Ich bin zwar erst auf Seite 6 angelangt, aber ein äusserst lesenswerter Artikel. Dieser Artikel in der Güte eines Tomahawk-Steaks bietet einen drastischen Kontrast zu all dem seichten McDonald’s Happy Meal Trash-Food, den uns Blick & Co. tagtäglich verfüttern wollen:
What is comforting about blaming the Russian failures on their practice, rather than their doctrine, is that it relieves Western militaries of any requirement to thoroughly examine their own doctrine. […] Neither Russia nor the West has had operational or combat experiences relevant to the war in Ukraine in over a generation, if not actually since World War II.
By operational experience I mean practice in deploying, maneuvering, and supporting large, multi-echelon formations in joint operations against a competent, well-armed enemy who is determined to fight and capable of doing so. […]
Quelle: WOULD WE DO BETTER? HUBRIS AND VALIDATION IN UKRAINE
Und jetzt die Gretchenfrage für den Westen:
Importantly, these levels of casualties in the Ukraine war also call into question the ability of Western armies to maintain adequate fighting strength in other than short wars with modest casualties.
Natürlich können sich unsere Armeen auf den Standpunkt stellen, dass sie in der Rolle der Ukraine alles im Griff hätten — es bleibt aber die Frage, ob wir uns nicht gehörig selber täuschen:
This new reality renders those criticizing the Russians not only wrong but dangerous. They are clinging to a doctrine that may be completely outdated in the current operational environment. That they persist in the view that Russian incompetence is mostly due to untrained and poorly motivated soldiers, led by corrupt and incompetent leaders, gives them a comfortable answer that does not invalidate their expertise or current practices. […] These experts also offer comforting conclusions: The good guys, who look like us, are beating the bad guys, with our help. It is a righteous war. We would do just fine.
