Parents are tyrants. Picture the scene: my four-year-old, ready for the bath, decides a bath is not on her agenda for the evening after all.
Me: “Time to get in the bath.”
Her: “But I don’t want a bath.”
Me: “You’re still having a bath.”
Her: “You can’t make me.”
Me: “Actually, I can.” [picks up protesting child, places child in bath]
Is this an act of oppression? The journalist Noah Berlatsky might say so. “’Parent’ is an oppressive class,” he wrote recently, “like rich people or white people”. For if you believe all coercion is unjust, the fact that parents often make their kids do things against their will surely qualifies as oppressive. So dedicated egalitarians must either not have kids, or else do everything possible to avoid making this inevitable oppression worse than it has to be. As Berlatsky puts it: “There are things you can do to try to minimize the abuse that’s endemic to the parent/child relationship, but it’s always there”.
How, then, does someone who is opposed to oppression in all forms deal with the occasional need to tell your kids what to do? Look no further than the kids’ TV programme which provokes more Mumsnet rage than any other: Bing.
For readers fortunate enough never to have encountered Bing, it depicts humanoid CGI-animated animal children, of what looks like pre-school age. The characters live in a manicured suburb, where they are cared for by tiny toy-like creatures that appear to represent their parents or — more usually — other carer types such as nannies or grandparents. The eponymous bunny, Bing, is cared for by a small entity called “Flop”. Their relationship is never explained, though Bing addresses Flop by his first name, suggesting he is perhaps some kind of childcare professional.
Episodes always follow the same format. Bing and Flop go about their usual day, when a moment of conflict or heightened emotion occurs: a balloon bursts, Bing’s friend won’t let him have a turn on the swing, Bing kills a butterfly, Bing breaks a window in the garden playing football. The children express (muted) emotions, and the tiny carers explain in soft, gentle voices what went wrong, then suggest something to “make it better”.
The hyper-emphasis on persuasion and gentleness evidenced by Flop (and Berlatsky) may seem peculiarly of our time. But this softly-softly take on parenthood is a well-trodden path. Consider, for example, the 1849 poem Speak Gently, by David Bates:
Speak gently to the little child!
Its love be sure to gain;
Teach it in accents soft and mild:
It may not long remain.
Bates’s poem was popular enough at its time to reappear in (ultimately far more famous) parodied form in Lewis Carroll’s 1865 Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland, where the grotesque Duchess sings to her howling infant:
Speak roughly to your little boy.
and beat him when he sneezes:
he only does it to annoy,
because he knows it teases.
But it wasn’t until the twentieth century that the balance of parenting advice began to shift decisively against Carroll’s “Duchess”, toward the feather-soft Flop school of child management. The 1922 manual Common Sense in the Nursery, for example, is a typical example of post-war “behaviourism”:
“By training the baby to lie alone […] by feeding him four-hourly by day and not at all by night, a woman is able to lead a human life instead of having it completely disorganised.”
This is hardly beating a baby when he sneezes; but it assumes a child should be as far as possible trained to fit in with parents’ wishes. By the mid-20th century, though, a growing body of advice reversed the polarity. In Baby and Child (1977) Penelope Leach asserted that a baby cannot be “spoiled”, because “they are not grown up or clever enough to be spoiled”. Instead, a mother should fit her own activities to the baby’s point of view. Despite being “very hard work”, Leach thought, this was in fact the best path to happiness not just for the child but for mummy as well: “taking the baby’s point of view does not mean neglecting yours, the parents’ viewpoint. Your interests and his are identical … If you make happiness for him he will make happiness for you.”
This progressive inversion of the balance of power in a parent/child relationship is perfectly captured by the relative size of the adult and child characters in Bing. My daughter was mistaken to think I couldn’t make her have a bath, because I’m physically much bigger than her, and happy to use that advantage to enforce personal hygiene. But Flop is around a third of Bing’s size, so if Bing sat down on the bathmat and refused to get in the bath, Flop would not be able to make him comply.
Luckily, unlike in the real world, in Bing world this sort of adult/child conflict of wills never happens. Instead, Bing is the ideal child, as depicted by 20th-century progressive parenting guru Benjamin Spock, who opined in Baby and Child Care (1955) that “If a child is handled in a friendly way, he wants to do the right thing, the grown-up thing, most of the time”. From this perspective, there’s no need for discipline because, all you need is love.
A decade later, Californian therapist Carl Rogers was making a similar argument in the realm of psychotherapy. Rogers argued against Christianity’s pessimistic take on humans’ baked-in propensity for evil, the doctrine of original sin, as well as the psychoanalytic reworking of original sin in the form of “id”, “libido” and “death instinct”. Contra these downbeat visions of human nature, Rogers argued that “the innermost core of man’s nature, the deepest layers of his personality, the base of his ‘animal nature’ is positive in nature — is basically socialised, forward-moving, rational and realistic”.
In this view, bad deeds are not a consequence of human nature, but only ever a result of trauma, ignorance or error. There’s no need for containment or discipline, only forgiveness and education — or, as Rogers would put it, “unconditional positive regard”.
When Bing breaks the window of the garden shed after Flop already suggested (in the usual gentle voice) that he refrain from kicking the ball hard, Bing is guilty and apologetic. But of course this is a mistake, not disobedience, so when he whines to Flop “I forgetted about the big kicks”, Flop just soothes: “It’s easy to forget”. There are no further consequences. Indeed, the only reason to impose rules at all is personal safety, as evidenced by the uncharacteristic firmness with which Flop orders the children away from the broken glass.
If we take Bing as an idealised template for what both parents and children are meant to look like, it’s a rosy vision of humans as fundamentally innocent and good, and of optimum development as ordered mainly around the child’s needs.
Bing is never aggressive, capricious or lacking in empathy. He never throws a tantrum. He’s a very 21st-century mixture of ignorant, self-centred and susceptible to guilt trips: the perfect child-centred child. Responsible adults organise their lives around the children’s needs and desires, never themselves express any emotion (especially not anger) and don’t leave children to resolve conflict between them, and only impose clear rules when physical safety is at risk. There’s no punishment, no one ever loses their rag, there’s no need to make the kids do anything, ever.
If there’s a reason Bing prompts so much swearing on Mumsnet, it’s because this is an insanely rosy view of what wrangling small children is actually like. Already in 1969, Benjamin Spock was warning that touchy-feeliness can go too far, observing in an updated edition of Baby that in fact love is not all you need. Parents have “welcomed new theories’, Spock observed, but “They have often read meanings into them that went beyond what the scientists intended—for instance, that all that children need is love; that they shouldn’t be made to conform … that whenever anything goes wrong it’s the parents’ fault; that when children misbehave the parents shouldn’t become angry or punish them but try to show more love”.
Berlatsky is half-right, but not in the way he thinks: oppression is indeed baked into the parent/child relationship, if by “oppression” you mean hierarchy and occasionally coercion. But he, and proponents of radically egalitarian parenting in general, are wrong to imagine this dynamic should be minimised. On the contrary, the fact that parents have authority over their children should be cheerfully embraced, for the child’s psychological health.
Whether you call it original sin or the death instinct, all humans come with a capacity for darkness as well as light. My experience as a parent is that this isn’t the product of culture: it’s baked in. We don’t have to beat our children for sneezing to know it’s not enough to claim our dark side can be loved away. Sometimes it needs to be contained, by clear boundaries lovingly maintained.
If we fail to do this, the result isn’t kinder or more moral individuals; it’s more stunted ones. If parents convey the message that the only permissible emotions are sanitised ‘positive’ ones, never hatred, greed, envy, vengefulness or rage, it becomes the child’s responsibility to keep a lid on his or her own strong feelings. I know poor Bing is not a real person, but I’m still horrified by how limited the range of his emotional responses is. Even when Pando smashes Bing’s best sandcastle, all Bing manages is a plaintive, vaguely passive-aggressive ‘awww, that was our biggest sandcastle ever’.
At the end of each episode, Bing breaks the fourth wall and addresses the audience directly, offering a summary of what happened and how it made him feel. Usually what Bing felt was ‘sad’, and even if it’s ‘angry’ this is relayed in a sad voice. I can only conclude that this poor anthropomorphic bunny-child has already learned to prune his own emotions into an acceptably progressive range.
For this is what it looks like when parents refuse to step up to the position of authority our children need us to take. The result will either be out-of-control kids desperate for someone to provide some containment, or else the stunted feelings of someone who has learned it’s not safe to throw a wobbler. So Berlatsky is right that parents are tyrants, but his mistake is to imagine that this is a bad thing. The loving imposition of authority by parents, in a child’s interests, is not oppression. It’s a vital condition for the inverse of oppression: safety, freedom, and the space to be a child.
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.