Russia’s armed forces are feeble and antiquated. This game-changing surprise was precipitated by Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
And has the potential to radically alter Western perceptions of Russian power, the nature of the threat posed by Russia, and the long-term prospects of the Kremlin.
Because of fuel, ammunition, and even food shortages, as well as a poorly trained and led force, Russia’s ground force lost most of its initial momentum after only one day of fighting.
Russia started increasing its use of long-range air, missile, and artillery operations to make up for the shortcomings of its land army.
U.S. military experts say Putin’s nuclear threat was a response to the slow advance of Moscow’s conventional forces on the ground.
Other military experts can’t believe a well equipped Russian invasion army has been able to advance only tens of miles into an adjacent country from Russian soil.
Lessons for the American Military from the War in Ukraine
As the bloodshed in Ukraine escalates, it’s becoming increasingly clear that this conflict could radically alter the nature of warfare in the twenty-first century.
The first is the astonishing success the Ukrainian forces (equipped with western equipment) are having against Russia’s armour.
Thousands upon thousands of Ukrainian tanks, armoured vehicles, and heavy trucks have been destroyed.
Moreover, the loss of Russian life is directly proportional to the number of tanks and armoured vehicles that are destroyed.
The astonishing number of Russian military personnel killed in battle during the past five weeks is likely to reach above 15,000.
For another, the very idea of close air support is becoming more and more precarious as time goes on. Heavy armor’s effectiveness is a hot topic, but so are worries that helicopters can be easily shot down.
Third, the ability of Western intelligence technologies to track Russian formations and deliver real-time targeting straight to the Ukrainians has been a crucial factor on the Ukrainian battlefield.
A lengthy but informative read. Directly stating that “the acknowledgement of Russian military inadequacy.
It represents a fundamental challenge to U.S. policy, expenditure priorities, and even its firm grasp on the world,” the conclusion is direct.
It raises doubts about the United States’ insistence on a bigger military and steadily rising defence budget in order to deal with Russia, and Washington’s fixation on a so-called “peer” foe.
A new narrative about the Russian military poses serious problems for NATO and its European members.
Moscow’s willingness to resort to extreme and even risky behaviour may have increased awareness and even dread.
But the reality is that there does not need to be additional defence budget or a rebirth of European land forces.