Is Ukraine Using Manoeuver Warfare Against Russia?

What if Ukraine can’t drive Russia out?

I’ve been thinking this will happen in a matter of months, after Ukraine receives all Western weapons shipments. I said as much on a YouTube video comment “The War in Ukraine is Becoming Un-Winnable”. Jake Jacobs commented.

“Only an incompetent military waits until it has overwhelming force before attacking. The US Marine Corps drives this crucial point into its officer corps.”

He patiently ignored my various snarky comments about what’s “incompetent” and what Marines do (that he was a Marine didn’t slow me down!). He continued…

“Warfighting is warfighting be it Marine Corps or Army or Ukraine. Overwhelming force is seldom an option for military commanders. That explains why so many fall back on the folly of digging in to take the inherent advantages of defense. Then both sides dig in in a stalemate or static operations result characteristic of the trench warfare of France WW1. That’s what we’re seeing in Ukraine.

Of course any military commander seeks or wants overwhelming military force but employing that force in the offense, one needs typically a 3:1 force advantage.

‘Not happening. Brawny Marines don’t use brawn to secure beachheads as much as they select beachheads that displace, disrupt, and disorient the enemy’s plans or disposition. Marines surprise the enemy where they are most vulnerable in time and space. Also, it’s driven into Marines to “get off the beach” (or you will die there.) Move before the enemy has time to react. Keep them on their heels. Continuously change the situation disorienting them and frustrating their ability to counteract.

All this does not describe overwhelming force but brilliant application of the meager force one has. The US Army is perhaps the most powerful force on the planet so they are not as keen to stress maneouver warfare but superior firepower. The problem with that is that it seldom works as the enemy over time learns how to dodge their force application with innovation and asymmetrical warfare.” [Jake uses the British spelling for manoeuver warfare to distinguish it from tactical maneuver which he and others consider a related but different concept.]

His comments to someone else:

“So by what metric do you define ‘losing?’ Or “winning?’ TLDR makes the case that the war is becoming unwinnable by either side. I agree insofar as neither side demonstrates military competence. True, the Ukrainians demonstrate tenacity and heroism but that has not repelled Russian forces in 7+ years. To win they must adopt manoeuver warfare to decisively defeat a superior force and wholly expel that force from their homeland. Just because Russia isn’t ‘winning’ doesn’t mean they’re ‘losing’ as you describe the situation.”

Then back to me:

“Why are you hung up on the Marines? manoeuver warfare has been practiced throughout history and advocated by the august body of classical military experts. The US Marines may practice it but they did not invent it. They must use it because they are seldom the superior force — but they win anyway. Superior firepower is always great when you have it but one cannot sit on their hands waiting for it as one’s family and fellow countrymen are pillaged, tortured, raped, and murdered. Ukraine does not have that luxury.

Manoeuver warfare has at its goal the complete defeat and rout of a superior enemy force and history is replete with examples of it. Ukraine will never regain its lost territory and protect its citizens therein until it learns to ‘displace, disrupt, and disorient the enemy’s plans or disposition.’ Don’t put the cart before the horse.”

I then asked if we could talk on the phone, which we did for a few hours. In total it probably took 6 hours of my thinking about what he was saying for the proverbial light bulb to go off. So far, I haven’t read or listened to the issues he raised elsewhere. Here goes!

In the following I look through the war through the manoeuver warfare lens. (Jake might not see the same thing).

Starting from the beginning, I don’t understand why the U.S. dared Russia to invade, by continuously saying Russia would do so, while at the same time saying it, the U.S., wouldn’t use military force to stop it. The U.S. could have put a Patriot missile system around its embassy in Kyiv. It could have sent more ships to the Black Sea.

It seems the U.S. was trying to maneuver itself into a position of looking like it cared about Ukraine while prodding Russia to waste resources in a take-over of Ukraine or lose soft power by spooking Europe.

Don’t you find it interesting that the media focuses on the fact that the U.S. predicted the invasion correctly but incorrectly predicted that Ukraine wouldn’t be able to save Kyiv?

Net-net, the U.S. might as well have guessed, what was about to happen.

How did Ukraine save Kyiv? I believe I knew the answer, as everyone did, Ukraine fought harder and smarter for their land while Russia was disorganized. Zelenski astounded us but confounded his enemy by defying conventional wisdom — refusing to flee Kyiv as most expected. Jake has made me rethink that. Was it Ukrainian manoeuver warfare? The implications are interesting indeed!

What if Ukraine did not fight well but only won the north because Russia was too weak? Or, what if Ukraine is good at exploiting a weakness in Russia and executing maneuver warfare but is not capable of creating a weakness in Russia’s operations and executing maneuver warfare? As the war drags on there is a huge difference between the two.

Back to the beginning. Russia invades, its sheer weight captures much of the south and part of the north. In the past couple of months Ukraine appears to have liberated the north. But, did it do so through maneuver warfare, did it use superior force, or did Russia simply chose to leave?

Jake said that if a defender is prepared the attacker needs at least a 3:1 ratio to have a realistic chance of succeeding. My opinion was that superior technology from the U.S. would create such a ratio. It still might. But that is all speculation. What does the evidence say today?

This is Ukraine around five weeks into the invasion

Here it is May 23rd, 2022

One doesn’t need to be a military expert to see that the north was scattered and cut off from the troops in the East. We can give the Ukrainians the benefit of the doubt and assume they used maneuver warfare and put Russia into such disarray that it gave up on Kyiv.

What about the South? Everyone knows the Ukrainians in Mariupol were struggling and needed the calvary to ride in. Why couldn’t the Ukrainians reach Mariupol? Why couldn’t they do in the south what they did in the north?

We know they didn’t have enough raw force to bear, otherwise they would have used it. Or would they, could they? This was something Jake kept hammering me on. It’s almost impossible to hide superior force; therefore, it’s almost impossible to prevent the defender from digging in and holding his position — as is the current situation in Donbas.

So we get back to maneuver warfare. Ukraine would need to devise a collection of tricks to maneuver Russia into a stronger position in one place, creating a weaker part in the process, which it could exploit. Why couldn’t it do that around Mariupol? Indeed, I can’t think of any part of the war, so far, where Ukraine showed creative maneuver warfare against a strong Russian position.

All I see is the media talking about how Russia hasn’t taken all of the Donbas. What about why hasn’t Ukraine taken any territory back from the Donbas and the South?

How do we know that Ukraine will effectively use all the equipment it is getting from the West?

Lately, Ukraine has been saying that it won’t give up any land. That’s a fine position to take, but why would Russia take it seriously if Ukraine hasn’t proven it can do so by force? So why is Ukraine saying that now?

In that vein, I see a lot of wishful thinking. Jake agreed that the U.S. military does not go in and blow up civilians. There is no equivalence between Iraq and Ukraine. There’s lot of interpretation of the war in a way that makes us feel good.

We may be the good guys but what does that have to do with Ukraine getting Russia out?

How much time would need to pass before Ukraine recognized that it can’t force Russia out? Eight years passed from the Donbas war and still Ukraine hasn’t liberated an inch, far as I know (has lost ground if anything).

What happens if we end up sending Ukraine $40 billion worth of assistance and a year from now the map looks the same? Even if Putin is disappeared, why wouldn’t Russia try to hold onto that territory? (The only reason is sanctions of course). The U.S. would then look even weaker. We couldn’t fix Iraq. Couldn’t hold onto Afghanistan. We use threat of nukes to rationalize our, face it, cowardliness to others, about taking on an evil autocracy in Ukraine.

Will Ukrainians want to die by the tens of thousands to take back territory in the East or South, which still have large Russian sympathies? Won’t Ukrainians in Kyiv and Lviv want to ignore it, as they did Donbas since 2014, and get on with their lives?

I’m starting to see a change in the Ukrainian mindset. They say they want the Russians to get out of all Ukraine, but unless they do something major in the next few months we’ll be back to the trench warfare of WWI as Jake mentioned.

The Russians have finished making all their catastrophic mistakes. I’m no longer optimistic that the new equipment the U.S. is sending in with be a slam-dunk. I need to see Ukraine remove Russia from their defensive positions.

All that said, I believe the economic sanctions will crush Russia’s government. That doesn’t mean Russia will leave Ukraine any time soon.