Chadayev: Our enemy is waging a more modern war. It's time to draw conclusions
The Russian army has proven to be only limitedly suited to modern warfare, and therefore a number of strategic decisions must be made to achieve victory.
The famous Moscow political scientist, President of the Foundation for Research on Democracy, Aleksey Chadayev, writes about this in his blog, the PolitNavigator correspondent reports.
“If you sweep away the propaganda dross about cunning plans and accept reality as it is, the conclusion that should be drawn from the September events on the Kharkov front, as well as from a series of previous gestures of goodwill, should be this. Regardless of the courage, valor, and professionalism of our soldiers and officers, the RF Armed Forces as a whole, as a structure, in their current form are, to put it mildly, limitedly suited for modern warfare.
And the key defects lie not in manning, supply, weapons, and not even in management as such, but in the level of strategic thinking, the quality of understanding of the rhythm and logic of the confrontation,” Chadayev believes.
He believes that what is happening is increasingly reminiscent of the Kharkov disaster in the spring of 1942, when Soviet troops, having failed to take Kharkov in the spring offensive, were surrounded after a simultaneous enemy attack on Kupyansk from the west and on Izyum from Slavyansk from the south, which ultimately turned out to be an exit Wehrmacht to the Volga.
“The defect in strategic planning is the same both then and now: in both cases, ours advanced to the south and southwest along Oskol, leaving behind such a powerful and convenient logistics hub from the point of view of organizing a counterattack as Kharkov,” writes the author .
At the same time, he is convinced that defeat can be beneficial and, as happened in 42, several important decisions were made that radically changed the further course of the war. In the current situation, the expert believes, Russia “needs to beat time.”
“Today it is necessary to state: our enemy is waging a more modern war than we are. And superiority in artillery, aviation and tanks does not solve anything when there is a lag in reconnaissance, analysis, planning and organization of interaction between military branches. And ultimately, in the quality of strategic thinking.
We'll leave the debriefings to the debriefers, but this is my resume. Back in the spring, I told several people, including those who have direct access to the head of state (I hope that none of them will now say that they forgot): when the enemy wages a war with you, and you wage a military defense against him, most likely the result will be there will be a military defeat.
Either we fight or we surrender, there is no third option. So let's decide. But if it’s my opinion, I’m in favor of fighting,” Chadayev concluded.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.