conflict
Ukraine Reportedly Sending Cooks, Mechanics To Frontlines Of War Against Russia As Manpower Problem Grows Worse
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Jake Smith
“It’s a matter of time before the enemy finds a weak spot.”
Ukraine’s manpower problem is growing worse as forces have moved from the frontlines of the war against Russia to stage an incursion into Russian territory.
Ukrainian forces pierced through Russia’s border last week and have now seized more than 400 miles of territory in the Kursk region, in a surprise incursion that caught Moscow off-guard. But the troops that were sent to Kursk were transferred away from other key locations, further exhausting Ukraine’s already alarming lack of manpower against Russian forces on the frontlines of the war, according to the WSJ.
“If we’re supposed to have five or six people in a position, we’ll have two or three,” a 45-year-old army major stationed near the frontlines of the war in eastern Ukraine told the WSJ, adding that the manpower problem had grown so urgent that even cooks and mechanics were being deployed. “It’s a matter of time before the enemy finds a weak spot.”
One Ukrainian commander told the WSJ that when his forces arrived in eastern Ukraine, they had an equal number of troops as Russia did, but now Russia has a manpower advantage of roughly five to one. Only roughly one-fifth of casualties are replaced by new recruits, he said.
The average age of soldiers serving in Ukraine’s infantry is now above 40, according to the WSJ.
“The situation doesn’t allow me to even ask for days off — I’d feel bad leaving,” a 46-year-old platoon commander told the WSJ. “Once it stabilizes, I’ll ask for a break.”
Further complicating matters is Ukraine’s lack of needed military equipment against Russia. While Ukraine has received tens of billions worth of military aid from the U.S. and the West, it has not been enough to match Russia’s armaments, some members of Ukrainian brigades positioned along the eastern front told the WSJ. Ukraine is also limited in its domestic weapons production capabilities, while Russia’s defense industrial base has remained relatively stable and has received help from other Western adversaries, such as Iran and North Korea.
“The Russians have more everything than us—more people, more guns, more shells, more ammunition,” a 46-year-old Ukrainian commander told the WSJ. “In the end, it makes us withdraw.”
Still, the Ukrainian incursion into Kursk has caught Russia off-guard and forced Moscow to transfer thousands of troops to the region to try to regain control, U.S. officials told CNN. Ukrainian forces have reportedly seized more Russian territory in roughly the course of a week than Russian forces have taken in eight months, according to The Telegraph.
The open question now is what Ukrainian forces in Kursk plan to do next. A top Ukrainian official recently said that the incursion is meant to coerce Russia into withdrawing from seized Ukrainian territory.
But privately, U.S. and Western officials told CNN that they were concerned Ukrainian forces could not hold Kursk for long.
The State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
armed forces
The Case for Peter Hegseth — Time To Try Something Different
By S.L. Nelson
Success in today’s world favors smart, creative leaders who can quickly adapt and make decisions that benefit their organizations. President-elect Donald Trump’s choice of Pete Hegseth to lead the Department of Defense marks a significant shift from his first administration.
Hegseth, with fewer ties to the traditional defense establishment, is expected to transform the department in two vital areas: First, he will expose generals and admirals who act out of self-interest; second, he will refocus the military on its core function of lethality — the use or threat of deadly force to win wars and deter enemies.
Hegseth’s appointment threatens senior military officers who are more concerned with their legacy than with mission accomplishment. These officers feel susceptible to changes that will threaten their carefully curated norms. Many current leaders have avidly promoted DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) and CRT (Critical Race Theory), and Hegseth’s threat to remove these programs stokes their fears. These leaders have promoted subordinates who share their views, creating a cycle of making leaders in their own image. To break this cycle, Hegseth will also need to ensure that general officers are held accountable for the officers they promote. These actions will ensure that his and President Trump’s ‘Warrior Boards’ achieve their desired effect and weed out the right leaders.
Civilian leaders and politicians should also scrutinize the retired officers who placed these generals in their positions in the first place. If multiple legacies are at risk, flag officers will develop and implement more objective metrics for recommending general officer positions.
Hegseth’s leadership will refocus the Department of Defense on its core purpose. By removing ineffective leaders who prioritize social theories over military effectiveness, he will eliminate a major obstacle. These changes will encourage accountability and forward-thinking approaches. A clear message will echo from the top down that adapting to change means manning, training, and equipping the military to win wars, rather than allowing military officers to succumb to the self-loathing which places individual egos above selfless service to the country.
Adapting to change is also the responsibility of military commanders. Officers command Army organizations. It is significant that in some branches of the United States Army, up to half the officers do not desire to compete for Battalion Command. Many reasons include burnout and the threat of investigations that are launched ad nauseam in a zero-defect environment. The Army cannot be effective if officers do not want to command. Commanders hesitate to enforce standards in this environment because an unhappy subordinate can ruin their career with a retaliatory allegation. If an investigation is launched, commanders worry that general officers will dispose of these allegations negatively rather than appear lenient. Secretary Hegseth will support his commanders because his commander in chief supports him.
Not supporting your subordinate commanders has vital consequences for national security. A glaring example of a lack of support for the Department of Defense is demonstrated by the contempt of the Chinese in answering Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s phone calls and his apparent indifference to it. “I think we’ll continue … to stress how important it is, and hopefully Minister Wei will schedule that call,” Austin told CNN.
One can hardly imagine Hegseth having the same attitude as Secretary Austin. Trump proved during his first term, with sanctions and recently renewed threats of another trade war with China, that his government will support its Defense Department by imposing harsh sanctions and other measures. This whole-of-government approach will allow Hegseth to focus on the military and make its interactions with foreign militaries more effective.
In fact, the Trump transition team is already laying the groundwork for forward-leaning tariff plans through legislation. Because legislation will make it harder to have subsequent administrations revoke these actions, the Defense Department will benefit from a more permanent government position when it comes to the exercise of economic power. Hegseth will, thus, occupy an even stronger position to engage with military threats to the United States with supporting economic policies that are not just unilateral executive actions by the Trump administration.
President-elect Trump’s selection of Pete Hegseth frees the Department of Defense from being anchored in the change dynamics of the past. Current and future change undercurrents cannot be managed with legacy processes. Leaders must adapt and be free to act outside of institutional norms, especially those tied to a selfish cycle of self-promotion and government social experiments rather than the effectiveness of the Department of Defense.
This article was originally published by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.
S.L. Nelson has served from the tactical to strategic level as a military officer. His views are his own and do not represent the position of the U.S. DoD.
conflict
Russia Hammers Ukrainian Energy Grid In Retaliation For Long-Range Missile Use
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Jaryn Crouson
Russia launched a massive drone attack targeting Ukrainian energy sources early Thursday morning in retaliation for the use of American-made long range missiles, according to NBC.
The attack left over 700,000 homes without power in Ukraine as winter sets in, according to NBC. Russian President Vladimir Putin said the attack was a response to Ukraine’s use of U.S.-supplied long-range Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) missiles, which President Joe Biden authorized Nov. 17. The decision to allow the use of the missiles by Biden puzzled national security experts who cited enormous risks with little reward.
“Suffice it to say, this is a clear attempt to box in the incoming Trump administration into backing Ukraine without conditions or limits, and it’s a total affront to the democratic transition of power,” former CIA official Michael DiMino previously told the Daily Caller News Foundation in response to the move by Biden.
The strikes started late Wednesday night and lasted for nine hours, according to NBC. Officials told NBC this was the 11th attack on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s chief of staff Andriy Yermak accused Russia of using “terror” tactics in targeting the energy grid, according to CBS Thursday.
The Russia-Ukraine war has raged on for more than two years, with casualty counts nearing a million total as of October, according to the New York Times. Both sides have recently been scrambling for ground as President-elect Donald Trump is set to take office in January, promising a swift end to the conflict.
Trump recently tapped retired Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg to head the peace efforts in the region. He previously served as the National Security Council’s chief of staff and as national security adviser to former Vice President Mike Pence.
On Nov. 7, Trump warned Putin not to escalate the conflict with Ukraine, reportedly reminding him of the sizable U.S. military presence in Europe, according to The Washington Post.
The Russian and Ukrainian foreign ministries did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.
-
Opinion1 day ago
CBC on Trial: CBC CEO Catherine Tait Faces Brutal Takedown in Canadian Heritage Committee Hearing
-
COVID-191 day ago
Study showing ‘high likelihood’ of link between COVID vaccines and death republished in peer-reviewed journal
-
COVID-191 day ago
New book edited by Naomi Wolf exposes Pfizer’s ‘crimes against humanity’
-
Alberta1 day ago
The Alberta energy transition you haven’t heard about
-
Dr John Campbell1 day ago
Cancer cure experiences
-
Business2 days ago
The Health Research Funding Scandal Costing Canadians Billions is Parading in Plain View
-
Energy2 days ago
Is Canada the next nuclear superpower?
-
espionage1 day ago
Shock interview reveals big names connected to international paedophile network