Ukraine and Only Ukraine. If it isn't about Ukraine then fuck off

d'ranger

Super Anarchist
29,210
4,303
Kharkiv has been retaken. Russia holds no major cities. Pushing them out of the Donbas regions will be slow and ugly for both sides.  Feel free to bitch all you want in the other thread(s).

 

d'ranger

Super Anarchist
29,210
4,303
For those who think Russia can win with superior numbers - borrowed from another forum

Russia has overwhelming numbers on paper only.

The Russian armed forces are approx. 900,000-strong. Of that, the army is approx. 280,000-strong.

Of that 280,000 in the army, around 200,000 have been deployed into Ukraine. They’ve also suffered devastating losses; hundreds of tanks, hundreds of other armoured vehicles, dozens of helicopters and dozens of combat aircraft. 15–20,000 troops killed and approx. double that wounded. So that’s anything between 45,000–60,000 casualties out of 200,000 or so. That’s a horrific casualty figure, even if two-thirds of that are only wounded (to varying degrees, some being minor and can return to combat within days or weeks, and others being catastrophic and life-changing).

The bulk of the Russian army is in Ukraine, fighting. This means that troops cannot be easily rotated out of combat tours as there is no one to replace them. This will lead to the troops being exhausted and morale completely degraded. People can only go on so long in combat, especially when you are the invading force - defenders i.e. Ukraine can go on longer, morale is better, because they have more reason to fight.

Troops will keep fighting until exhausted, even more of their BTGs (battalion tactical groups) will be rendered combat-ineffective, and the Russian army will keep on being worn down. The only way to prevent this would be to rotate some of those troops with the approx. 80,000 remaining who are garrisoned elsewhere in Russia e.g. along NATO borders, borders with China etc. But there are too few of those to effectively rotate, so Putin’s only other option is increase conscription.

That comes with further challenges; let’s say they can train soldiers in 8–12 weeks. Those soldiers will be of poor quality - even by Russian standards. They’ll be green boys with barely any training and no experience. They won’t be very effective at all and they’ll just be more bodies into the meat grinder. The Russian troops they’d be replacing, rotated back home, will tell everyone they know how awful it is there, and word will get out. Putin can’t silence tens of thousands of troops.

I don’t think Putin wants them to rotate home; if they do then they’ll talk, they’ll tell their families and friends the awful things they’ve seen, and done, whilst over there. They’ll tell them how they’re barely supplied, how their equipment is old, barely maintained and ineffective.

This also applies to equipment, also. As tanks are being destroyed by the hundreds in Ukraine, more will be brought out of storage. Russia has thousands of tanks but a large proportion are simply gathering dust in warehouses. Many tanks will have to be cannibalised and stripped of parts to get others back into basic fighting shape. Corners will likely be cut and Russia will simply rely on numbers. Again, though, it’s meat into the grinder. If their best and most-maintained Russian T-72s are getting hammered by NLAWs, Javelins, and even Ukrainian T-72s using better tactics, then the 2nd-rate reserve tanks, crewed by the above green boys with barely 8–12 weeks’ training and no experience, are going to fare even worse.

The best Russia can hope for is to cling onto Donbas and Crimea, but even then they’re going to be mauled in the trying.

None of this is even taking into account the sanctions against Russia, which is hampering their war effort (a lot of microchips etc that go into their missiles are made in Europe and are no longer being supplied).

Even though it’s Ukraine that has suffered devastation in the war, Russia will suffer more long-term. Years after the West has helped Ukraine back on its feet, Russia will be the Eurasian equivalent of North Korea.

 

d'ranger

Super Anarchist
29,210
4,303
From a favorite writer Mats Andersson






I understand we are all sympathetic towards Ukraine, but why do people even think Ukraine has a chance of winning this war?






Have you even looked at one of those maps of the Ukrainian war lately?

Russia now occupies at most 2/3 of the territory they occupied after a week or two. Ukraine is advancing. Russia is retreating. Ukraine’s capacity is increasing. Russia’s is decreasing.

Russia’s objective was to eradicate Ukraine as a nation and to eradicate the Ukrainian language and culture. They are failing completely. Ukraine’s objective was simply to survive as an independent nation.

How can anyone look at the facts and with a straight face say that Ukraine isn’t winning?
 

Sol Rosenberg

Girthy Member
94,209
11,739
Earth
I think Putin made a yuge mistake by invading, and the Russian people will continue to suffer for his tragic miscalculation(s) for quite some time to come. It would be highly ironic if he ended up liberating his own country through his own hubris. 

 

d'ranger

Super Anarchist
29,210
4,303
Another piece from Quora: Did Putin teach NATO a lesson by attacking Ukraine?

Oh ya- Putin taught NATO lessons like he was a professor.

Lesson 1: Russia sucks




main-qimg-06de369c934e43377862939956df4271-lq




I cannot overstate how long NATO has feared the invincible Russian bear- a military that could muster 15,000 tanks and swarm Europe. The US has spent 700 billion dollars PER YEAR building to face this exact threat.

NATO developed special tactics to deal with Russia including specialized defense-in-depth (definition in comments) procedures, specialized weapons training, and tactical concepts meant to target Russia’s weak points.

The big question was “would it work”. Would these untested tactics, strategies, and weapons work in the face of a large-scale Russian invasion?

Ukraine didn’t really have much of an Army prior to 2014. Then Putin annexed Crimea and started fighting in the Donbas. Suddenly Ukraine had to build an army very quickly with the singular goal of defending against a Russian invasion. So naturally, they turned to NATO for training and NATO gave them everything- the weapons, the tactics, the strategies.

Turns out it did work! The tactics used by the Ukrainians are NATO tactics (with some alternations) and the weapons proving to be the deadliest are NATO weapons.

So now we know for sure that the US military would dominate the Russian military in short order. Ukraine is managing to really give the Russians a bloody nose with minimal training, minimal equipment, and minimal support.

  1. Russia has failed to control the air space in the face of about 500 anti-air weapons, a handful of Helicopters, and 225 Aircraft. The US has 6,000 Aircraft, 3000 Helicopters, and over 2000 highly advanced anti-air missile guidance weapons.
  2. Russia has struggled against a few thousand APCs- the US has over 10,000 plus 250,000 Humvees
  3. Russia has struggled against the 1,500 outdated Ukrainian tanks- the US has 8,000 Abrams tanks and 6,000 Bradleys.

Lesson 2: Russia has weak points



main-qimg-56e43c7d23871522aa6819b23631fe40-lq




The entire Russian military isn’t bad. Their Navy is pretty modern, though it lacks carriers. Their Airforce is also something to behold. How much of the airforce is functional and combat-ready? Not a ton. But even if Russia could sustain combat operations with 25% of their Airforce it would be deadly.

But Russia has some serious flaws here too.

  1. Their logistical capability is…. subpar to say the least. They lack manpower, trucks, and even tires. Russia is down to using civilian trucks to haul supplies to the frontlines. It’s not like Ukraine is a superpower either. Ukraine was able to unravel the entire Russian logistical system with a few drones. In fact, it's unlikely that Russia could have supplied its forces without Ukrainian intervention. By week 2 of this conflict, Russian troops were looting markets for food and abandoning tanks due to a lack of gas.
  2. Their tactical depth is bad. When a war starts and you send all your guys forward how far can they go before they run out of food, fuel, and ammo? The further the better obviously. Well, Russian troops can’t operate more than 90 km from a supply depot. This means they cannot strike deep into enemy territory or employ flexible creative advances. They have to hop-frog from city to city because cities can serve as ample supply depots.


    Ukraine knows this and it's why to defends its cities so strongly

[*]Russia has bad SEAD (definition in comments) capabilities. Step 1 of any war is to destroy your enemy's fixed-wing aircraft (or airports) and then target anti-air weapons by bombers, cruise missiles, artillery, you name it. Russia hasn’t even destroyed the very small Ukrainian Airforce yet and Ukraine still possesses loads of anti-air weapons.

[*]Russia relies on conscripted troops too heavily. Someone forced into the army, given little training, and paid virtually nothing is not going to fight hard or well.

[*]Russia has too much old equipment. There are lots of obsolete Russian tanks, planes, helicopters, trucks, guns, artillery- you name it. These old weapons systems are not doing well.



Lesson 3: Putin is not to be trusted

Putin's goals are clear- reform the USSR (in terms of size) and he is willing to go to war to do so.

Putin cares little for peace or for his own people. He should be viewed like we viewed Hitler in 1938.


In summary, Russia is inferior to most modernized nations militarily due to their many flaws and Putin is something a rouge dictator- and a threat to world peace.



 




 
 

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
29,366
4,197
New Oak City
How can anyone look at the facts and with a straight face say that Ukraine isn’t winning?
... because Russia still occupies large amounts of eastern Ukraine. It is a dumb war which is something that we know about: Vietnam, Persian Gulf + Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia. But while the Russians will pay a steep price, they aren't losing until they decide they're losing, until the body bags or their equivalent mount up. Until then it's a draw.

 

Ishmael

52,348
12,182
Fuctifino
... because Russia still occupies large amounts of eastern Ukraine. It is a dumb war which is something that we know about: Vietnam, Persian Gulf + Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia. But while the Russians will pay a steep price, they aren't losing until they decide they're losing, until the body bags or their equivalent mount up. Until then it's a draw.
Militarily it's a draw, but there are many things going on behind the scenes in Russia. There could be a sudden decision to not drag the entire country back to 1720 to satisfy one sick man's ego.

 

d'ranger

Super Anarchist
29,210
4,303
... because Russia still occupies large amounts of eastern Ukraine. It is a dumb war which is something that we know about: Vietnam, Persian Gulf + Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia. But while the Russians will pay a steep price, they aren't losing until they decide they're losing, until the body bags or their equivalent mount up. Until then it's a draw.
They pulled out all their forces in the Kiyv area to concentrate in the east and they are still not advancing and in fact are being pushed back. It's not dumb to those who live there and understand what life is like under Putin.  They are fighting for their lives and their country - the ones they are fighting are there because they have to be.  This has nothing to do with the examples you listed above unless you see Vietnam and Afghanistan as Ukraine who don't want to be invaded and occupied - a lesson that hopefully the US has finally learned.  The US at least tried to be a benevolent occupier, Russia has shown to be ruthless, cruel and willing to wipe a people off the map.

 

Expatriated

Anarchist
589
109
I suspect the biggest immediate threats are for the Russians to get along the Black Sea coast to Transnistria. This probably requires the Belarus army to present a threat to Northern Ukraine and for the Russians to gain much better control of the air locally. The sinking of the Moskva clearly helps Ukraine with this but the ability to interdict Russian supplies through the Crimea would be huge. I'm not sure what size of warhead would be needed to destroy the Kerch bridge and I doubt Ukraine have any missiles with a >250 mile range.

 

LeoV

Super Anarchist
12,686
3,743
The Netherlands
Even in places were they are putting a lot of effort in advancing the Rus only advance at most 2 miles day. And not on the whole front, but very localized, and then have to stop again when they reach the next defence line of Ukraine. Ukraine is big...

 

giegs

Anarchist
769
366
Arid
It seems like Russia's focus on prestige projects may have undermined their ability to effectively use combined arms. I don't mean just in terms of resource allocation, they've also concentrated leadership talent into specific areas and abandoned any widespread notions of esprit de corps. How effective is an innumerate artillery battery going to be?

I'm not fully on board with commentators acting surprised by Russia's inability to project force beyond its own borders. It reminds me of the French needing US support for moving Leopards into Mali. Having the struggle so close to home, after a protlonged buildup, is definitely revealing though.

I wonder if NATO's focus on the Fulda Gap as a point of orientation is a modern version of the Maginot Line.

 

ShortForBob

Super Anarchist
34,893
2,778
Melbourne
... because Russia still occupies large amounts of eastern Ukraine. It is a dumb war which is something that we know about: Vietnam, Persian Gulf + Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia. But while the Russians will pay a steep price, they aren't losing until they decide they're losing, until the body bags or their equivalent mount up. Until then it's a draw.
Is the Korean war over yet?

 

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
29,366
4,197
New Oak City
Not 250 miles but the Germans have given the Ukes some of their Panzerhaubitze 2000 howitzers. With a rocket assisted projectile it has a freakish range of 42 miles and laser guidance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerhaubitze_2000

As for winning + losing, just as with causes and sufficient grounds, different countries will define things differently. Vlad could give a shit about Ivan dying. What Vlad doesn't want to do is lose (sound familiar?). So 'losing' or some form of expensive draw is preferable to lost. And given that he gives no fucks about his country (sound familiar?) it could get drawn out. The difference between our stupidity and theirs is that we could afford W the Stupid's stupid stupidity and they can't afford theirs AND they're getting sanctioned up the ass.

Militarily, what Russia doesn't have is the ability to replace their shitty war materiel after it gets smashed, sabotaged or abandoned. The Ukes have the entire West shipping in NATO quality stuff. The Russians have shitty shit to begin with and their shit isn't getting replaced.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

LeoV

Super Anarchist
12,686
3,743
The Netherlands
Problem for big military movements is that it needs preparation, staging places, FOB etc.
Satellites and drones makes that not a surprise any more. Ukraine has a lot of informers in occupied area too. They can prepare for defence in that time.

Same for big naval landing near Odessa. Russian fleet manoeuvres are followed in real time. Nato has recon planes in the air et all times. Covering Black Sea and Belarus and West Ukraine.

 

Cal20sailor

Super Anarchist
12,846
3,334
Detroit
Actually, no. I believe it’s technically only a ceasefire. However, I don’t believe Ukraine was involved so it’s not on topic. 
And not a war, a conflict.  Ukraine is most certainly a war.  If Putin is dying, I hope he does it quickly.  Russia is really in the shitter no matter what happens in the Ukraine.  Putin's successor better be well trained in groveling.

 




Top