NATO Declares Russia an Enemy - Your take.

[Flash]

1) My understanding is that the Soviets invented the concept of the operational level of war, and that it came about because Russian military thinkers began recognizing that with industrialization, and also just Russia's sheer size, that future wars (for Russia anyway) would involve massive forces with large battlefronts and very long supply lines. And so developed the idea of Soviet Deep Battle theory which entails penetrating deep into the enemy's interior, which as a prerequisite would mean mastery of logistics. Now Russia now is not the Soviet military at its height I would think, but, I am sure this school of thinking, and especially given its success by the Russians against the Germans in WWII, still is with the Russians and thus they are aware of its importance. Which probably means this is something they are working towards building in their military buildup.

I am not too familiar with Soviet or Russian military theory but while the Russians have boosted their defense spending the last few years they have focused on weapon systems and C4I, not so much on logistics. While not a perfect one a good example would be to look at their airlift fleet, which consists a much diminished and often poorly maintained fleet of Soviet-era transports supplemented with a very small number of newer aircraft. The same can be said for almost all of their logistical tail, relying on older equipment of greatly varying quality that likely wont' last them long in a high intensity conflict.

2) When you say "logistical depth," how do you mean? Like do you mean physical locations of supplies laid out by NATO forces to support any kind of conflict or do you just mean the overall logistical capabilities of said forces? (like their numbers of logistics personnel and professionalism, numbers of supply and fuel trucks, etc...?)

The overall logistical capabilities of said forces.

3) You say the U.S. and several of our NATO allies; just wondering who those several are?

Most notably France and the UK. While their forces are much smaller than ours they have regularly demonstrated the capability to competently deploy and sustain forces worldwide. It would be a stretch for them to do it on their own but they aren't amateurs at it. For comparison, the Brits and French have or will have 14 (9) and 15 aerial tankers while the Russians have ~20. Again, not a perfect analogy but a telling one as to the balance of their forces.

Another thing to note is the endemic corruption that permeates Russia. While the effects of corruption on the military has diminished in the past few years it has by no means disappeared, with it effecting large weapon system contracts to everyday things like food and housing. That sort of corruption is close to non-existent in most older NATO countries (foreign weapons deals aside).

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

While the effects of corruption on the military has diminished in the past few years it has by no means disappeared

It grows. Since almost all of new systems went through R&D stage, expencive in itself, tricky Russian mind of course found a million ways to insert unrelated spendings there with no hesitations.

 

[insanebikerboy]

I am not too familiar with Soviet or Russian military theory but while the Russians have boosted their defense spending the last few years they have focused on weapon systems and C4I, not so much on logistics. While not a perfect one a good example would be to look at their airlift fleet, which consists a much diminished and often poorly maintained fleet of Soviet-era transports supplemented with a very small number of newer aircraft. The same can be said for almost all of their logistical tail, relying on older equipment of greatly varying quality that likely wont' last them long in a high intensity conflict.



The overall logistical capabilities of said forces.



Most notably France and the UK. While their forces are much smaller than ours they have regularly demonstrated the capability to competently deploy and sustain forces worldwide. It would be a stretch for them to do it on their own but they aren't amateurs at it. For comparison, the Brits and French have or will have 14 (9) and 15 aerial tankers while the Russians have ~20. Again, not a perfect analogy but a telling one as to the balance of their forces.

Another thing to note is the endemic corruption that permeates Russia. While the effects of corruption on the military has diminished in the past few years it has by no means disappeared, with it effecting large weapon system contracts to everyday things like food and housing. That sort of corruption is close to non-existent in most older NATO countries (foreign weapons deals aside).

Logistics is what wins wars. In the buildup Russia only had (at least what appeared on open source) enough log for a short duration conflict. There wasn’t much of a log tail/reachback, especially considering the troop concentrations. We’ll see how that plays out, especially considering the level of resistance the Ukrainians are giving.

 

[Griz882]

Logistics is what wins wars. In the buildup Russia only had (at least what appeared on open source) enough log for a short duration conflict. There wasn’t much of a log tail/reachback, especially considering the troop concentrations. We’ll see how that plays out, especially considering the level of resistance the Ukrainians are giving.

Add to that the rather “multi-front” approach they took violating the principle of mass in the attack. Ukrainian forces likely lack the C3I (and troop numbers) to launch effective counter-attacks, but almost any other peer nation would currently be in the process of defeating Putin’s advances in detail.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Add to that the rather “multi-front” approach they took violating the principle of mass in the attack. Ukrainian forces likely lack the C3I (and troop numbers) to launch effective counter-attacks, but almost any other peer nation would currently be in the process of defeating Putin’s advances in detail.

Defeat in detail may happen anyway. It looks like Putin really underestimated the level of resistance of both Ukraine, and the West.

 

[Griz882]

On the maritime side it looks like at least two tankers have been hit in the Black Sea.

 

[Max the Mad Russian]

On the maritime side it looks like at least two tankers have been hit in the Black Sea.

As in a Gulf during Iran-Iraq War, it is hard to tell "field from rail" but Ukranian Navy had been mostly destroyed in 2014 in Crimea and had no time and money to reborn. Though, some shore-launching assets may be in use but again, we wait for Russian amphib operations by those LSTs gathered in Sebastopol from Baltic and Nortern fleets so our coastal forces won't spend missiles against even juicy auxiliaries.