[81alum]

.
The US military wants Ukraine to fight as we fight. They are disciples of Clausewitz's schwerpunkt and concentration of force.  The problem is that the Russians are not. They have always spread out their forces and attempted to engage everywhere. The idea that this is driven by politics among factions  is only very slightly true. It is also a product of training and a basic lack of mobility. It is a very deeply ingrained process of thinking. Both Ukraine and Russia are organized and socialized to fight that way. 90 days of training at Grafenwöhr isn't going to change that. Many, including me, hoped it would, but that was just unrealistic.

The Russian method also works if you have a larger mass of troops and equipment than your opponent. Eventually, your opponent will run out of men in the battle of attrition. Ukraine fights like Russia because that is all they know. They don't have the ability to execute well coordinated combined arms operations. When they tried, something always went wrong. Not surprising. It takes lots of training and practice. They had neither.

Ukraine is trying to break through using their traditional tactics updated to the new threats and modified to minimize troop losses. Ukraine can't afford the losses Russia can because there are fewer Ukrainians. This is probably their only way ahead in the short term. Not flashy, but it can work. The US should look to our own history where the Union Army did basically that to the Army of Northern Virginia. After Cold Harbor, Grant knew he couldn't use the "breakthrough" approach at a single point. It was too costly. Just keep pressing until the other side caves in. The complaints we are seeing today from the US Military can be compared to the same complaints directed towards Eisenhower. His insistence on closing up to the German border everywhere was roundly criticized, particularly by some of the UK generals. A bit ironic because Eisenhower's caution was at least partly formed from fear of the UK running out of infantry. Market Garden was an attempt at a breakthrough at the most important point. It didn't work. Many things went wrong. Maybe the Ukrainians have something here.

Goose, this is a question about military history and the evolution of strategy.  Why would any major power adopt the military strategy of Russia and Ukraine given the historical examples of blitzkreig in WWII, Stormin Normin, etc.?  What general in his right mind would want to replay WWI, Iran/Iraq, etc. when there is an alternative strategy of movement?  Did the Soviets/Russians learn the wrong lessons from WWII?  Zhukov was not an "attack everywhere equally" kind of guy.  The Stalingrad trap involved a concentration of Soviet forces north and south of the city, no? 

But even if the Soviet/Russians decided that their main advantage was with numbers and attrition, what in heaven's name is Ukraine doing?  They are a smaller, less populated nation that will inevitably lose a war of attrition with a much larger nation.  It does not take a Sun Tzu or a Clausewitz to realize that their greatest hope is with a fast war of movement, akin to Israel 1967, France 1940, Schwarzkopf 1991, etc.  A grind-it-out war over a period of years cannot be to Ukraine's advantage.  So why is Ukraine lapsing back into old Russian military doctrine after 32 years of independence?

[81alum]

.
The US military wants Ukraine to fight as we fight. They are disciples of Clausewitz's schwerpunkt and concentration of force.  The problem is that the Russians are not. They have always spread out their forces and attempted to engage everywhere. The idea that this is driven by politics among factions  is only very slightly true. It is also a product of training and a basic lack of mobility. It is a very deeply ingrained process of thinking. Both Ukraine and Russia are organized and socialized to fight that way. 90 days of training at Grafenwöhr isn't going to change that. Many, including me, hoped it would, but that was just unrealistic.

The Russian method also works if you have a larger mass of troops and equipment than your opponent. Eventually, your opponent will run out of men in the battle of attrition. Ukraine fights like Russia because that is all they know. They don't have the ability to execute well coordinated combined arms operations. When they tried, something always went wrong. Not surprising. It takes lots of training and practice. They had neither.

Ukraine is trying to break through using their traditional tactics updated to the new threats and modified to minimize troop losses. Ukraine can't afford the losses Russia can because there are fewer Ukrainians. This is probably their only way ahead in the short term. Not flashy, but it can work. The US should look to our own history where the Union Army did basically that to the Army of Northern Virginia. After Cold Harbor, Grant knew he couldn't use the "breakthrough" approach at a single point. It was too costly. Just keep pressing until the other side caves in. The complaints we are seeing today from the US Military can be compared to the same complaints directed towards Eisenhower. His insistence on closing up to the German border everywhere was roundly criticized, particularly by some of the UK generals. A bit ironic because Eisenhower's caution was at least partly formed from fear of the UK running out of infantry. Market Garden was an attempt at a breakthrough at the most important point. It didn't work. Many things went wrong. Maybe the Ukrainians have something here.

Goose, this is a question about military history and the evolution of strategy.  Why would any major power adopt the military strategy of Russia and Ukraine given the historical examples of blitzkreig in WWII, Stormin Normin, etc.?  What general in his right mind would want to replay WWI, Iran/Iraq, etc. when there is an alternative strategy of movement?  Did the Soviets/Russians learn the wrong lessons from WWII?  Zhukov was not an "attack everywhere equally" kind of guy.  The Stalingrad trap involved a concentration of Soviet forces north and south of the city, no? 

But even if the Soviet/Russians decided that their main advantage was with numbers and attrition, what in heaven's name is Ukraine doing?  They are a smaller, less populated nation that will inevitably lose a war of attrition with a much larger nation.  It does not take a Sun Tzu or a Clausewitz to realize that their greatest hope is with a fast war of movement, akin to Israel 1967, France 1940, Schwarzkopf 1991, etc.  A grind-it-out war over a period of years cannot be to Ukraine's advantage.  So why is Ukraine lapsing back into old Russian military doctrine after 32 years of independence?