by
That cinema account of how Patton planned and shifted the axis of attack of his troops is presented as something hastily put together. The German offensive started on 16 December and Patton met with Eisenhower on the 19th of December and received orders to relieve Bastogne. Patton’s troops moved out on the 22nd of December and reached Bastogne on the 26th. What the movie account fails to convey is that the planning for moving his Army north began on December 9, ten days before the emergency conference with Eisenhower.
Patton’s J-2 (i.e., his intel chief) briefed the following on 9 December:
- By the end of October four panzer divisions had been identified refitting near Paderborn, far north of the Third Army’s left boundary.
- By November 10 the Germans had pulled five more panzer divisions out of the line.
- Of the fifteen panzer divisions in the west, only five remained in contact in mid-November.
- Starting November 17, aerial reconnaissance detected huge German rail movements to the north of the Third Army’s projected zone of advance—226 trains on November 18 alone.
- By November 23 Koch had identified the newly established Sixth Panzer Army, including five of its reconstituted panzer divisions.
- On December 2 the U.S. Seventh Army, to the south of Third Army, reported that the formidable Panzer Lehr Division was out of the line.
- By December 7 the Germans were holding at least thirteen divisions in reserve.
(I encourage you to read the whole article about the real story of Patton’s rescue effort at the link above.)
So why is this important? The process any first world army (e.g., United States, Russia, Ukraine) follows in moving troops and equipment from one point to a distant location follows a well-defined planning process.
The planning process Patton followed is similar to what the U.S. military uses today. The current system is known as the Joint Operation Planning and Execution System aka JOPES. I have been involved in scripting and executing over 240 crisis response exercises. I worked for 23 years for the man who wrote JOPES, so I have some insight to the process. He beat it into me. It starts with an Alert Order (e.g. Be Prepared to Act) usually followed Warning Order (e.g., Houston we have a specific problem, tell us how you plan to solve it). The military command that receives the warning order immediately tasks it staff to prepare Courses of Action aka COAs.
Those COAs are then sent back via a written message laying out what forces would be used, what resources (i.e., air support, artillery, vehicles, medical, etc.) are required to carry out the COA. The COA for organizing and deploying a Special Operations unit is much easier and less time consuming than that required to organize and deploy battalions and regiments of soldiers.
Once the COA is approved the relevant military units receive a Deployment Order. It means what it says. The military units identified for action start moving via train, truck or plane. Depends on the operation. But they are moving into place and do not initiate action until they commanders receive an Execution Order.
Since the United States and NATO are involved directly with Ukraine’s military planning, I am certain they followed the JOPES process. That means the planning for the Kharkov offensive probably started the first of September, perhaps even earlier, i.e. July or August. Assembling and moving the men and equipment to deployment points took some time. It was not done overnight.
I am not familiar with the Russian planning system, but I am pretty sure the Russians follow a similar procedure to JOPES. It is important to understand this with reference to the offensive taking place around Kharkov. The Russian forces started moving into the area on Thursday, 8 September. And we are talking about hundreds of trucks, tanks, towed artillery and troops.
So, was Russia caught by surprise? No. They had at least one week’s warning of the impending Ukrainian attack. If you want to believe that Russia’s intelligence service is incompetent or was deceived in this operation, enjoy the fantasy. The Russian planners had a couple of choices. They could have moved their forces into position earlier but that would have tipped off the Ukrainians and west that the planned offensive was compromised.
Alternatively, the Russian planners may have decided to mask their movements and made choices about which villages and cities to defend and which to abandon. If Russia had moved preemptively to reinforce Izyum that would have raised warning flags for the Ukrainian and NATO planners.
I agree with Andrei Martyanov’s take–the Russians knew it was coming and chose to let the Ukrainians flood the zone in order to eventually hit the Ukrainian forces with a massive counter attack. The Ukrainians are no longer in fortified defensive positions and their lines of communication to support the forward troops are now defined precisely. The Ukrainian attack has not destroyed nor disrupted Russia’s air, artillery, rocket and missile assets. Attacking the Ukrainian units is an easier task, not more difficult.
I am not privy to the Russian plan. But what I do know is that the planning process required to deploy the troops and equipment moving into Kharkov was not a panicked response. Hollywood can create the illusion of rapid movement of military troops, but the real world requires alerting units, making sure they are properly supplied and then undertaking the logistic task of moving those units into combat. This means the planning was deliberate, not a crisis response.
Reader (Original) Comments
SELECTED FOR INTRINSIC INTEREST
Addendum:
Comment on the eliminary assumptions
IS UKRAINE STEAMROLLING RUSSIA?
At last. After six months of surrendering territory, Ukraine is on the move and Russia is retreating. Right? Not so fast. Ukraine tried and failed to penetrate the Russian lines around Kherson. That fizzled and Ukraine suffered enormous casualties. Russia did not.
But wait. Ukraine has now unleashed a new offensive in the north around Kharkov and has made some gains. Gee, what a coincidence. The same week that the United States with NATO convened a Ramstein Conference to assess Ukraine’s progress in the war, a gigantic triumph is being trumpeted on the internet. Russia, finally, is really, really on its heels and on the verge of surrendering the Donbas to the marauding Ukrainian troops. At least that is what Ukraine and its NATO allies are saying and the press is happily pushing that meme.
Now, back to reality. The Russian allied forces that faced the brunt of the Ukrainian attack are not the Russian army’s front line troops. It is a mixture of Donbas militia and Russian national guard. When faced with a Ukrainian force that has more troops it should not be a surprise that the outgunned militia and police would retreat and surrender territory. A tactical retreat is sound military strategy.
But what kind of territory? We are talking rural villages and small cities. These are not critical industrial centers. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I encourage you to read the analysis from Andrei Martyanov, The Saker and Moon Of Alabama:
https://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2022/09/as-was-expected.html
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2022/09/the-izium-counteroffensive-success-disaster.html#more
This entire operation has one point–persuade Washington and NATO that Ukraine still has a chance to succeed. But this means ignoring the fact that Kherson, Mariupol, Luhansk and most of Donetsk is still controlled by Russia and Russian allied forces. It also ignores the fact that Ukraine’s concentration of forces in this narrow area (see the maps highlighted by The Saker) creates a ripe target for Russian air, rocket, missile and artillery forces to hit.
My suggestion–hold your water and go lay down on the fainting couch. This is not the German Army at the outskirts of Moscow. This is not Von Paulus rolling into Stalingrad for certain victory. If calling this a tactical defeat makes you feel warm and fuzzy, shout away and cheer Ukraine. What is not being shown, yet, are the horrendous casualties the Ukrainians are suffering.
If this really was a decisive triumph why are foreign journalists being kept from the front line of the attack to record the impressive Ukrainian victory? It is one thing to spin propaganda out from the safe confines of Kiev. It is a whole different ballgame to go to where the battle is taking place and recording what is actually taking place. The dog ain’t barking:
‘The dog that didn’t bark’ is an expression from a Sherlock Holmes mystery. It was an important clue that led to identifying the criminal. It seems that the killer entered and left the estate grounds one night but without the guard dog barking an alarm at the intruder’s presence as expected. From this non—event Holmes reasoned that the dog must have known the killer and that clue led to solving the case.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2004/08/the_dog_that_didnt_bark.html
Where are the barking journalists with their film footage of triumphant Ukrainians? Let us see what the weekend brings.
READER INTERACTIONS
(Selected original comments)
-
saysScott Ritter, this afternoon, has a similar perspective on the alleged UKR success that I think is spot on. It’s a classic strategic retreat (as you say). Fall back in organized fashion (not a rout) to defensible positions. Let the enemy advance and extend itself. Bring up reserves and then pound the enemy from the front and right and left flanks. Finally, encircle and wipe out surviving en/ forces.
Yep the pro-empire Russia haters can – and will – mock away as either their paymasters or ignorance dictate they do, but time will tell. A couple of weeks tops – sooner I think. IMO, the Russians will inflict additional huge losses on UKR and reverse the meaningless gains within a week.
Also, all this crap about “turning points”, “culmination points”, etc. is ridiculous and anyone using that language is an IO agent or a fool. Such things are only recognized retrospectively, usually not until years after a war has concluded and much analysis has been performed.
Too much of the western cheerleading has been based on a childish – dare I say womanish – petty tit for tat basis. Look here; a blown up Russian tank! The Russians lost their flag ship, the stupid Orks! Ukraine is spanking them. Here’s a lie about Russians shelling a hospital! That will fix them; must burn to have us tell that story. None of that is how real military men look at things. It’s a war. Both sides will suffer losses and setbacks. Never been a war in which that didn’t happen. If you encounter an information source using that approach avoid it. It’s a waste of time.
-
says
Kursk 1943 is the most parallel. Bet the NATOland commanders only vaguely know about Kursk
-
says
Yes. One of the interesting parallels is that Guderian (the German General – a brilliant armor commander) did not want to attack. He wanted to avoid the battle and stay in a defensive posture in the region. Guderian believed the operation would be too risky, costly and perhaps result in a critical defeat. Hitler actually agreed with him from a purely military perspective. However, Hitler ultimately decided to go ahead with the battle more for reason of what we call today “optics”. In retrospect, the battle turned out to be pivotal with Germany getting the short end of the stick, of course. History repeats? Rhymes?
-
says
Modern commentators in NATOstan consider Kursk a German victory.
-
says
“Modern commentators in NATOstan consider Kursk a German victory.” Primarily on the basis that “The Germans lost” less numbers of tanks than the “Soviets”, one of the dangers of linear thinking where quantity is held to be primary as in Soccer, Chess, and Dominoes.
-
-
-
-
says
The Duran duo made some interesting points of Putin and top Military brass having been away to the Far East for Vostok drills and Economic conference give bad optics of not being serious with SMO in Ukraine. They also think that Putin is more managerial and stickler with legalese and not being forceful as the Commander in Chief and War time leader. Next few days will be interesting to see how Russia will deal with this set back.
-
says
“The emperor states his goals, the generals achieve them. For the emperor to interfere, defeat is certain.” SunTzu.
Putin has stated his goals. Period. His generals are achieving them so he can play the next, bigger game in the East. -
says
I think the boys are wrong. The comment from Jack is closer to the truth I think.
-
says
Larry I agree. I thought that Alex was waffling in the latest video he posted. The best advice (from an ex Australian Int analyst): sit back, relax, have a nice cup of tea (or whiskey – my preference is RUM) and wait things out. As with Kherson – a “Coupla days. Beudiful” (you have to be an Australian of a certain age to understand that one).
-
says
If your wrong than it’s going to be the Agape of the SMO.
-
says
The precedent has been a small expeditionary force of Ukrainian militias and Russian troops supported by aviation blasting a numerically superior Ukrainian army trained and led by NATO….into dust. 60 thousand artillery shells per day creating that dust. Russian intelligence would not miss Ukrainian concentration needed for this attack or any other diversionary operation….and yet the concentration was not destroyed as per usual….so I suspect this operation is being allowed to play out…..I suspect this new army for all intents and purposes is actually a NATO army will over extend and concentrate for strategic bombers and missile forces. Time is on Putin’s side…. every minute is a minute closer to Western countries economically and socially collapsing
-
-
says
I concur, had exactly the same impression from their latest video. they seem to be succumbing to FUD pressure from all the defeatist Telegram channels.
-
says
Thank you. I am grateful for being alive and watching the greatest leader of the world, Statesman, and consummate Judo master with keen understanding of the world history and literature, who revived Russia from the ruins for the last 20 years to bring to the Super power status again, leading the way to more Just Multipolar world. He is comparable to the best of Philosopher Kings of yesteryears IMO. It will be a matter of time that the collective West will be bankrupt from unsustainable debt as well as moral degradation. It will be a similar situation to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Unfortunately there is no Leader to be found anywhere in the West.
-
says
I would have taken a strong man like Putin over Obama any day of the week. And sadly you are correct…..there is no leader to be found anywhere in the west.
-
says
-
-
says
Larry, I too agree – Putin’s focus is the economic war. By all reports, it was a well organized tactical retreat including deploying airborne troops to aid the retreat.
There were signs the flow of NATO weapons to be destroyed in Ukraine was slowing down – presumably it will pick up again, further demilitarizing NATO/Europe.
Naked Capitalism is reporting that shortages in Germany are affecting waste water treatment – so this will be a really cold and shitty winter in Europe.
Yes, Putin’s focus is the economic war, Russian advantage thanks to piss poor (delusional) “planning”by the EU/NATO. Europe looks to degrade to living standards of the the immediate post WW2 period (now larger population and heavily urbanized) – food shortages, energy shortages, sewage pile up, industries shut down, bank runs, inflation, and NO Marshall stabilization plan. Or agree to Russian security demands which will break with the US.
Note, a bank crash in Europe will take out many US banks causing the fed to print another few tens of trillions of dollars in a supply side inflationary environment at a time when the world is fleeing the dollar.
-
says
Ukrainian and western leadership think Putin and Russia want to take over Ukraine. This is wrong. Putin has stated his objective is to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine. One doesn’t need to occupy parts of Ukraine to demilitarize and denazify it. What Putin needs is for Ukrainian forces to leave population centers and dug in fortifications and expose themselves in offensives where they are more easily targeted and destroyed.
By failing to understand this, Ukraine and western leadership are doing exactly what Russia’s leadership wants, letting Ukraine take land which isn’t heavily populated and out in the open. It makes it easier to target them. Once those forces are destroyed, Russia will give the land to the people who want to live and be at peace with Russia. Russia will help them to defend their homes and support them, not discriminate and kill them like Ukrainian forces we’re doing to the people in the Donbass before Russia intervened.
-
-
Print this article 
The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of The Greanville Post. However, we do think they are important enough to be transmitted to a wider audience.
| Did you sign up yet for our FREE bulletin? It’s super easy! Sign up to receive our FREE bulletin. Get TGP selections in your mailbox. No obligation of any kind. All addresses secure and never sold or commercialised. |
[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
There are better ways of doing counteroffensive than betraying local population and hurting morale of allies supporting Russia. If denting Ukraine forces is the real aim, they could stay in Russian territory and fight on border and not leave people under fanatics. No one can trust Russia ever again. On this one, I am pretty sure there are some traitors involved.
My explanation is that Russians have preferred economic war over military over past 2 months as it seems more promising and expected by winter EU U.S unity and support to wither. But with humiliating loss they have given huge filip to their morale and dented of local population, its troops and 150 odd countries that did not vote against it in UN and it’s arms buyers.
What worked in Kharkiv can work in Donbass too. Ukraine will put in another 50,000 and MoD will redeploy troops again. What credible defense mechanism do they have?
It boils down to Russians just not having fight in them as their territory is not at stake and Russian speakers in Ukraine are just expendables. Too sad a lot of well meaning people seeking multipolarity in world fell for their scam.
I disagree, but I welcome your dissent.
What a wonderful one-line reply 🙂
Thank you for the analysis Larry…never spend a day without your and Andrei Martyanov’s analysis.
My late father and his colleagues who worked closely with the Soviets as engineers (Russians provided lot of training to Indian engineers) described the Russian approach to education and work with one word —>
“Thoroughness”-Love the thoroughness in your work.
I doubt the Russian’s left behind compromised people. Requests and invitations were made … some more forcefully than others. This would be the last conclusion one should jump to. True to the times though …. who really knows for sure.
It’s so welcome and pleasantly surprising to see you respond in this way Mr. Johnson: with intellectual generosity and an easygoing “agree to disagree” attitude. By contrast, unfortunately, any dissenting opinions – even of the mildest variety – on Mr. Martyanov’s blog are met with derision, insults and, ultimately, being blocked by him. I realize you are friends (at least at some level) and frequently cite each other, but there’s a marked difference in attitude to opposing views. He has zero tolerance, and especially on this topic, is exceedingly defensive. All of this makes me wonder if this sensitivity to criticism of his views and/or Russia’s actions shows that, at some level, he does realize the criticism does have some force.
The problem is that, although one can be an “expert” in warfare in terms of its mechanics, strategy, operations, etc. … this is insufficient to understand the nature of warfare as a whole, because factors like propaganda and psychology and politics ARE a part of warfare. (See: Clausewitz!) And if, like Mr. Martyanov, you have nothing to say about these additional factors, and if you treat them as some sort of extraneous and irrelevant consideration, then you really don’t understand the nature of war.
For example, the sort of view expressed by Vicram C. above is important and carries weight because – whether or not allowing Ukraine to make these advances is really a clever trap by the Russian military, as Mr. Martyanov and you both claim – PERCEPTIONS on the part of both Russia’s friend and enemies DO count and they DO matter! This is something that Alexander Mercouris understands well, and he discusses it at length in his vlog from a day ago.
Either way: I’m really glad to see you are much more open to opposing views, and I will follow your blog more closely now.