2022-2024 Russo-Ukrainian War

[Albany Rifles]

The WSJ is reporting the Czechs have sourced another 700,000 artillery shells, in addition to the previous 800,000.
https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/a-s...raine-35255577

Anyone have any thoughts on the reports that Russia is buying imagery from US commercial satellite companies to conduct and correct strikes on Ukranian positions and materiel?
https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...ne-war/677775/

I only see it in The Atlantic...and it is behind a pay wall.

[Widget Jr]

These are questions I have had developing since the Ukrainian offensives in Kharkiv and Kherson. There is one former military commentator I have questions, and this forum looks like the best place to ask. Before this gets going, to those who know, and there are a few here who know, I apologize in advance for asking. The person is Douglas Macgregor.

The questions are: "What are his problems? For us civilians, was there anything in professional military publications, papers, journals, etc., that hinted at them?"

I never served in the military. If this means knowing how military culture works in ways the public does not know, please give a few hints. Institutions like the military only have the internal problems aired publicly in vague terms and excel at avoiding bad publicity.

There are hints and lines to read between for those who aren't military. He wrote "Breaking the Phalanx" in 1999 and "Transformation Under Fire: Revolutionizing How America Fights". Transformation was released in September 2003, after the invasion of Iraq was completed. In 2006, "Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq" by Michael Gordan and Bernard Trainor was published.

The impression I got from Cobra II was the top brass thought Macgregor's ideas put into practice were between reckless and all but certainly suicidal, and politically outside of his role. Macgregor wanted to go in fast with a force of 50,000 and leave before the dust settled. Staying or leaving Iraq was a political decision, not a military one.

Transformation could be seen as telling the military, perhaps Congress and the Executive branch, how the invasion should have gone, after much of what he wanted was disproven. This is from a person who went around his superior's backs to get what he wanted, take all the credit and none of the blame if anything went wrong.

I think people on this board understand, no matter how much of a "real warfighter" a man is, this is definitely not how to become a general or flag officer.

Skipping to September 2022, Ukraine launches its Kharkiv and Kherson counter offensives. On Tucker Carlson's show, Macgregor was in full denial that the Kharkiv offensive was actually happening. Afterwards, he has not stop criticizing Ukraine and western aid. He has gone so far to say Ukraine has raised and lost three entire armies, all the western aid has had no effect. He's now critical of the Abram and Bradley vehicles he served with before. All as if Russia has only strengths and no weaknesses, Ukraine and her allies have only weaknesses and no strengths, while completely ignoring Russia has not won.

What I see is, he is taking Russia's inability to win and Ukraine's refusal to lose personally. He comes across as thinking he is such a modern Sun Tzu or von Clausewitz of war every officer above him who disagrees is beneath contempt. When he gets told "no", told or finds out he's wrong, he becomes single mindedly vindictive.

If anyone has anything else to add, including correcting any of my errors, please say so.

[Officer of Engineers]

Think you answered your own question here.

But to give you some more perspective. Col (R) Macgregor's ideas is nothing more than punitive expedition and the faults of that strategy has been known since the days of Thermopylae. The Persians even sacked Athens and it still did not prevent their loss of that war. However, the Col's ideas are obsolete and do not reflect modern day capabilities. Why use 50,000 men to punish Iraq when a flight of B-52s could do the same faster and cheaper?

I find Macgregor to be too much politics. His actual military experience I have no problems with but when he starts talking outside his paygrade, I roll my eyes. Women in combat. It's not his call. Deal with it ... just like the rest of us.

[Monash]

These are questions I have had developing since the Ukrainian offensives in Kharkiv and Kherson. There is one former military commentator I have questions, and this forum looks like the best place to ask. Before this gets going, to those who know, and there are a few here who know, I apologize in advance for asking. The person is Douglas Macgregor.

The questions are: "What are his problems? For us civilians, was there anything in professional military publications, papers, journals, etc., that hinted at them?"

I never served in the military. If this means knowing how military culture works in ways the public does not know, please give a few hints. Institutions like the military only have the internal problems aired publicly in vague terms and excel at avoiding bad publicity.

There are hints and lines to read between for those who aren't military. He wrote "Breaking the Phalanx" in 1999 and "Transformation Under Fire: Revolutionizing How America Fights". Transformation was released in September 2003, after the invasion of Iraq was completed. In 2006, "Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq" by Michael Gordan and Bernard Trainor was published.

The impression I got from Cobra II was the top brass thought Macgregor's ideas put into practice were between reckless and all but certainly suicidal, and politically outside of his role. Macgregor wanted to go in fast with a force of 50,000 and leave before the dust settled. Staying or leaving Iraq was a political decision, not a military one.

Transformation could be seen as telling the military, perhaps Congress and the Executive branch, how the invasion should have gone, after much of what he wanted was disproven. This is from a person who went around his superior's backs to get what he wanted, take all the credit and none of the blame if anything went wrong.

I think people on this board understand, no matter how much of a "real warfighter" a man is, this is definitely not how to become a general or flag officer.

Skipping to September 2022, Ukraine launches its Kharkiv and Kherson counter offensives. On Tucker Carlson's show, Macgregor was in full denial that the Kharkiv offensive was actually happening. Afterwards, he has not stop criticizing Ukraine and western aid. He has gone so far to say Ukraine has raised and lost three entire armies, all the western aid has had no effect. He's now critical of the Abram and Bradley vehicles he served with before. All as if Russia has only strengths and no weaknesses, Ukraine and her allies have only weaknesses and no strengths, while completely ignoring Russia has not won.

What I see is, he is taking Russia's inability to win and Ukraine's refusal to lose personally. He comes across as thinking he is such a modern Sun Tzu or von Clausewitz of war every officer above him who disagrees is beneath contempt. When he gets told "no", told or finds out he's wrong, he becomes single mindedly vindictive.

If anyone has anything else to add, including correcting any of my errors, please say so.

Nothing much to add to your own observations unfortunately. The reliability of any commentator (on any subject) is IMO defined in part by their objectivity. Any credible observer of the Ukrainian war with military experience would recognize the strengths and weakness of both sides. Same goes for their successes and failures in combat - at all levels of operation. Macgregor?

Welcome BTW.

[rj1]

Anyone have any thoughts on the reports that Russia is buying imagery from US commercial satellite companies to conduct and correct strikes on Ukranian positions and materiel?
https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...ne-war/677775/

Weather satellites are getting very good now they in some aspects have very obvious dual military capabilities. So I think it's a very wide net of countries there that could be potentially helping Russia in addition to their own assets.

If the Ukrainians are complaining about the Russians using Google Earth...I think that is more just the world we live in now of everything you say and do is recorded. Want to block it, go ahead, you think the Russians don't have an Imager up in Space, really?

[Albany Rifles]

These are questions I have had developing since the Ukrainian offensives in Kharkiv and Kherson. There is one former military commentator I have questions, and this forum looks like the best place to ask. Before this gets going, to those who know, and there are a few here who know, I apologize in advance for asking. The person is Douglas Macgregor.

The questions are: "What are his problems? For us civilians, was there anything in professional military publications, papers, journals, etc., that hinted at them?"

I never served in the military. If this means knowing how military culture works in ways the public does not know, please give a few hints. Institutions like the military only have the internal problems aired publicly in vague terms and excel at avoiding bad publicity.

There are hints and lines to read between for those who aren't military. He wrote "Breaking the Phalanx" in 1999 and "Transformation Under Fire: Revolutionizing How America Fights". Transformation was released in September 2003, after the invasion of Iraq was completed. In 2006, "Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq" by Michael Gordan and Bernard Trainor was published.

The impression I got from Cobra II was the top brass thought Macgregor's ideas put into practice were between reckless and all but certainly suicidal, and politically outside of his role. Macgregor wanted to go in fast with a force of 50,000 and leave before the dust settled. Staying or leaving Iraq was a political decision, not a military one.

Transformation could be seen as telling the military, perhaps Congress and the Executive branch, how the invasion should have gone, after much of what he wanted was disproven. This is from a person who went around his superior's backs to get what he wanted, take all the credit and none of the blame if anything went wrong.

I think people on this board understand, no matter how much of a "real warfighter" a man is, this is definitely not how to become a general or flag officer.

Skipping to September 2022, Ukraine launches its Kharkiv and Kherson counter offensives. On Tucker Carlson's show, Macgregor was in full denial that the Kharkiv offensive was actually happening. Afterwards, he has not stop criticizing Ukraine and western aid. He has gone so far to say Ukraine has raised and lost three entire armies, all the western aid has had no effect. He's now critical of the Abram and Bradley vehicles he served with before. All as if Russia has only strengths and no weaknesses, Ukraine and her allies have only weaknesses and no strengths, while completely ignoring Russia has not won.

What I see is, he is taking Russia's inability to win and Ukraine's refusal to lose personally. He comes across as thinking he is such a modern Sun Tzu or von Clausewitz of war every officer above him who disagrees is beneath contempt. When he gets told "no", told or finds out he's wrong, he becomes single mindedly vindictive.

If anyone has anything else to add, including correcting any of my errors, please say so.

TBH once you mentioned that asshole Macgregor's name your entire point went sideways. That motherfvcker is nothing but a charlatan, a fraud, a pretender, a dissembler.

His "brilliant" thoughts is nothing more than what was circling widely in Army circles at the time. While I was in CGSC in 93-94 the curriculum was being updated almost daily because of the changes in doctrine which were emerging out of the combat developers at the Combined Arms Center as we were going into a massive sea change in the Army. His supposed "brilliance" was as the S3 of 3rd Squadron, 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment during Desert Storm at the Battle of 73 Easting. His "super plan" was nothing more than basic AirLand Battle doctrine which we had been training and rehearsing across the Army for almost a decade. The brilliance was Hal McMaster's Iron Troop executing a superb battle drill.

Mcgregor has become a parody of himself and has dived into the deep end of the entire QANON/III Percenter movement. That SOB wanted to have active duty troops gunning down protesters in the streets of American cities with live ammo back in 2020. The closest I want him to any idea of what needs to happen in Ukraine is an Etch A Sketch and a Lego set!

[Ironduke]

Worth mentioning MacGregor, regardless of whatever he used to be, now works as an agent and propagandist of the Russian government, getting paid to spread disinformation on RT. He leverages his military service to lend a veneer of credibility in his new career working as a Kremlin agent.

[S2]

Albany Rifles has beautifully summed the overwhelming perspective held by virtually all professionals WRT MacGregor. He's a joke and should be ashamed of his behavior....and clearly committed to the dark side at this point. I consider him an enemy of my nation, personally.

[Albany Rifles]

Albany Rifles has beautifully summed the overwhelming perspective held by virtually all professionals WRT MacGregor. He's a joke and should be ashamed of his behavior....and clearly committed to the dark side at this point. I consider him an enemy of my nation, personally.

I am with you there, Brother Deuce!

[TopHatter]

I am with you there, Brother Deuce!

Off topic, but does Brother Deuce have a mom by any chance? A Ma Deuce, if you will...

[Bigfella]

What they said. Whatever credibility MacGregor's military service may have afforded him has long since evaporated. Just one more misfit shilling for Putin.

[Officer of Engineers]

It goes without saying that there's a race going on here. The Russians will attempt to maximize their lead in artillery munitions deployment (thank you KJU) before Czech and other East NATO members can deploy additional artillery rounds. ISW thinks early to mid summer for a major push. I think mid spring. The Russians currently enjoy infantry superiority. I do not think they will let this superiority lapse.

[Monash]

It goes without saying that there's a race going on here. The Russians will attempt to maximize their lead in artillery munitions deployment (thank you KJU) before Czech and other East NATO members can deploy additional artillery rounds. ISW thinks early to mid summer for a major push. I think mid spring. The Russians currently enjoy infantry superiority. I do not think they will let this superiority lapse.

So the question then becomes how much ground do they take and at what price? (Remembering that (1) Your apparently talking about an infantry lead assault at the same time that Ukraine is reportedly in the process of replicating Russia's own defensive fortifications along their side of the frontier and (2) Ukraine has access to NATO intelligence (for the time being) on the location and strength of Russian troop deployments/concentrations along that frontier - meaning more likely than not they will have at least some advance warning of this offensive.

Point being I'm not seeing any reason to believe such an offensive is likely to be significantly more effective than Ukraine's last effort was. In fact if their intention is truly to replicate the tactics they used to gain ground around Avdiivka? I can see their casualties being far worse that Ukraine suffered last summer. This doesn't mean I don't think they could or will gain ground BTW, just that I'm not seeing large/strategically significant gains being made. (Shades of WW1 I guess.)

As always prepared to be convinced otherwise BTW.

[TopHatter]

Apparently Ukraine just took out two more Russian Ropucha-class landing ships.

[Albany Rifles]

Apparently Ukraine just took out two more Russian Ropucha-class landing ships.

Not seeing it. Any links?