Appropriate demands for peace talks in the RUS-UKR war

.
I've seen some stupid takes on what Russia and Ukraine should negotiate about. So let's write about that.

 

Appropriate points for negotiations are:

(1) Russian armed forces withdraw from Ukraine's territory (as of 2013) within 7 days

(2) Russia recognises the internationally recognised borders of Ukraine (as of 2013)

(3) Russia hands over all minefield maps regarding the Ukrainian territory

(4) All persons who UKR considers to be POW in Russian hands have to be repatriated within 14 days.

(5) All UKR-identified abducted children have to be repatriated within 14 days of UKR demanding it (could be years later) 

(6) Russia has to pay reparations equal to UKR loss of GDP relative to trend path PLUS Ukrainian increases of military spending during invasion 2014 - date of peace treaty relative to 2013 military budget PLUS 200 billion € (for damage done)

(7) Russia has to withdraw all armed personnel from Moldova (Transnistria)

Further appropriate (though not necessary) points for negotiations are:

(8) Destruction of the Tu-160, Tu-95 and Tu-22M bombers save for a handful thoroughly demilitarised museum pieces

(9) Demilitarisation of the Russian oblast bordering on Ukraine

(10) Russia recognising the sovereignty and internationally recognised borders of all other CIS countries

(11) Payment of reparations through transfer of seized Russian assets abroad, in USD/EUR/JPY/CHF in annual (inflation correcting) rates for the next 30 years, ten years of steady natural gas deliveries in yearly amount of Ukraine's consumption in 2013 valued at the price it paid for Russian gas in 2013 (no inflation correction)

(12) Russia accepts that the treaty about Russian use of Sevastopol for its navy is voided

(13) Russia  recognises the Holodomor genocide committed by the Soviet government (capital Moscow) against the Ukrainian people 

(14) Russia permits all ethnic Ukrainians and Tatars to move to Ukraine including their wealth

(15) Russia accepts repatriation of all voluntary Russian passport holders in Ukraine

Nice to have:

(16) Demilitarisation of Kaliningrad Oblast

(17) Ban on Russian warships in the Black Sea

(18) Russian withdrawal of armed Personnel from Georgia (Abkhazia, South Ossetia) 

(19) Russia returns all captured heavy equipment to Ukraine (to avoid war propaganda shows)

(20) Russia is banned from having airborne ground forces

(21) Russia is banned from having surface target missiles of 100...5.000 km range for 25 years

(22) Russia reimburses the foreign countries who assisted Ukraine for their deliveries to Ukraine (not for domestic capacity building)

(23) Russia reimburses the foreign countries who had expenses for war refugees due to this war 

(24) Russia joins the cluster ban convention (destruction of all covered cluster munitions within 6 months) and permits international inspections to verify its compliance with it

 

Ukrainian bargaining chips are:

(1) occupied Kursk Oblast territory (though it's of symbolic size)

(2) whether, when and which sanctions of Russia end

(3) when Russian POWs will be released

(4) continuing attacks to collapse the Russian economy (especially attacks on and sabotage of oil refineries)

(5) threat of advance on the ground

(6) threat of commerce raiding Russian maritime commerce with auxiliary cruisers with European help

 

Acceptable locations for the negotiations: Switzerland, Ukraine

 

War losers don't gain territory or  reparations.

Aggressors should not be rewarded with territory or reparations.

The Russian Federation is both aggressor and (soon) loser in this war.

Framing the conversation matters. It's irresponsible to let Russians or American idiots frame the discussion on how a peace settlement should look like.

S O
defence_and_freedom@gmx.de
.

The stay out of Europe doctrine

.

The Americans created the "Monroe Doctrine", basically the ambition to keep European powers out of messing in the Americas. They weren't able to enforce it until they were. It's a rare example of clear-cut grand strategy, and it kinda worked for a very long time.

Anyone who thinks clearly about the security of free Europe and uses the publicly available (and certainly not very far off) data understands that the Russians aren't able to challenge free Europe in war, certainly not after squandering the Soviet legacy equipment and millions of artillery shells and rockets. The only really troublesome conventional warfare threat to free Europe (understanding that the Fascist Americans are more likely adversaries than allies, but would certainly not engage in much continental land warfare in Europe) is a combination of Russia AND China.

A proper grand strategy for the security of free Europe in the Eastern direction thus has to deter China from coming to Europe with any substantial land forces.

It should be understood that we need to establish and maintain a taboo, similar to how the Monroe doctrine eventually started to keep Europeans from pursuing ambitions in the Americas: Any Chinese ground forces are taboo in Europe and its periphery. This is unlike the Russian thinking that as a great power, it can dictate to small powers around itself ('influence sphere'/Russki Mir): For one, it's defensive and second, it's not about infringing sovereignty. It would just lead to sanctions on China for entering the sphere with ground forces (beyond embassy guards and military attachés). European forces should reciprocate by staying the eff out of East and Southeast Asia with their own land forces, even in regard to temporary military exercises.

It's obvious to me that this needs to be extended to North Korea, which is under Chinese influence and has no business of having troops in Europe.

 

Obviously, this was not what European politicians heeded when North Korea sent its slave-soldiers to help Russia attack Ukraine. 

It wasn't possible to further sanction North Korea and it wouldn't have been prudent to sanction China for this North Korean behaviour, but we could have set up a fund for Ukraine to buy Western weapons and fill it with one million Euros for every North Korean soldier that we believe entered Europe to assist Russia in its war of aggression.

Once again, I diagnose grand strategy incompetence and impotence among the leadership of the major European countries. Somehow it's the smaller countries such as Finland, Estonia and Czech Republic that have MUCH more competent political leadership. Germany didn't have a good chancellor in for four decades, for example.

related:

/2014/08/if-western-great-power-gaming-wasnt-so.html

S O

defence_and_freedom@gmx.de
.

"Offensives" and Ukraine

.

The Russo-Ukrainian War turned into a trench war contrary to my expectations. The Russian ground forces' ability to break through such defences is shockingly and ridiculously marginal - I did not expect that.

This is a shocking display of incompetence in no small part because the recipe for breakthrough has very largely been found in 1917 already (Bruchmüller's artillery tactics and modern infantry training and small unit manoeuvring of Stoßtruppen).  

You don't even need armoured vehicles for it. A skilful and sufficient application of artillery (and nowadays glide bombs) and a simultaneous assault by many infantry sections on a wide-enough sector would do the trick if supported by a few modern ingredients such as barrage jamming in the 0.2...1 kHz band and fragmentation protection vests.

So I decided to write this blog post in order to help readers arrange their thoughts on offensives in an orderly manner:

The forms of attacks are (I rephrase the official lingo a bit here):

1. raid
2. counterattack
   
3. meeting engagement
4. pursuit
5. hasty attack
   
6. deliberate attack with limited objectives
7. breakthrough offensive
   

raid: The usual purpose is to storm one position, take prisoners of war, capture radios, get away without trying to hold any newly gained ground.

counterattack: Can happen from lowest to highest levels. Attackers are particularly vulnerable (position-wise and in terms of morale) to a sudden attack. So often times a company defending a trench system would immediately launch a platoon-sized counterattack when the signal arrives that  enemy assault troops are reaching another platoon's position, for example.

meeting engagement: Both forces are entering battle in a mobile phase of war (does not apply to trench warfare).

pursuit: Similar to meeting engagement, except that one side doesn't want to accept battle other than for purposes of delay at most. Not very relevant in trench warfare.

hasty attack: This is a planned attack with up to a few hours of preparation.

deliberate attack with limited objectives: The Russians do n inept form of this very much. The objective is limited (such as capture this village, eliminate this bridgehead, create a bridgehead, take this hill, take this trench system) and "deliberate" communicates that there was plenty time for preparations.

breakthrough offensive: This is what happens very rarely, mostly by Ukrainians and successfully only against particularly weak Russian sectors (Kharkiv, Kherson and Kursk Oblast offensives).

I wrote before; we know how breakthrough could be achieved. The Russians appear to be too incompetent, the Ukrainians (also quite an 'amateur' army with few peacetime-trained troops) appear to be rather risk-averse and in fear or the consequences of a major defeat in battle.

 

But here's a problem: Breakthrough in itself is of marginal value. Germany broke through the Entente fronts in France in 1918 on unprecedented widths, yet it lost the war months later. The British created a glimpse of how to exploit a breakthrough when they created the "fast" Whippet tank in 1917. Post-WWI they did split up tank development in infantry tanks for breakthrough and cruiser tanks for exploitation. They didn't get much more than that right, though.

Exploitation requires more than just full motorisation and tanks that are faster than a bicycle. The German army developed the attitude and had the superior idea of what exploitation is good for in its Moltke the Elder's Cannae (encirclement battle) fixation. Blitzkrieg was created, characterised by (in 1940 and 1941) hugely successful breakthrough exploitations.

The Russians have another historical root that should and could have informed them how to do things well in a pursuit (Suvorov's battles-winning obsession with quickness and getting into a fight before the enemy is ready for it, on all levels). Imagine a boxing fight in which one boxer is slow and the other lucky punches him before he's got his cover up the first time, then the quicker boxer goes in up close and the hits keep coming till knockout. That's a form of meeting engagement.

The German Blitzkrieg style used some parts of this as well, most notably there was an understanding that a tank division is not very good in positional defence, it should rather defend the flanks of a breakthrough or a bridgehead by attacking. The aim was to overrun the hostile reserves as they move to attack themselves, but haven't deployed for a fight yet.

 

Both the Russian and the Ukrainian side are INCREDIBLY far from the state of art of warfare of 85 years ago and I'm convinced that this is not technology's fault. Technology does NOT keep them from being more competent on the offence.

We should understand that both sides are fairly incompetent at most things. They know most about the state of man-in-the-loop drone warfare and associated electronic warfare, and that's about all their top competence.

The Russian ground forces has been rotten for decades and the quickly mobillised troops are either old or poorly trained, period.

The Ukrainian army has been rotten till 2014, then it tried to get its act together (also lots of warbands/warlord armies/militias that were later integrated into the regular forces). Its budget and thus its means for training had been small until 2022, though. Now they have lots of old and too briefly trained troops that are nowhere near Western conceptions of proper training levels, though they do have wartime experience. Almost all of that wartime experience since 2014 was about positional warfare and attacks with limited objectives and limited means, though. Both old age of infantry and deep experience in positional defence are rather detrimental to breakthrough efforts.

 

Long story short: We do NOT see the state of art of offence and defence in Ukraine and Kursk Oblast. What we see there is more akin to watching the Iraq-Iran (Gulf) War during the 1980's, a war fought with 1970's equipment but (at most) WWI levels of competence.

S O

defence_and_freedom@gmx.de

.

The West doesn't understand nationalism

.

My thesis is that the West doesn't understand nationalism (any more). It understood it until about the Second World War. The First World War almost shattered our societies, the second one kind of did.

Back in 1950 when North Korea attacked South Korea 'we' interpreted that as the spearhead of communist world revolution, but it was an attempted war of national unification.

When North Vietnam attacked South Vietnam 'we' interpreted it as the spearhead of communist world revolution, but it was a (successful) war of national unification (with an additional war for small farmer liberation from rich landowners).

When the Russian federation attacked the Chechens 'we' interpreted it as a great power's attempt to avoid fracturing, but it really was part of Russian nationalism/imperialism.

All the troubles that the Russian Federation caused in its periphery; Moldova, Ukraine, South of Caucasus region; it was (and is) all about keeping the independent countries from drifting away so they can once again become part of a Russian empire.

Likewise, China is understood as being a country, but it really is the Han tribe dominating a big bunch of actually different peoples, some of which have actually been convinced that they're the same as the Han. Having a script that can be read in any language helped the Chinese empire for thousands of years and was probably the reason why "China" is now considered to be a country, not a continent or subcontinent like fractured Europe.

We don't properly understand nationalism at home, either. It doesn't matter to many of us whether immigrants are useful for elderly care and other vacant jobs. Immigrants in our nation states feel like squatters in an inherited family home; they don't belong there, why would they get to enjoy what's ours by birthright? So basically, modern immigration policy (and European unification ideology/policy) utterly disregards nationalism, which has been designated as a harmful relic rather than a source of cohesion and strength.

I suppose we won't get much better policies on immigration, deterrence&defence, trade or plain foreign policy until our Western societies learn to understand nationalism again. It's a thing, it won't go away anytime soon and to disregard it only builds up huge internal friction and tension. A failure to understand foreign nationalism leads to failures in immigrant integration and in foreign, deterrence & defence policies.

S O

defence_and_freedom@gmx.de

.