Sounds like Ukraine is looking for its next victim, after they’re forced to end their war with Russia? Zelensky, like Netanyahu, needs permanent war so he can stay in power.
Except Zelensky already said he would happily vacate the presidency if America provided Ukraine with security guarantees as part of negotiated settlement with Putin. He also said he would relinquish the contested territory but I doubt he would do that now that Ukraine is actually gaining ground. Obviously Putin would have to agree to America providing security guarantees for America to actually provide them which is unlike Qatar in which Trump provided them with security guarantees and actually stood up to Netanyahu.
There is a religious as well as a language component - Poles are West-Slavs, Ukrainians are East Slavs. Moreover, Poles are Roman Catholics, while Ukrainians are Orthodox or Greek Catholic.
Madness remains madness. If madness were not prevailing, the religious and incidental ethnic differences that you have cited would not make a material difference.
For those who might not know the military, a chief sergeant is a completely insignificant rank. He is supposed to command fewer than 20 men or is responsible for a very small service unit. For info, here are the ranks above the rank of chief sergeant: As NCOs: First Sergeant, Master Sergeant. As COs: Lieutenant, First Lieutenant, Captain, Major, Lieutenant Colonel, Colonel, 2,3,4,5-star General. This man is representative of nothing. But it is true that in a normal army, such a thing would have been severely punished (confinement, demotion). But is the Ukrainian army still a normal army, or has it become a collection of warlord fiefs or activists heavily protected by forces that are untouchable by the hierarchy or the political level?
The rank structure of the Russian and Ukrainian armies is not directly comparable to western (NATO) armies in practical terms. Soviet-derived armies have an extra officer rank (junior lieutenant) who serves as a squad leader. NATO officers start their careers as platoon leaders (two squads).
Soviet-derived army officers work more as NCOs in NATO armies in the lower ranks, directly leading men, and do not move into staff work until they reach higher ranks. NATO army officers follow a more "white collar / blue collar" division of work and rely heavily on NCOs for direct leadership of the men. NATO officers spend their time in planning meetings in HQ, meeting with other officers responsible for aspects of their unit like supply and logistics, and identifying capable men to promote in the NCO ranks.
That has caused problems for Ukraine because NATO sought to impose its structure on the AFU early in the SMO. But Ukrainian soldiers resented their leaders passing orders to them from HQs safely out of artillery range, and pretty quickly eschewing visiting the front lines at all.
The Soviet-derived armies were built on one year conscription periods of service for enlisted soldiers. Very few spent periods longer than that in the armies - so there was never an enlisted pool to build an NCO corp out of for the most part. Being commissioned as an officer requires attending a military academy to install an esprit de corps; they do not have the tradition of brevetting (temporary promotions in the field to a higher rank, like a sergeant assuming the rank of platoon leader when the lieutenant is killed - and wearing the lieutenant bar until the end of duty so other soldiers recognize the rank).
But Ukraine has suffered horrible attrition in its officer corp throughout the SMO. Russia largely hasn't had the problem because it's a much larger country, and Russia has a tradition of military secondary schools where high school students are eligible for commissioning as soon as they graduate. It also had many more military academies and a bloated army that was very top-heavy with officers at the start of the SMO.
The result is that it's been commonplace for several years now for AFU NCOs to assume the duties of much higher commissioned offices. It's nearly standard for senior sergeants (like the man Andrew discusses in the article) to be XO of a battalion (800 men nominal strength), a position that before the war was slotted for majors, or to be company commanders (150 men nominal strength), a position that is generally filled with captains. And majors commanding brigades is commonplace.
The other side of that is that much of the senior leadership in the AFU has been promoted to higher ranks just to fill slots. You have 25-year-olds who were commissioned as junior lieutenants in the first year of the war now wearing major and lieutenant colonel ranks, and they are in no way ready or even competent for the rank.
So in all likelihood the man Andrew talks about is acting as a lieutenant colonel or something, but without the brevetted rank of that office like would happen in a NATO army.
I learned something new today! I've been very familiar with the rank and structure of the U.S., German, Ukrainian, and Russian military, but I know very little about the French system.
Why does the French system skip the one star general rank? Is there always a five star general? In the U.S. system promotions to five-star flag ranks can only happen during official wartime (so not since WWII), and there is only one at any given time (General of the Army). Do the French air and navy services also skip the one star rank?
The U.S. has cavalry units also. They keep platoon and company naming, and a squadron is equivalent to an infantry battalion. A cavalry regiment is equivalent to an infantry brigade, and then divisions for both above that level.
U.S. cavalry is organized similarly to the "BTG" (battalion tactical group) units that Russia used in the first two years of the SMO. The BTGs were independent units with combined arms - ground infantry in armored troop transports (BMPs), tanks, and artillery, with air support units (Kh-52 helicopters) shared between units.
Most U.S. Army units deployed in Europe have always been cavalry. They lack the punch of heavy mechanized infantry units. They don't have forward missile batteries or air defense attached to them, for example. Their purpose is to engage and stall the enemy while regular infantry is air-lifted in from the American homeland and U.K..
It's a bloody good news. If Ukrainians are becoming mad and dumb enough for threating their main and best ally and provider, that means things turn ugly for them and desperation makes them reckless.
In dreaming a little bit, one can imagine that Poles will perhaps begin becoming wise and smart and realise who are their true friends.
Suddenly Ukraine developed an appetite to fight Russia, Poland and Belarus, all at the same time. If you remove the jewish leadership in Ukraine you will be looking at a more peaceful environment.
Thos who accept this type of leadership constantly end up as victims, enslaved after everlasting wars. The survival of the Western World is simply dependent on learning the lessons of the last century and acting upon it. NEVER AGAIN!
I still find it all so odd. What’s to gain? Is it theatre/posturing for some reason or is Ukraine becoming more of a genuine threat to Poland? Is this all based on history?
Sorry mainly talking to myself I just find it most peculiar (that’s the polite version of a word).
This Bandera-like aggression threatens every European country after the war that (in the Banderaists' opinion) provided insufficient military aid or withdrew it "too early." In my opinion, it doesn't matter. After Ukraine's defeat by Russia, half of Europe is threatened in any case by hordes of heavily armed and enraged Bandera Nazis.
That sounds like the "leopard is eating is eating my face, that's not what he promised me" moment. Those Polish dingbats allied with the devil and wonder why they're dinning in hell. Such idiocy needs to be studied.
Poland should reconsider its stance towards Ukraine. Both in the aid it provides and in the issue of Ukrainian immigration to its territories. In the long run, it will have problems with the Ukrainian minority demanding independence. De facto with Ukraine, its a big mistake.
Sounds like Ukraine is looking for its next victim, after they’re forced to end their war with Russia? Zelensky, like Netanyahu, needs permanent war so he can stay in power.
Except Zelensky already said he would happily vacate the presidency if America provided Ukraine with security guarantees as part of negotiated settlement with Putin. He also said he would relinquish the contested territory but I doubt he would do that now that Ukraine is actually gaining ground. Obviously Putin would have to agree to America providing security guarantees for America to actually provide them which is unlike Qatar in which Trump provided them with security guarantees and actually stood up to Netanyahu.
Not a very smart move.
More madness.
Slavs slaughtering Slavs or threatening to do so, with abandon.
There is a religious as well as a language component - Poles are West-Slavs, Ukrainians are East Slavs. Moreover, Poles are Roman Catholics, while Ukrainians are Orthodox or Greek Catholic.
Madness remains madness. If madness were not prevailing, the religious and incidental ethnic differences that you have cited would not make a material difference.
For those who might not know the military, a chief sergeant is a completely insignificant rank. He is supposed to command fewer than 20 men or is responsible for a very small service unit. For info, here are the ranks above the rank of chief sergeant: As NCOs: First Sergeant, Master Sergeant. As COs: Lieutenant, First Lieutenant, Captain, Major, Lieutenant Colonel, Colonel, 2,3,4,5-star General. This man is representative of nothing. But it is true that in a normal army, such a thing would have been severely punished (confinement, demotion). But is the Ukrainian army still a normal army, or has it become a collection of warlord fiefs or activists heavily protected by forces that are untouchable by the hierarchy or the political level?
The rank structure of the Russian and Ukrainian armies is not directly comparable to western (NATO) armies in practical terms. Soviet-derived armies have an extra officer rank (junior lieutenant) who serves as a squad leader. NATO officers start their careers as platoon leaders (two squads).
Soviet-derived army officers work more as NCOs in NATO armies in the lower ranks, directly leading men, and do not move into staff work until they reach higher ranks. NATO army officers follow a more "white collar / blue collar" division of work and rely heavily on NCOs for direct leadership of the men. NATO officers spend their time in planning meetings in HQ, meeting with other officers responsible for aspects of their unit like supply and logistics, and identifying capable men to promote in the NCO ranks.
That has caused problems for Ukraine because NATO sought to impose its structure on the AFU early in the SMO. But Ukrainian soldiers resented their leaders passing orders to them from HQs safely out of artillery range, and pretty quickly eschewing visiting the front lines at all.
The Soviet-derived armies were built on one year conscription periods of service for enlisted soldiers. Very few spent periods longer than that in the armies - so there was never an enlisted pool to build an NCO corp out of for the most part. Being commissioned as an officer requires attending a military academy to install an esprit de corps; they do not have the tradition of brevetting (temporary promotions in the field to a higher rank, like a sergeant assuming the rank of platoon leader when the lieutenant is killed - and wearing the lieutenant bar until the end of duty so other soldiers recognize the rank).
But Ukraine has suffered horrible attrition in its officer corp throughout the SMO. Russia largely hasn't had the problem because it's a much larger country, and Russia has a tradition of military secondary schools where high school students are eligible for commissioning as soon as they graduate. It also had many more military academies and a bloated army that was very top-heavy with officers at the start of the SMO.
The result is that it's been commonplace for several years now for AFU NCOs to assume the duties of much higher commissioned offices. It's nearly standard for senior sergeants (like the man Andrew discusses in the article) to be XO of a battalion (800 men nominal strength), a position that before the war was slotted for majors, or to be company commanders (150 men nominal strength), a position that is generally filled with captains. And majors commanding brigades is commonplace.
The other side of that is that much of the senior leadership in the AFU has been promoted to higher ranks just to fill slots. You have 25-year-olds who were commissioned as junior lieutenants in the first year of the war now wearing major and lieutenant colonel ranks, and they are in no way ready or even competent for the rank.
So in all likelihood the man Andrew talks about is acting as a lieutenant colonel or something, but without the brevetted rank of that office like would happen in a NATO army.
No my friend.
Ukraine adopted NATO standards.
But within NATO, grades are différents.
For exemple France and USA are différents.
In France, a sergent or a sergent-chief command a group: 12 to 20 men depending specifications.
Adjudant, can be chief of platoon ( 36-40 men) but is most of time in services and logistic.
Adjudant-chef, they are company chief deputy or chief of logistical services.
Sous-lieutenant( under lieutenant) maxi 1 year, hé commands a platoon like a Lieutenant.
Lieutenant, platoon commander
Captain, company commander (160-200 men)
Commandant( major), battalion( 3 or 4 companies.
Lieutenant colonel, big battalion or half brigade or regiment
Colonel, the same but sometimes a brigade
And the is no general 1 star, that begins at two stars( brigade) , 3 stars( division) , 4 s ( army corp), 5s ( army).
I know it's different in UK, USA, Germany.
I learned something new today! I've been very familiar with the rank and structure of the U.S., German, Ukrainian, and Russian military, but I know very little about the French system.
Why does the French system skip the one star general rank? Is there always a five star general? In the U.S. system promotions to five-star flag ranks can only happen during official wartime (so not since WWII), and there is only one at any given time (General of the Army). Do the French air and navy services also skip the one star rank?
No only 2S.
Probably the 1s is the colonel who command a half brigade.
But we have a lot of 5S, it's not like in USA where 5 S is the General of THE army.
In France , a 5s is a general of ONE army. He can lead a group of armies and even be the general in chief.
It's the same for air force.
In Naval forces you have.
Enseigne de vaisseau 2e classe.
Enseigne de vaisseau 1ere classe
Lieutenant de vaisseau(captain)
Capitaine de corvette( major-commander)
Capitaine de frégate ( lieutenant colonel)
Capitaine de vaisseau( colonel)
Amiral 2,3,4,5 S
And in France, platoon is the word to say "section" in the cavalry. A platoon is 3 tanks.
A squadron is the word to say company( 4 platoon).
Grades of CO are the same in army and air force but not in Naval forces
The U.S. has cavalry units also. They keep platoon and company naming, and a squadron is equivalent to an infantry battalion. A cavalry regiment is equivalent to an infantry brigade, and then divisions for both above that level.
U.S. cavalry is organized similarly to the "BTG" (battalion tactical group) units that Russia used in the first two years of the SMO. The BTGs were independent units with combined arms - ground infantry in armored troop transports (BMPs), tanks, and artillery, with air support units (Kh-52 helicopters) shared between units.
Most U.S. Army units deployed in Europe have always been cavalry. They lack the punch of heavy mechanized infantry units. They don't have forward missile batteries or air defense attached to them, for example. Their purpose is to engage and stall the enemy while regular infantry is air-lifted in from the American homeland and U.K..
It's a bloody good news. If Ukrainians are becoming mad and dumb enough for threating their main and best ally and provider, that means things turn ugly for them and desperation makes them reckless.
In dreaming a little bit, one can imagine that Poles will perhaps begin becoming wise and smart and realise who are their true friends.
Suddenly Ukraine developed an appetite to fight Russia, Poland and Belarus, all at the same time. If you remove the jewish leadership in Ukraine you will be looking at a more peaceful environment.
Jewish leaders, nazi soldiers = ukraine, amazing mix, smells very kosher
kosher = homicidal maniac
Thos who accept this type of leadership constantly end up as victims, enslaved after everlasting wars. The survival of the Western World is simply dependent on learning the lessons of the last century and acting upon it. NEVER AGAIN!
It seems europe hás no capacity to learn anything, even from recent history, só here we go again marching to defeat and our demise
Smells like another country in the Middle East. When the situation gets desperate, they provoke a new enemy in the hope of getting salvation earlier.
Europe is going to have a lot of fun with these people.
He is simply reminding poland that the Americans and europeans like Ukraine best, that poland is simply a discarded toy.
I still find it all so odd. What’s to gain? Is it theatre/posturing for some reason or is Ukraine becoming more of a genuine threat to Poland? Is this all based on history?
Sorry mainly talking to myself I just find it most peculiar (that’s the polite version of a word).
Ukraine is europe’s osraHell, many similarities, its genetic
Tensions between Poland & Ukraine are centuries old. All the sergent is telling Poland was to mind their own business or they could get killed.
This Bandera-like aggression threatens every European country after the war that (in the Banderaists' opinion) provided insufficient military aid or withdrew it "too early." In my opinion, it doesn't matter. After Ukraine's defeat by Russia, half of Europe is threatened in any case by hordes of heavily armed and enraged Bandera Nazis.
That sounds like the "leopard is eating is eating my face, that's not what he promised me" moment. Those Polish dingbats allied with the devil and wonder why they're dinning in hell. Such idiocy needs to be studied.
Thanks for your great work Andrew!
We've restacked and shared this link on 'The Stacks'
https://askeptic.substack.com/p/the-stacks
Poland should reconsider its stance towards Ukraine. Both in the aid it provides and in the issue of Ukrainian immigration to its territories. In the long run, it will have problems with the Ukrainian minority demanding independence. De facto with Ukraine, its a big mistake.
Just like every other country that allows "migrants" in .