Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

stefan92 said:
So it ended not due to the quick defeat against Japan but due to the much longer World War 1. It did give a first nudge, but that's about it.
Click to expand...

A nudge? The Russians basically lost their entire navy and never replaced those losses by WW1, which created a major strategic disadvantage by then. That's even before saying how many men Russia lost in that war, which was a prelude to WW1 battle tactics.

stefan92 said:
And it seems still possible for Russia to for example invade in Georgia again or something like that. Fighting an attrition war will effectively deplete Russian offensive potential, which a swift end would not achieve.
Click to expand...

The Kremlin could not even answer Armenia's calls for military support when the Turkish-backed Azeri forces made their move last year. I'd be surprised if Russia will try their luck elsewhere soon.

stefan92 said:
And apart from that I see another possible reason for the reluctant deliveries: the strategic approach Ukraine uses for this war is a weird mix between much more "Soviet style" than NATO would use while at the same time adopting new technologies like drones. And despite all that talk about NATO training I think by now it is pretty clear that they failed, Ukraine still is pretty terrible at combined arms warfare and at large scale operations.

Both command and individual soldiers just are not up to NATO standards and therefore just perform a lot worse with western material than they should - giving them equipment for that feels just like a waste.

The situation is a bit different for equipment that actually fits the existing Ukrainian doctrine. This however is mostly limited to air defense systems and artillery. These are the weapons Ukraine uses with great success and where they do really profit from western technology (like having artillery with higher range and accuracy than the Russians).

The problem here is that western militaries did not have such a big focus on these systems and therefore just don't have the stocks to give away in some cases, or become very reluctant at all because they might realize now that they are severly lacking in those areas (SPAAGs like the Gepard are an example - a lot of NATO countries expected such systems to not be valuable any more, and then the Shaheds arrived on the battlefield).
Click to expand...

That is a topic for a serious discussion, but Western nations should never see Ukraine's performances on the battlefield to justify not arming them any quicker. No one expects wars to always end quickly, but overwhelming technological superiority is always a key to defeat the opposition's armies (and I really mean armies rather than guerilla groups). I hope we have not forgotten how Saddam and Milosevic lost their wars against NATO. It was not through attrition that they lost; it was all about shock and awe coming from with superior technology that struck in the right areas.

Zen86 said:
Assuming a swift victory over Russia is actually possible, would a collapse in Putin's rule actually be a good outcome for the West? Bearing in mind how many Nukes they have stockpiled across the country, there is the risk that an even nuttier regime could emerge from the chaos or the nightmare scenario of militant groups geting their hands on such things.
Click to expand...

If there's no unifying force post-Putin, then we most likely will see more warlords in Russia than there were in China between 1911 and 1949. All of those would seek to gain international recognition and nukes would be useless in doing so. In the scenario of militant groups, I don't see how they can do anything when even countries like Pakistan did not lose nuclear weapons despite high corruption within the ISI and the proximity of terrorist groups.
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
I hope we have not forgotten how Saddam and Milosevic lost their wars against NATO. It was not through attrition that they lost; it was all about shock and awe coming from with superior technology that struck in the right areas.
Click to expand...
Superior technology used by extremely skilled and well trained soldiers. Giving a technologically superior tank to people who proceed to use it like a throwaway T-72 is simply a waste of tanks.

Ukraine will in the best case need a decade of full unleashed western support to be able to beat Russia in NATO style. It was tried to rush this and didn’t work so far.

Now Ukraine apparently switched back to their attrition strategy and the west should support them in this, because the equipment for this style of war seems to be effectively used by Ukraine.
 
RedDevilQuebecois said:
If there's no unifying force post-Putin, then we most likely will see more warlords in Russia than there were in China between 1911 and 1949. All of those would seek to gain international recognition and nukes would be useless in doing so. In the scenario of militant groups, I don't see how they can do anything when even countries like Pakistan did not lose nuclear weapons despite high corruption within the ISI and the proximity of terrorist groups.
Click to expand...

I wouldn’t assume any warlords would be vying for recognition from the West. It’s a country that’s been indoctrinated on isolation, force, and nuclear arms as a means of power. It could quite easily turn very messy if there wasn’t a quick resolution in the event of a complete collapse.
 
stefan92 said:
Superior technology used by extremely skilled and well trained soldiers. Giving a technologically superior tank to people who proceed to use it like a throwaway T-72 is simply a waste of tanks.

Ukraine will in the best case need a decade of full unleashed western support to be able to beat Russia in NATO style. It was tried to rush this and didn’t work so far.

Now Ukraine apparently switched back to their attrition strategy and the west should support them in this, because the equipment for this style of war seems to be effectively used by Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Yup. I am just surprised that people really don't get the idea that you can't change an army like UA's in a year to become fully modernized against the RA's troops. They performed better than everyone expected so far, but the bar was already set pretty low for them in the first place, and the RA troops being shit helped.

Artillery ammunition is key, and that much has been clear for a long time. The West just does not have many of those right now for UA to quickly overwhelm the RA troops.

Last but not least, this is against RA's troop. Despite their early incompetence, they are still a force that most modern armies will struggle against in similar circumstances. They are not dead horses yet with significant resources and some 'capable allies'. Russia itself is trying to keep up with the technology that UA has at the moment, and they are not exactly too far behind either. All these comparisons to the likes of NATO's offensive operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yugoslavia are not even close to this.
 
Simbo said:
Click to expand...

Every country has corrupt officials, but I can't get around my headhow there seem to be a large number of those all the way up to some ministerial positions there even during wartime.

CNN - " It follows a major government shake-up in January when Zelensky fired several officials and announced he was banning them from traveling abroad on anything other than official business. The National Anti-Corruption Bureau said it was investigating “high-profile media reports” into allegations that Ukraine’s defense ministry was buying military provisions, including food for the troops, at inflated prices.

Shapovalov, deputy prosecutor general Oleksii Symonenko, deputy ministers of regional development Ivan Lukerya and Viacheslav Nehoda and the deputy minister of social policy Vitalii Muzychenko were all asked to resign or have quit, as were several regional officials."

While it is a good thing that Zelensky is removing them, it shows how far they have to go to get into NATO or become NATO standard military.
 
Last edited:
The United said:
Yup. That is the whole issue. We can keep talking about anything, but if the UA troops can't move, there is not much to accomplish there. When I thought about the UA's progress being slow, I always wondered about why UA didn't follow up on the South in late last year instead of defending Bakhmut with the amount of manpower and resources that they used for it. Of course, but that is in hindsight.
Click to expand...

In hindsight, yes, Bakhmut does seems like a mistake for Ukraine, well, it wasn't exactly good for Russia either, but with everything bogged down there, they had all the time in the world to fortify elsewhere, as a result, Ukraine is advancing at snail pace.

The frontline has more or less been a complete stalemate since last autumn, a few villages here and there, mostly won for Ukraine, yes, but the rate of this advance its going to take a very long time.

Now, obviously can't blame it too much on Ukraine, after all, NATO only seems to give Ukraine what it needs to hold, not much else, almost as if they want to drag it out.
 
Last edited:
The United said:
Every country has corrupt officials, but I can't get around my headhow there seem to be a large number of those all the way up to some ministerial positions there even during wartime
Click to expand...

Former Soviet state and a main target of Russian influence, who use spreading corruption as a key MO. Can't imagine its easy to dislodge.
 
The United said:
Every country has corrupt officials, but I can't get around my headhow there seem to be a large number of those all the way up to some ministerial positions there even during wartime.
Click to expand...
Ukraine is a corrupt oligarchy, similar but just slightly better than Russia. They have been developing in the right direction however and such news show that they are continuing on the right track, but everybody surprised about this simply hasn't informed himself.
 
The United said:
While it is a good thing that Zelensky is removing them, it shows how far they have to go to get into NATO or become NATO standard military.
Click to expand...
Yeah, fighting corruption takes time, you can't do it over night.
Ukraine was one of the most corrupt states before the war. Besides the soviet mentality, Russia played a big part in buying influence over the years.
 
stefan92 said:
Ukraine is a corrupt oligarchy, similar but just slightly better than Russia. They have been developing in the right direction however and such news show that they are continuing on the right track, but everybody surprised about this simply hasn't informed himself.
Click to expand...
It has nothing to do with not being informed, though. People knew Ukraine had tons of corruption before the war.

But I don't care if they were corrupted before. It is rather a question of how they could do that to their own country after months in this war and being put in this situation, especially after what they claimed to fight for.
 
Let's see what new measures Russia will take to stop the downfall of their currency this time.

 
How bad is Russia's air defense, if slow speed drones can fly daily through Moscow's airspace?

 
Ragnar123 said:
How bad is Russia's air defense, if slow speed drones can fly daily through Moscow's airspace?

Click to expand...

Russia is running low on air defense systems and can't cover everything it would like to any more.

By now Ukraine will know about some of the gaps and low flying frones that do not need to fly in a straight line due to their much higher than needed range can exploit these.
 
Looked bigger than it was in the end. Sadly no damage to the bridge if reports are true. White smoke was probably the Russian smoke screen.

 
Ragnar123 said:
The next settlement in Ukrainian hands
Click to expand...

It will be interesting if they can keep it. So far the story of the offensive often was Ukraine driving Russian soldiers out and than having to leave again due to Russian artillery fire on these positions.

If their artillery attrition strategy is successful there will be a point where Russia just can't do that anymore and than we will see real movement, but I still have doubts if we have reached that point yet (or will reach it soon)
 
This is so heartwarming and heartbreaking at the same time for kids who have to visit their father in the graveyard. Feck Putin and his followers till eternity.
 
stefan92 said:
It will be interesting if they can keep it. So far the story of the offensive often was Ukraine driving Russian soldiers out and than having to leave again due to Russian artillery fire on these positions.

If their artillery attrition strategy is successful there will be a point where Russia just can't do that anymore and than we will see real movement, but I still have doubts if we have reached that point yet (or will reach it soon)
Click to expand...

I'm more afraid it comes to a stalemate due to mud season soon and russia bogs down and improves on their multi layered defenses and replenishes weaponry from the likes of north korea. The window seems to be closing soon with no tangible gains really, which is unfortunate to say the least.
 
ShoePolish said:
I'm more afraid it comes to a stalemate due to mud season soon and russia bogs down and improves on their multi layered defenses and replenishes weaponry from the likes of north korea. The window seems to be closing soon with no tangible gains really, which is unfortunate to say the least.
Click to expand...
"Mud season" happens in the spring when the snow and the frozen ground thaws. The Kharkiv and Kherson offensives last year both happend in the autumn so still 3-4 months of fighting until winter sets in. Not that winter should be any hinderence for offensive operations but thats when Ukraine stopped their offensive operations last year.
 
the hea said:
"Mud season" happens in the spring when the snow and the frozen ground thaws. The Kharkiv and Kherson offensives last year both happend in the autumn so still 3-4 months of fighting until winter sets in. Not that winter should be any hinderence for offensive operations but thats when Ukraine stopped their offensive operations last year.
Click to expand...

It's been around 2 months of counteroffensive so far though. If you multiply the current gains by 2, it doesn't look any brighter in terms of tactical success. And russians were a kind of late with building their defense this year, so gives them even more time now to assess and reinforce until next june.
 
ShoePolish said:
It's been around 2 months of counteroffensive so far though. If you multiply the current gains by 2, it doesn't look any brighter in terms of tactical success. And russians were a kind of late with building their defense this year, so gives them even more time now to assess and reinforce until next june.
Click to expand...

We will see if the tempo of the offensive increases, could be that it does, but if its not...they probably wont even get halfway to Tokmak before the mud sets in.
 
ShoePolish said:
It's been around 2 months of counteroffensive so far though. If you multiply the current gains by 2, it doesn't look any brighter in terms of tactical success. And russians were a kind of late with building their defense this year, so gives them even more time now to assess and reinforce until next june.
Click to expand...

If Ukraine commit their whole attacking force, you’d expect far more than 2x the gains thus far.

Ukraine still holding lots in reserve whilst they pin and tire Russia and take out key parts of their logistics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.