While I disagree with some points in the article in the assessment of history, overall it gives a just overview of the process of mobilization in Russia in 2022. Call for mobilization was certainly a shocker for the Russian society. Not counting secretive and relatively small mobilization of 1979 before the start of Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, this is something that country didn't experience since the time of big war in 1941 - 1945. Important to make a note that back in the 1940s the case for mobilization was pretty clear in the minds of the most of the Soviet citizenry - country was invaded by Nazi Germany, but in reality by the European Union version of the time - Romanian, Hungarian, Italian, Finnish troops were participating in invasion at a large scale, but smaller units under SS command were provided practically by all countries under German control. Today the case for mobilization in the eyes of the Russian population is much less clear. Many there see the ongoing war as aggression by Russia or at least as something that is perhaps just, considering 8 years of Ukrainian attacks on Donbass, but something that is outside of their immediate interests. There is so much injustice in the world - why should they risk their lives trying to fix this one?
However, it starts to dawn on many that this is not really a war between Russia and Ukraine, this is a proxy war of collective West against Russia that decided that it can't allow Russia to exist in the current form and not because of Russia's bad behavior since 1991, Russia actually behaved in a rather subdued way giving away most of what USSR has achieved, but because of its potential. Putin is overall a very favorable for the West leader as he always tries to strike a deal even at the expense of giving in to the opponent, but what if a real patriot will replace him and have under control a country with immense natural resources? Better to divide them now into smaller, manageable pieces that are easy to control and to build overtime hatred among the newly created "nations", it worked after all fabulously with Ukraine!
To summarize.
- Russian mobilization won't be any worse than similar exercise in Ukraine since Russia is still a richer country that has more rigid vertical governance and control structures than independent Ukraine ever had. Yes, there will be screw-ups, acts of aggression, acts of patriotism, but overall machine is going to work, albeit in a typical for Eastern Slavs somewhat chaotic way.
- Considering the fact that as a world we are heading into a period of great instability, this war and mobilization probably play a favorable role for Russia, but also for Ukraine. West at large was not exposed to these conditions yet and breaking a prosperous, peaceful society into a survival mode won't be easy
- Mobilizing people is not enough. In order to have an upper hand in this conflict economy needs to be mobilized as well as ideology. If Russia will continue on the path of business as usual, oligarchs take natural resources out of the country and stash the profits in the offshore accounts (capital outflow from Russia is projected to hit record $250 billion this year) - this is going to lead to a great social instability creating conditions that Russian Empire experienced back in 1916 - 1917.
So, Russia and Ukraine (and Europe) are heading for some interesting times. I think by the end of the coming winter it is going to become clear which way the coin is going to fall.
Well the newly mobilised are reservists in theory, so they are supposed to have already received military training and need only a quick brushing up.
However, where I differ is in that firepower is important in determining the outcome of a battle: sticking with WW2 examples, Operation Uranus was a smashing success because of surprise, numbers, and also because the Romanians were woefully outmatched in terms of anti-tank and anti-air capabilities.
These new forces will need their own anti-tank and anti-drone devices, and artillery support, to resist until the AFU runs out of the current aid package.
Yes, in theory they are supposed to have been previously trained, however having 30 guys with AKs and having a cohesive platoon is not the same thing.
Yes, firepower is important. I think there isn't a shortage of armor for them, just of modernized types. They'll probably be getting unmodernized T-72s and the like. As for drones, there isn't enough of those for even just the active-duty troops.
Of course greater numbers also mean more firepower. Shooting from 30 barrels is more firepower than shooting from 10. Also numbers enable manouver. You can't do Uranus if you don't have some forces you can spare.
I think the most effective tactic so far has proven to be geolocating coordinates of enemy groupings with high-altitude drones, and then hit them with high precision indirect fire (mainly artillery, less vulnerable to counterbattery fire than airplanes are to anti air measures).
In absence of that, when two opposing infantries engage in a firefight it means the attacker has made some mistake. In that case it comes down to which side has the most firepower to suppress the opponents, pin them down and manoeuvre around them. In a context without electronic warfare, ie WWII, I think is explanatory the part about machine guns here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QgXuhv7-54 Nowadays IFVs and tanks are the main support.
Only a change of Russian and Ukrainian elites will be able to turn the situation for the better, so that the suffering and killing of people will stop and peace will come. At the same time, the Russian elites are most likely independent, and the Ukrainian elites are completely dependent on the American elites. In place of international organizations and the rulers who participate in them (if they were honest and strong), it would be necessary to impose sanctions not only against the rulers of Russia, but also against the rulers of Ukraine. And also the rulers of the United States, who govern the rulers of Ukraine.
Thank you for your serious and impartial analyses of the situation, free from propaganda.
Your comment reminds me of something I wrote during the last North Korea crisis. Russia proclaimed that US and North Korea were both being unreasonable and provoking the other, but then went along with additional UN sanctions against North Korea that can't be lifted without America's say so.
If they were both equally at fault then how can you go along with sanctions of one against the other?
While I disagree with some points in the article in the assessment of history, overall it gives a just overview of the process of mobilization in Russia in 2022. Call for mobilization was certainly a shocker for the Russian society. Not counting secretive and relatively small mobilization of 1979 before the start of Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, this is something that country didn't experience since the time of big war in 1941 - 1945. Important to make a note that back in the 1940s the case for mobilization was pretty clear in the minds of the most of the Soviet citizenry - country was invaded by Nazi Germany, but in reality by the European Union version of the time - Romanian, Hungarian, Italian, Finnish troops were participating in invasion at a large scale, but smaller units under SS command were provided practically by all countries under German control. Today the case for mobilization in the eyes of the Russian population is much less clear. Many there see the ongoing war as aggression by Russia or at least as something that is perhaps just, considering 8 years of Ukrainian attacks on Donbass, but something that is outside of their immediate interests. There is so much injustice in the world - why should they risk their lives trying to fix this one?
However, it starts to dawn on many that this is not really a war between Russia and Ukraine, this is a proxy war of collective West against Russia that decided that it can't allow Russia to exist in the current form and not because of Russia's bad behavior since 1991, Russia actually behaved in a rather subdued way giving away most of what USSR has achieved, but because of its potential. Putin is overall a very favorable for the West leader as he always tries to strike a deal even at the expense of giving in to the opponent, but what if a real patriot will replace him and have under control a country with immense natural resources? Better to divide them now into smaller, manageable pieces that are easy to control and to build overtime hatred among the newly created "nations", it worked after all fabulously with Ukraine!
To summarize.
- Russian mobilization won't be any worse than similar exercise in Ukraine since Russia is still a richer country that has more rigid vertical governance and control structures than independent Ukraine ever had. Yes, there will be screw-ups, acts of aggression, acts of patriotism, but overall machine is going to work, albeit in a typical for Eastern Slavs somewhat chaotic way.
- Considering the fact that as a world we are heading into a period of great instability, this war and mobilization probably play a favorable role for Russia, but also for Ukraine. West at large was not exposed to these conditions yet and breaking a prosperous, peaceful society into a survival mode won't be easy
- Mobilizing people is not enough. In order to have an upper hand in this conflict economy needs to be mobilized as well as ideology. If Russia will continue on the path of business as usual, oligarchs take natural resources out of the country and stash the profits in the offshore accounts (capital outflow from Russia is projected to hit record $250 billion this year) - this is going to lead to a great social instability creating conditions that Russian Empire experienced back in 1916 - 1917.
So, Russia and Ukraine (and Europe) are heading for some interesting times. I think by the end of the coming winter it is going to become clear which way the coin is going to fall.
Well the newly mobilised are reservists in theory, so they are supposed to have already received military training and need only a quick brushing up.
However, where I differ is in that firepower is important in determining the outcome of a battle: sticking with WW2 examples, Operation Uranus was a smashing success because of surprise, numbers, and also because the Romanians were woefully outmatched in terms of anti-tank and anti-air capabilities.
These new forces will need their own anti-tank and anti-drone devices, and artillery support, to resist until the AFU runs out of the current aid package.
Yes, in theory they are supposed to have been previously trained, however having 30 guys with AKs and having a cohesive platoon is not the same thing.
Yes, firepower is important. I think there isn't a shortage of armor for them, just of modernized types. They'll probably be getting unmodernized T-72s and the like. As for drones, there isn't enough of those for even just the active-duty troops.
Of course greater numbers also mean more firepower. Shooting from 30 barrels is more firepower than shooting from 10. Also numbers enable manouver. You can't do Uranus if you don't have some forces you can spare.
I think the most effective tactic so far has proven to be geolocating coordinates of enemy groupings with high-altitude drones, and then hit them with high precision indirect fire (mainly artillery, less vulnerable to counterbattery fire than airplanes are to anti air measures).
In absence of that, when two opposing infantries engage in a firefight it means the attacker has made some mistake. In that case it comes down to which side has the most firepower to suppress the opponents, pin them down and manoeuvre around them. In a context without electronic warfare, ie WWII, I think is explanatory the part about machine guns here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QgXuhv7-54 Nowadays IFVs and tanks are the main support.
It's sad, but that's the way it is...
Only a change of Russian and Ukrainian elites will be able to turn the situation for the better, so that the suffering and killing of people will stop and peace will come. At the same time, the Russian elites are most likely independent, and the Ukrainian elites are completely dependent on the American elites. In place of international organizations and the rulers who participate in them (if they were honest and strong), it would be necessary to impose sanctions not only against the rulers of Russia, but also against the rulers of Ukraine. And also the rulers of the United States, who govern the rulers of Ukraine.
Thank you for your serious and impartial analyses of the situation, free from propaganda.
Your comment reminds me of something I wrote during the last North Korea crisis. Russia proclaimed that US and North Korea were both being unreasonable and provoking the other, but then went along with additional UN sanctions against North Korea that can't be lifted without America's say so.
If they were both equally at fault then how can you go along with sanctions of one against the other?