The Challenges of Protracted Warfare: NATO vs Soviet Doctrine in Ukraine

The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has highlighted significant differences between NATO and Soviet military doctrines, particularly in the context of protracted warfare. This analysis examines the challenges faced by both sides and the effectiveness of their respective approaches.

NATO vs Soviet Doctrine

NATO doctrine emphasizes:

• High-tech, precision weapons
• Combined arms maneuver warfare
• Highly trained professional forces
• Flexible command structure with strong NCO corps

Soviet/Russian doctrine emphasizes:

• Mass production of cheaper, less precise weapons
• Attritional warfare
• Rapid expansion through mobilization of reserves
• Officer-centric command model

Adapting to Protracted Warfare

The conflict in Ukraine has revealed that NATO doctrine may not be well-suited for protracted, attritional warfare:

• NATO weapons and tactics are designed for short, decisive conflicts
• High-tech systems require extensive training and are difficult to replace
• Maneuver warfare is challenging in heavily mined areas with ubiquitous drone surveillance

In contrast, Soviet doctrine appears more adaptable to prolonged conflict:

• Emphasis on quantity over quality allows for sustained operations and replacement of losses
• Simpler weapons systems require less training for new recruits
• Attritional approach aligns with the realities of the current battlefield

Challenges for Ukraine

Ukraine faces several challenges in adopting NATO doctrine and equipment:

1. Limited time for training on complex systems
2. Difficulty replacing high-tech losses
3. Mismatch between NATO tactics and battlefield conditions
4. Potential waste of expensive equipment due to improper use

Adapting Western Weapons

Reports suggest Ukrainian forces have struggled to effectively integrate some Western weapon systems:

• Using precision anti-tank weapons like NLAWs as if they were cheaper RPGs
• Abandoning expensive command units for systems like Javelins
• Modifying cluster munitions for drone use rather than their intended purpose

These adaptations may reflect a need to adjust tactics for the realities of attritional warfare rather than strictly following NATO doctrine.

The Nature of Attritional Warfare

Protracted conflicts between near-peer adversaries tend to become wars of attrition. Key factors in winning such conflicts include:

• Industrial capacity to replace losses
• Ability to absorb setbacks without societal collapse
• Maintaining external support and alliances
• Exploiting geography to disrupt enemy supply lines
• Force regeneration and rotation capabilities
• Innovation in tactics and technology

Current State of the Conflict

Analyzing these factors suggests Russia may currently have some advantages in a protracted war:

• Greater industrial capacity for weapons production
• Potentially higher societal resilience to setbacks
• Geographic advantages for supply lines and infrastructure protection
• Adaptation to attritional warfare mindset

However, Ukraine retains significant external support and has demonstrated tactical innovations, particularly in drone warfare.

Implications for Future Conflicts

The war in Ukraine offers important lessons for military planners:

1. The importance of preparing for protracted, attritional warfare
2. The need to balance high-tech systems with simpler, mass-produced alternatives
3. The value of adaptable doctrine that can shift between maneuver and attritional approaches
4. The critical role of industrial capacity in sustaining long-term operations

Rethinking NATO Approach

NATO countries may need to reassess aspects of their military doctrine and procurement strategies:

• Developing strategies for sustained, high-intensity conflict
• Investing in production capacity for key munitions and equipment
• Balancing advanced systems with larger quantities of simpler, reliable weapons
• Adapting training to prepare forces for both maneuver and attritional warfare

Conclusion

The conflict in Ukraine has exposed both strengths and weaknesses in NATO and Soviet military doctrines when applied to protracted warfare. While NATO's high-tech approach offers significant advantages in short, decisive conflicts, it faces challenges in sustained attritional warfare.

Moving forward, military planners must consider how to blend the best aspects of both approaches to create more adaptable and resilient forces capable of succeeding in a wide range of conflict scenarios. This may require difficult trade-offs between quality and quantity, as well as a renewed focus on industrial capacity and societal resilience.

Ultimately, the lessons learned from this conflict will likely shape military doctrine and procurement decisions for years to come, as nations strive to prepare for an uncertain and potentially more volatile geopolitical landscape.

Article created from: https://youtu.be/OOdhgSQppJ8?feature=shared