Ukraine

EYESAILOR

Super Anarchist
3,632
2,097
Personally I think the air war will continue to be largely a no-score draw. Both sides have sufficient air defence to deny control of the air. Would need a lot more committment from NATO to change that.

But I think Ukr will win the war of attrition in the ground. They have more committment from population, NATO production and better morale
Air wars do not end in draws. They are different from soccer in that respect. Either Russia will be able to continue with their aerial civilian bombardment of Ukraine (Russia winning) or the aerial bombardment will be suppressed (Ukraine winning....regaining control of their air space).

If Russia wins the air war, and they are currently winning, then Ukraine will be brought to the negotiating table. The attrition is not happening at the front, it is happening to the supply chain behind the front line and the morale of the civilian population being bombed. Ukraine will be forced to permanently concede most of Crimea and a large part of the Donnbas etc.

If Ukraine wins the air war by creating their own "iron dome" and suppressing the aerial bombardment then yes, Ukraine's massive ground superiority will eventually overwhelm the Russian ground forces. Putin will likely be given a face saving gesture but essentially Russia will be kicked out of Ukraine.

At this stage, it is ALL about the air war.
 

EYESAILOR

Super Anarchist
3,632
2,097
what is missing are the questions as to why Russia started this and what their overriding political objectives are- and what are the Western goals in response, if you take more than a moment to think then the bigger picture comes clearer.
There comes a stage in every conflict when military history supplants political history. Russia's political objectives are no longer relevant. They are no more relevant than Hitler's justification for invading Poland. What matters is the military outcome. Ukraine has superiority on the ground so Russia has switched to an air war.


civilian infrastructure, energy grids etc. The Russians if anything were very careful not to destroy any more than was minimally necessary for quite some time, we may argue that point but the recent attacks that destroyed 70% of Ukraines power grid capability took only hours to complete and over 9 months into the war, why the delay?
That much is obvious. Russia initially hoped for a swift and victorious land invasion. They were repulsed and are now steadily losing the war on the ground . Ukraine's armed forces have moved from a numerical disadvantage to numerical superiority over Russia and that advantage on the ground will only grow from here. Russia has taken the logical step of switching to an air war and an aerial bombardment of Ukraine infrastructure, supply chain and civilians resources.

Time will tell if Russia can win the aerial stage of the war.

. As I said the US simply cannot fight this one and expect to win or if they do it will be extremely costly in blood and treasure.

US is not fighting. This is a war between Ukraine, a nation state of over 40 million people defending their homeland, versus a Russian expeditionary force of a few hundred thousand . Ukraine does not need people or boots on the ground, it merely needs the tools and military equipment. The equivalent of one week's stimulus package from 2020 will more than pay for all the equipment that Ukraine can possibly need.
We can debate your theories about American fortitude and determination in foreign wars (I obviously disagree with you) but what is undeniable is that the money to support and supply Ukraine is there.

The GDP of the entire Russian Federation is $1.48 trillion.
The GDP of just California alone ($3.1 trillion) is double that of Russia.
The GDP of the USA and the EU combined is > 30x that of Russia.
Economically, Russia is a 3rd world country with a per capita income of $10,126.
Russia's entire military budget is $63 bn rising to $77bn as a result of the war in Ukraine.
The USA's peacetime military budget is $811 bn. The rest of NATO spends an additional $400 bn on defense for a total of $1,200 bn.
If we allocated a mere 6% of the NATO defense budget to supporting Ukraine (cheap at the price), we would be outspending the entire Russian defense budget stretched over many thousands of miles including hostile borders in the South, recalcitrant populations in Chechnya and Georgia and supporting needy allies in Syria and elsewhere.

With Ukraine's numerical superiority and NATO's financial superiority.....this is a ground war that Russia simply cannot win.

I dont have a crystal ball .
I concur with that statement

I hope they dont decide to augment it with our kids blood.
Every Russian mother must be wishing this.
The impact on the average American mother is that the forthcoming delivery of F35s to the US Marine Corp might be delayed for 6 months to allow some resources to be diverted to Ukraine. I doubt that will cause many sleepless nights.
 

enigmatically2

Super Anarchist
3,867
1,982
Earth
Air wars do not end in draws. They are different from soccer in that respect. Either Russia will be able to continue with their aerial civilian bombardment of Ukraine (Russia winning) or the aerial bombardment will be suppressed (Ukraine winning....regaining control of their air space).

If Russia wins the air war, and they are currently winning, then Ukraine will be brought to the negotiating table.
Air wars can end in stalemate. The attacks Russia are making on civilian centres is not making any impact on UKr militarily. Nor did the blitz on UK. The Ukrainian people are and will resist this, they will just get more determined not less.

In military terms, neither sides air power is making much impact. Except in terms of drones for minor targeting and large scale reconnaissance. There UKr are clearly winning.

In the end this will be won by troops on the ground, in particular the PBI who have to hold the ground. Just like every other war.
And there, UkR are winning, helped by those drones.

What this discussion has not recognised, is that not only does NATO production beat RU, so does their innovation. They have learned from lessons, and already built a number of new weapon types, some of which have already been deployed
 

dogwatch

Super Anarchist
17,164
1,760
South Coast, UK
If Russia wins the air war, and they are currently winning, then Ukraine will be brought to the negotiating table. The attrition is not happening at the front, it is happening to the supply chain behind the front line and the morale of the civilian population being bombed.

Care to provide an example of a war being won by erosion of civilian morale through strategic bombing?

Since there isn't one, I don't agree with your thesis that this is now primarily an air war.
 

Stingray~

Super Anarchist
12,195
3,317
PNW
The attrition is not happening at the front, it is happening to the supply chain behind the front line and the morale of the civilian population being bombed.
Agree that there must surely be implications to the supply lines caused by the air strikes, most especially the loss of electrical power to many parts of the country. Many trains can't run, trucks can't pump gasoline, etc, etc. And as far as civilians, well I have been forecasting another wave of migration to W Europe and many are already being encouraged to do exactly that. And with fewer civilians there to run and operate things, well even that could have some supply line effects.
 

enigmatically2

Super Anarchist
3,867
1,982
Earth
I can't find monthly figures on emigration (on phone only), but the number of Ukrainians displaced internally is decreasing (by almost 1m in the last few months). So I suspect the people available to run factories is actually improving.

Source:
 

Stingray~

Super Anarchist
12,195
3,317
PNW
I can't find monthly figures on emigration (on phone only), but the number of Ukrainians displaced internally is decreasing (by almost 1m in the last few months). So I suspect the people available to run factories is actually improving.

Source:
The numbers I heard were that around 5m emigrated in the initial wave and another 6m were displaced internally. Some of both returned to Kiev and even Karkiv. I think it is in the podcast above where the well-experienced Guardian reporter says some factories (and a lot else of course) are getting hit by the electrical outages, especially in areas outside of city downtowns.
 

Zonker

Super Anarchist
10,128
6,313
Canada
Nato going all in to defend democracy is delusional, we know this on some level. Anyone here keen to join up or get conscripted away from a comfy life, safe computer screens and head to Europe for some frozen trench warfare against a determined and tough enemy? Not me and forget about the Europeans
Please identify which current NATO countries already have a volunteer army. Because that is who would be fighting initially.
aval power is useless in a ground war, air power is significantly neutered by rocket tech- this is a real WW2 style ground war against a very tough opponent.
Please. If NATO was involved, you'd quickly see Russian air forces removed from the skies AND massive strikes on anything moving or static on the Russian side of the front line.

I dont have any dog in this fight so dont bother attacking me personally with troll and stupid etc, who wins is of no consequence, my thoughts are with the people who are getting slaughtered in the pointless delay getting to an armistice.
Then why join a sailing website to just post stupid bullshit. You're just a troll yourself. Perhaps you're a paid Russian shill like Slug.

I'm sure if Russia offered to remove itself from all Ukraine territory there would be no delay getting a peace deal signed.
 

LeoV

Super Anarchist
12,975
3,954
The Netherlands
About air control.
Ukr MOD.
Fi0FXULWIAg5ZhI
 

Ishmael

53,935
13,274
Fuctifino
Then why join a sailing website to just post stupid bullshit. You're just a troll yourself. Perhaps you're a paid Russian shill like Slug.

Bingo. At the very least a Russia apologist. None of his/her points make any sense or are valid. In fact, it sounds just like propaganda.
 

Steam Flyer

Sophisticated Yet Humble
45,283
10,109
Eastern NC
aval power is useless in a ground war, air power is significantly neutered by rocket tech- this is a real WW2 style ground war against a very tough opponent.
Please. If NATO was involved, you'd quickly see Russian air forces removed from the skies AND massive strikes on anything moving or static on the Russian side of the front line.

If NATO naval power were active in the Black Sea, Russia's navy there would have a lifespan of a couple hours, tops. Air power soon to follow, nobody is going to risk a carrier in that puddle unless it's been swept clean of subs and possible land launch sites for anti-ship missiles. Once within range of carrier air, nothing moves without NATO's permission.

Sanitizing the Russian side of the border would have to be a careful operation to minimize losses, but there's not much doubt that Russia would lose everything.
 

Stingray~

Super Anarchist
12,195
3,317
PNW
The GDP of the entire Russian Federation is $1.48 trillion.
The GDP of just California alone ($3.1 trillion) is double that of Russia.
The GDP of the USA and the EU combined is > 30x that of Russia.
Economically, Russia is a 3rd world country with a per capita income of $10,126.
Russia's entire military budget is $63 bn rising to $77bn as a result of the war in Ukraine.
The USA's peacetime military budget is $811 bn. The rest of NATO spends an additional $400 bn on defense for a total of $1,200 bn.
If we allocated a mere 6% of the NATO defense budget to supporting Ukraine (cheap at the price), we would be outspending the entire Russian defense budget stretched over many thousands of miles including hostile borders in the South, recalcitrant populations in Chechnya and Georgia and supporting needy allies in Syria and elsewhere.

With Ukraine's numerical superiority and NATO's financial superiority.....this is a ground war that Russia simply cannot win.
Great post, thanks for those numbers.

A lot are going to die in the mean time unfortunately but Putin and the whole Peter the Great fantasy too are going to get fucked.
 

EYESAILOR

Super Anarchist
3,632
2,097
Care to provide an example of a war being won by erosion of civilian morale through strategic bombing?

The effect of strategic aerial bombardment is not limited to the impact on the morale of civilians and their political leaders . The objective is to destroy the opposing nations ability to wage war. Yes, by demoralizing civilians but also by demolishing an enemy’s infrastructure—such as the power infrastructure, factories, railways, and refineries—everything that is essential for the production and supply of war materials, the clothing and feeding of troops, the supply of reinforcements and relief at the front line.
If the defender wins the air war, it is much more difficult to invade because advancing troops cannot be supplied.

Campaigns where aerial superiority and/or aerial bombardment played a critical role in victory include:

Japan August 15 1945.
Persian Gulf War 1991
Operation Noble Anvil in Kosovo from March to June 1999


Since there isn't one, I don't agree with your thesis that this is now primarily an air war.
I've given three. But Military History is an evolving discipline and the advent of drones vs air defense systems is writing a new chapter.
Make no mistake, Russia realized it was losing the ground war and has shifted its emphasis to a massive sustained aerial bombardment. If Ukraine can upgrade its air defense and supress the bombardment then Russia will be out of cards. But Ukraine needs to turn this around quickly.
 

enigmatically2

Super Anarchist
3,867
1,982
Earth
@EYESAILOR only the first of those is even partially valid because in the other cases the air war was about destroying military capability not eroding civilian. Yes they did take out energy infrastructure, but only as part of a very targetted campaign. Civilian casualties were accidental, not deliberate.

And the first example only worked when the US unleashed nuclear weapons, and did so precisely because the air campaign was otherwise not working . So rather proves the opposite to what you want
 

dogwatch

Super Anarchist
17,164
1,760
South Coast, UK
The effect of strategic aerial bombardment is not limited to the impact on the morale of civilians and their political leaders . The objective is to destroy the opposing nations ability to wage war.

No shit, I am aware of the meaning of strategic bombing. However in your earlier post, you chose to focus on the morale aspect and it was to that that I responded. Thanks also for your answers to a question which was not the one I asked.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts




Top