of a stalemate, rather than a decisive breakthrough for Ukraine.
The Ukrainian war is a war of attrition rather like the Korea war. Both gulf wars achieved success by manoeuvre warfare. The Russians lack the tactical ability to fight manoeuvre warfare and the Ukrainians lack the weapons to fight manoeuvre warfare. That’s why the supply of western tanks has been considered vital. This gives the Ukrainians the ability to breakthrough the Russian lines and destroy Russian logistics. The Ukrainians have demonstrated the ability to breakthrough Russian lines but lacked the numbers and logistics support to fully exploit their tactical success. The Russians are losing at the tactical level but have a marginal win at the operational level because they can sustain attritional warfare. This article doesn’t mention the vital difference between attrition and manoeuvre casualties.
Does anybody really believe these figures from Norway? Since when we been getting Intel. from Norway, when it suits the narrative. As for Milley, why’s he asking for a ceasefire?
just reverse these figures and they may be about right. We’ll know for certain when they bring back the draft in Germany, they already have done in Poland. NATO is running out of Ukrainians.
Does anybody really believe these figures from Norway? Since when we been getting Intel. from Norway, when it suits the narrative. As for Milley, why’s he asking for a ceasefire?
just reverse these figures and they may be about right. We’ll know for certain when they bring back the draft in Germany, they already have done in Poland. NATO is running out of Ukrainians.
Whatever the Russian casualties are you can bet your bottom dollar that anything coming out of so called western experts and analysts, is simple propaganda to boost public support for public funds and resources being siphoned off to support Ukraine. Norway’s Chief of Defence, the US Chief of Staff or Rand are precisely the sort of western propaganda foghorns whose public utterances on the matter are as reliable as Colin Powell’s lie to the UN Security Council regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They are deliberately spun to mislead.
A more reliable source revealed by its attempt to bury it, is Ursula von Der Leyen’s utterance of the alarming state of Ukrainian losses suggesting the precariousness of the Western trained and armed Ukrainian army being used as canon fodder against Russia. On realising she had let the cat out of the bag as to the real state of affairs, the EU propagandists quickly moved in to action to remove the clip and explain it away. Fortunately others managed to preserve it. It is accessible in the public domain on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EB8GQnRJHWg
Whatever the Russian casualties are you can bet your bottom dollar that anything coming out of so called western experts and analysts, is simple propaganda to boost public support for public funds and resources being siphoned off to support Ukraine. Norway’s Chief of Defence, the US Chief of Staff or Rand are precisely the sort of western propaganda foghorns whose public utterances on the matter are as reliable as Colin Powell’s lie to the UN Security Council regarding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They are deliberately spun to mislead.
A more reliable source revealed by its attempt to bury it, is Ursula von Der Leyen’s utterance of the alarming state of Ukrainian losses suggesting the precariousness of the Western trained and armed Ukrainian army being used as canon fodder against Russia. On realising she had let the cat out of the bag as to the real state of affairs, the EU propagandists quickly moved in to action to remove the clip and explain it away. Fortunately others managed to preserve it. It is accessible in the public domain on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EB8GQnRJHWg
The war has momentarily halted due to ukranian mud. This was expected.
Russia has also managed to occupy some small town. It’s war, sometimes the bad guy wins something.
Now these kinds of posts are starting to show up here and on other sites: ”The russians are just to many. They will never stop coming. The ukranians must give way for the russian might. They always win in the end”. And so on.
Thing is that Russia won’t be allowed to win. The West, albeit a bit slow sometimes, has always stepped up to help Ukraine. Latest reinforcement is of course the Abrahams and Leopard tanks. F-16 fighters are constantly talked about. Today Rheinmetall announced they will increase production of 155mm shells to around 500.000 a year. 120mm tank shells to about 240.000. They are in talks with Lockheed about producing actual HIMARS here in Europe.
So you see, it won’t matter how many russians are sent to the front. The West has decided that this plague of a country is to be defanged and rendered unthreatening. But it will happen in small increments and Russia herself will choose if she wants to continue to the bitter end or back off in time.
The war has momentarily halted due to ukranian mud. This was expected.
Russia has also managed to occupy some small town. It’s war, sometimes the bad guy wins something.
Now these kinds of posts are starting to show up here and on other sites: ”The russians are just to many. They will never stop coming. The ukranians must give way for the russian might. They always win in the end”. And so on.
Thing is that Russia won’t be allowed to win. The West, albeit a bit slow sometimes, has always stepped up to help Ukraine. Latest reinforcement is of course the Abrahams and Leopard tanks. F-16 fighters are constantly talked about. Today Rheinmetall announced they will increase production of 155mm shells to around 500.000 a year. 120mm tank shells to about 240.000. They are in talks with Lockheed about producing actual HIMARS here in Europe.
So you see, it won’t matter how many russians are sent to the front. The West has decided that this plague of a country is to be defanged and rendered unthreatening. But it will happen in small increments and Russia herself will choose if she wants to continue to the bitter end or back off in time.
What a difference a day makes.
The writer is correct about the casualty rates–no one knows, or will know–until well after the conflict ends.
But the dispatch of Abrams and Leopards decisively changes the war’s dynamic. The western tanks won’t be available for months, which seems to create a window of opportunity for Russia.
Sadly, however, something called the “rasputitsa” (the two-month long muddy season) will upset Russia’s war plans permanently. Until May, manoeuvre by vehicles is difficult if not impossible, as the Russians found out before Kyiv.
So Putin will either have to send his ill-prepared and equipped 150,000 “mobiks” against Ukrainian defences now, in the midst of winter, or wait and face a Ukrainian tank force far better manned, organized and led in May or June.
It may yet be a long war. But now it is a war that Russia cannot win, either in the long or short term.
“But now it is a war that Russia cannot win, either in the long or short term.” Given the logistics involved a true statement.
Why is it sad that the weather prevents a Russian advance before the Ukrainians can replenish their defences? I think most people in the world would argue that’s a good thing
“But now it is a war that Russia cannot win, either in the long or short term.” Given the logistics involved a true statement.
Why is it sad that the weather prevents a Russian advance before the Ukrainians can replenish their defences? I think most people in the world would argue that’s a good thing
What a difference a day makes.
The writer is correct about the casualty rates–no one knows, or will know–until well after the conflict ends.
But the dispatch of Abrams and Leopards decisively changes the war’s dynamic. The western tanks won’t be available for months, which seems to create a window of opportunity for Russia.
Sadly, however, something called the “rasputitsa” (the two-month long muddy season) will upset Russia’s war plans permanently. Until May, manoeuvre by vehicles is difficult if not impossible, as the Russians found out before Kyiv.
So Putin will either have to send his ill-prepared and equipped 150,000 “mobiks” against Ukrainian defences now, in the midst of winter, or wait and face a Ukrainian tank force far better manned, organized and led in May or June.
It may yet be a long war. But now it is a war that Russia cannot win, either in the long or short term.