Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[4bars]

Matthew Blackburn's (senior researcher at NUPI) latest article was quoted by The Telegraph which is why I'm linking the whole thing here. It's another example of what I wrote above, about how more and more fiercely pro-Ukraine mainstream outlets are starting to use actually informed and rational people for their reporting rather than Ukrainian and/or NATO Raytheon board members "retired generals". As with the Daily Mail in my previous post, the Telegraph has been an uncritical stenographer for Zelenskiy since 2022 so it's notable that even they are starting to present reality.

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/looming-ukraine-debacle-210160

The overall gist is that the West went into this war with absolutely no idea of what they were getting into and is now equally bereft of any semblence of a coherent strategy for getting themselves and Ukraine out of it.

Sample passages:

Another established pattern is the repetition of moralistic binary language. The West “cannot let Russia win.” The “rules-based order” could unravel. Then there is the new domino theory: if Ukraine falls, Russian hordes will flood further west. The personalization of the conflict onto one evil man, Vladimir Putin, continues with the death of Alexei Navalny. It is a Manichean struggle of good and evil, democracy and authoritarianism, civilization and darkness. There can be “no peace until the tyrant falls.” The Western alliance must not waver in its commitment to Ukraine.

What is lacking throughout the discourse is realism. What is the real balance of power between the warring nations, and what can be concluded from two years of Russia-NATO hard power competition? Unsurprisingly, Western leaders are reluctant to admit that the dire situation facing Ukraine is related to their own fundamental miscalculations about Russia. Russia’s multiple blunders in this war are well-known but what of those made by the Western alliance?

And:

Overall, NATO was not well prepared for the war in Ukraine; its military doctrines foresaw interventions in civil wars or conflict with weaker opponents, not a proxy war of attrition with a peer competitor.

In contrast, Russia was better prepared for the long haul of military production and has also successfully innovated in response to the military setbacks it has experienced. The Russian military has adapted to conditions of near total battlefield visibility, the mass use of drones, and the vastly reduced power of tanks and aircraft. This includes innovative infantry assault tactics, new methods of using and countering drones, and, more recently, the devastating use of glide bombs that allow Russian air power to be used while evading anti-aircraft fire. On the tactical and operational level, Russia is engaging many parts of the front simultaneously, forcing Ukraine into an exhausting and constant redeployment of troops. Presenting Russian military successes as “human wave” or “meat assaults” is clearly inaccurate. Russia’s approach is gradual, attritional, and anything but mindless.

And:

The lack of realism in Western discourse is clear. There is indeed a serious risk that, rather than the West teaching Russia a lesson and putting Putin in his place, the opposite may occur. Is Russia, in fact, educating the West on what it means to use hard power and wage interstate conflict in twenty-first-century conditions? Russia advertises its version of great power sovereignty, in which a united, resilient, and unwavering state can defeat the pooled sovereignty of the EU and NATO.

We have all heard the objection that Putin simply cannot be trusted and that he wants nothing less than the complete elimination of Ukraine as an independent state. Yet, does not the blind continuation of the West’s dysfunctional Plan A also threaten the total physical destruction of Ukraine?


All of these observations are as obvious as stating the sky is blue, but we're 2 years into the Orwellian era of truth-telling being a radical act so it's good the mainstream outlets are finally starting to report reality, even a little.

I will make 2 comments:

- Saying that Russia was well prepared for this war with its laughable display marching to kiev and running and kharkiv area is quite an statement. I totally agree that they adapted to the circumstances a lot, but because its goals changed completely

- "NATO was not prepared for this war". NATO didn't go to war with Russia, NATO didn't put boots in the ground. If NATO would face Russia would be whooping its ass in a conventional war. So par Russia is stalled in a 2 year war with a country with far less resources, with far less people using an amalgamation of war arms from different sources, US, Germany, Soviet and most of them are second tier and discarded arms. And they started to shift the tide when Ukraine didn't receive armament. That doesn't say much of the strength of the supposedly 2nd/3rd strongest army. Don't get me wrong, I said here multiple times that I would never understand the comments that said that Russia army would fold in no time. But Russia army would be obliterated if NATO would enter the war. This text talks like NATO failed in a war....that is not waging and talking of Russia teaching a lesson to an army...that is not fighting

Talking or orwellian, you bought completely the russian pamphlets that this is a war russia vs NATO when NATO is not even there

 

[maniak]

95 of DT's 118 posts are in this thread, all of them pro-russia. I hope he's at least getting paid.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

I think it can be summed up with the following statement:

All the military equipment aid that the United States has provided to Ukraine, combined, does not meet the equipment numbers or standard of 1 US, Un-activated, Low Readiness, National Guard Infantry Division.

 

[Wibble]

Matthew Blackburn's (senior researcher at NUPI) latest article was quoted by The Telegraph which is why I'm linking the whole thing here. It's another example of what I wrote above, about how more and more fiercely pro-Ukraine mainstream outlets are starting to use actually informed and rational people for their reporting rather than Ukrainian and/or NATO Raytheon board members "retired generals". As with the Daily Mail in my previous post, the Telegraph has been an uncritical stenographer for Zelenskiy since 2022 so it's notable that even they are starting to present reality.

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/looming-ukraine-debacle-210160

The overall gist is that the West went into this war with absolutely no idea of what they were getting into and is now equally bereft of any semblence of a coherent strategy for getting themselves and Ukraine out of it.

Sample passages:

Another established pattern is the repetition of moralistic binary language. The West “cannot let Russia win.” The “rules-based order” could unravel. Then there is the new domino theory: if Ukraine falls, Russian hordes will flood further west. The personalization of the conflict onto one evil man, Vladimir Putin, continues with the death of Alexei Navalny. It is a Manichean struggle of good and evil, democracy and authoritarianism, civilization and darkness. There can be “no peace until the tyrant falls.” The Western alliance must not waver in its commitment to Ukraine.

What is lacking throughout the discourse is realism. What is the real balance of power between the warring nations, and what can be concluded from two years of Russia-NATO hard power competition? Unsurprisingly, Western leaders are reluctant to admit that the dire situation facing Ukraine is related to their own fundamental miscalculations about Russia. Russia’s multiple blunders in this war are well-known but what of those made by the Western alliance?

And:

Overall, NATO was not well prepared for the war in Ukraine; its military doctrines foresaw interventions in civil wars or conflict with weaker opponents, not a proxy war of attrition with a peer competitor.

In contrast, Russia was better prepared for the long haul of military production and has also successfully innovated in response to the military setbacks it has experienced. The Russian military has adapted to conditions of near total battlefield visibility, the mass use of drones, and the vastly reduced power of tanks and aircraft. This includes innovative infantry assault tactics, new methods of using and countering drones, and, more recently, the devastating use of glide bombs that allow Russian air power to be used while evading anti-aircraft fire. On the tactical and operational level, Russia is engaging many parts of the front simultaneously, forcing Ukraine into an exhausting and constant redeployment of troops. Presenting Russian military successes as “human wave” or “meat assaults” is clearly inaccurate. Russia’s approach is gradual, attritional, and anything but mindless.

And:

The lack of realism in Western discourse is clear. There is indeed a serious risk that, rather than the West teaching Russia a lesson and putting Putin in his place, the opposite may occur. Is Russia, in fact, educating the West on what it means to use hard power and wage interstate conflict in twenty-first-century conditions? Russia advertises its version of great power sovereignty, in which a united, resilient, and unwavering state can defeat the pooled sovereignty of the EU and NATO.

We have all heard the objection that Putin simply cannot be trusted and that he wants nothing less than the complete elimination of Ukraine as an independent state. Yet, does not the blind continuation of the West’s dysfunctional Plan A also threaten the total physical destruction of Ukraine?


All of these observations are as obvious as stating the sky is blue, but we're 2 years into the Orwellian era of truth-telling being a radical act so it's good the mainstream outlets are finally starting to report reality, even a little.

I'd guess that NATO were, and are, highly prepared for a war started by Russian attacks on them. If it ever happens Russia will fare very badly indeed.

But Russia didn't attack NATO, they attacked Ukraine, seemingly in an attempt to regain past "glories". Instead they have been bogged down for years, instead of the quick and total vvictory/occupation that they expected. The financial and human costs has been an utter disaster for them that has turned Putin led Russia into international pariah status. All in all an utter and totally indefensible disaster.

 

[DT12]

I will make 2 comments:
- Saying that Russia was well prepared for this war with its laughable display marching to kiev and running and kharkiv area is quite an statement.

I agree. It's also a statement that nobody has made. His observation was:

In contrast, Russia was better prepared for the long haul of military production and has also successfully innovated in response to the military setbacks it has experienced.

Russia's farcical beginning to this war is very well documented. It's also what led the West to the (in the end catastrophic) conclusion that Ukraine could actually defeat Russia if they simply sent it lots of money and weapons. Russia messed up the first 3 months of this war. The West has messed up the subsequent 2 years. And Blackburn's point is that while Russia had a Plan B to switch to, the West has none and is committed to a strategy (sic) that is inevitably going to fail. I agree with him. You're free not to. Pinning the entire blame for Ukraine's loss on Mike Johnson is clearly shaping up to be the West's latest narrative and I've no doubt it'll gain a lot of traction.

 

[DT12]

has turned Putin led Russia into international pariah status.

The vast majority of the world continues to do business with Russia. Believing that the collective West cutting themselves off from Russia constitutes "the world" consigning Russia to "international pariah status" is another reason why its strategy to "isolate" Russia has failed. If there's any worthwhile lesson to ever come from this war, it'll be the West getting over itself and understanding that it is no longer a metonym for the world.

 

[DT12]

Case in point to the above, from Austria's chancellor:

https://geopolitique.eu/en/2024/04/...on-with-the-federal-chancellor-karl-nehammer/


"On the other hand, we must find a way to negotiate in order to regain peace. For this to happen, we must re-examine a mistake we made. Since 2022, we have constructed our response to the Russian aggression in a bubble, a sort of Western echo chamber. We very quickly agreed upon how we should aid Ukraine and how the war should be ended. Yet a large part of the world — I am thinking specifically of the BRICS — does not share our views and does not understand our position. This is a problem"


(note by the way another time-honoured Western trait there - not agreeing with them is synonymous with not understanding them)

 

[DT12]

Talking or orwellian, you bought completely the russian pamphlets that this is a war russia vs NATO

"But as discussed during the Paris Conference in February, we must do even more to ensure we defeat Russia. The world is watching – and will judge us if we fail" - David Cameron, 2 days ago.

http://www.google.com/url?q=https:/...IQFnoECAcQAg&usg=AOvVaw3MQEUS6Wr7UAZM_FG_6wVG

Note the carefully chosen language (this was an opinion piece he wrote for the Telegraph). Not "Ukraine defeats", but "WE" defeat. Who do you imagine that "we" is?

So instead of referring to your hypothetical Russian pamphlets, listen instead to what NATO leaders themselves are saying.

 

[Wibble]

The vast majority of the world continues to do business with Russia. Believing that the collective West cutting themselves off from Russia constitutes "the world" consigning Russia to "international pariah status" is another reason why its strategy to "isolate" Russia has failed. If there's any worthwhile lesson to ever come from this war, it'll be the West getting over itself and understanding that it is no longer a metonym for the world.

I think you are being delusional. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is an example of extreme self harm right up there with Brexit.

Until Putin dies Russia will continue it's downward spiral.

Your GDP continues to decline and with 7.7% inflation, when the rest of the world is getting it down under 3%. The invasion of Ukrain was simply Putin's megalomania at pray and Russia's population (and Ukraine's) is going to pay the price.

If Russia didn't have a bizarre love affair with "strong man" dictatorships Putin would be long gone.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

"But as discussed during the Paris Conference in February, we must do even more to ensure we defeat Russia. The world is watching – and will judge us if we fail" - David Cameron, 2 days ago.

http://www.google.com/url?q=https:/...IQFnoECAcQAg&usg=AOvVaw3MQEUS6Wr7UAZM_FG_6wVG

Note the carefully chosen language (this was an opinion piece he wrote for the Telegraph). Not "Ukraine defeats", but "WE" defeat. Who do you imagine that "we" is?

So instead of referring to your hypothetical Russian pamphlets, listen instead to what NATO leaders themselves are saying.

We, in this sense, is the colloquial for "We must continue to help" not "We are literally fighting in this conflict."

If NATO was actually fighting in this conflict, the Russian Army would be about as combat effective as the Wehrmacht in April 1945.

 

[4bars]

"But as discussed during the Paris Conference in February, we must do even more to ensure we defeat Russia. The world is watching – and will judge us if we fail" - David Cameron, 2 days ago.

http://www.google.com/url?q=https:/...IQFnoECAcQAg&usg=AOvVaw3MQEUS6Wr7UAZM_FG_6wVG

Note the carefully chosen language (this was an opinion piece he wrote for the Telegraph). Not "Ukraine defeats", but "WE" defeat. Who do you imagine that "we" is?

So instead of referring to your hypothetical Russian pamphlets, listen instead to what NATO leaders themselves are saying.

Cameron can say whatever. Like labrov. NATO is not there

 

[VorZakone]

I wouldn't necessarily discount @DT12 's latest posts. Many Western experts on Twitter are wondering about Western long-term strategy and expectations. There's heavy criticism on Western leaders for spouting empty slogans and rhetoric and not clearly articulating how they think the war should end (and on what terms).

Defence production is increasing but the pace may be rather slow as Western governments still seem hesitant to commit to more long-term contracts for supporting Ukraine.

Also, The Economist had a piece on middle powers not joining the economic war against Russia. Countries like Mexico, India, Brazil and Indonesia. UN voting seems to indicate Russia is a pariah state but we don't necessarily see that translated into actual policy. Countries still enable their financial institutions & private sector to do business with Russia.

That being said, it also seems the West itself isn't yet all-in on sanctions either. They can still go up a couple of gears but choose not to.

 

[VorZakone]

As for negotiating, I've noticed that the counter-question rarely seems to be asked: in a scenario in which Western countries want to force Ukraine to the negotiation table, does that make Putin more or less likely to negotiate?

My guess is that strong battlefield performances by Ukraine make it more likely for Putin to start negotiating but I can't necessarily back that up, it's just a hunch. He has other global ambitions in Africa and the Middle East. Is he willing to risk all of that for Ukraine? Is he willing to risk losing more expensive hardware (ships, fighter jets) that are very costly to replace and thereby risk hollowing out his military? Is he willing to risk another round of mobilization that can hurt him politically?

Then there's Ukraine itself. In a scenario in which Western aid to Ukraine is reduced, will that make Ukraine stop fighting? Even if Western countries wanted negotiations and stop aid to force Ukraine to negotiate, would Ukraine do it? I don't know the answer but people seem quite convinced that the West can make Ukraine do what it wants. Would Ukraine not resort to guerrilla warfare?

 

[4bars]

I wouldn't necessarily discount @DT12 's latest posts. Many Western experts on Twitter are wondering about Western long-term strategy and expectations. There's heavy criticism on Western leaders for spouting empty slogans and rhetoric and not clearly articulating how they think the war should end (and on what terms).

Defence production is increasing but the pace may be rather slow as Western governments still seem hesitant to commit to more long-term contracts for supporting Ukraine.

Also, The Economist had a piece on middle powers not joining the economic war against Russia. Countries like Mexico, India, Brazil and Indonesia. UN voting seems to indicate Russia is a pariah state but we don't necessarily see that translated into actual policy. Countries still enable their financial institutions & private sector to do business with Russia.

That being said, it also seems the West itself isn't yet all-in on sanctions either. They can still go up a couple of gears but choose not to.

Oh I absolutely agree with the criticism that Russia was picture like a joke and would fold in three months like Kofman and other so called experts. And in 2022 and beginning of 2023 I said it countless times in this hread. Loads of utteroptimistic propaganda

Also about western countries making business with russia still, capitalism gotta capitalism.

My 2 points with DT12 is:

- Is ridiculous is saying that now Russia is the epitome of the strategy when its beginning to 1 year was laughable and only got a break when the west didn't supply enough munition, something pretty basic. In short, Russia is tying with a country much smaller, with much less resources and not so well supplied by the west with quantities and with a majority of second tier arms that they want to get rid off to enrich the military industrial sector. Now it looks because it was capable to defend themselves, mining a country in unprecedented volume, blowing up dams that they are master strategist
- That NATO is fighting Russia and winning when NATO is not there in any boots on the ground, wings in the sky and boats at the sea capacity. Talking about NATO failing because they thought that Russia is a weaker opponent when is a peer rival, when is the way around, Ukraine a weaker opponent

Again, the answer is always in the middle. Nor Russia was so shit (despite of the shitty beginning) nor Ukraine with the western support is so rosy. And in the end is what Obama said, Ukraine is not as important for the West as it is for Russia, and Russia is going all in because Putin needs to survive and US is starting to wishy wash as it has not that much at stake while Europe is not prepared and hope that this stops in Ukraine

 

[B. Munich]

In contrast, Russia was better prepared for the long haul of military production and has also successfully innovated in response to the military setbacks it has experienced.

That's nonsense. Russia had to transform their economy into a war economy, similar to Germany in 1939. Massive government spending for weapons, ammunition and compensation for soldiers kept the economy from crumbling. The decisive moment will be when the war is over and the economy needs to be changed again. That's when Russia will collapse and feel the consequences of their idiotic war.

It's also what led the West to the (in the end catastrophic) conclusion that Ukraine could actually defeat Russia if they simply sent it lots of money and weapons

I wish the West actually did what they pledged. Unfortunately, the some were only talking but not acting.
On contrary Trump and his MAGA idiots successfully blocked the 60 billions USD for Ukraine for several months causing severe ammunition issues. Otherwise Russia wouldn't have conquered any ground.
Trump is Putin's ally and undermining Western efforts to support the Ukraine. Not far behind him is the coward Scholz who for blocks the delivery of the Taurus system for obscure reasons. With Taurus the Crimea bridge would be destroyed already and Russia's supply couldn't get to the frontline. Massive blow for Russia.

It's the incompetence of the West that's turning the tide not Russian excellence on the battlefield.

 

[VorZakone]

Oh I absolutely agree with the criticism that Russia was picture like a joke and would fold in three months like Kofman and other so called experts. And in 2022 and beginning of 2023 I said it countless times in this hread. Loads of utteroptimistic propaganda

Also about western countries making business with russia still, capitalism gotta capitalism.

My 2 points with DT12 is:

- Is ridiculous is saying that now Russia is the epitome of the strategy when its beginning to 1 year was laughable and only got a break when the west didn't supply enough munition, something pretty basic. In short, Russia is tying with a country much smaller, with much less resources and not so well supplied by the west with quantities and with a majority of second tier arms that they want to get rid off to enrich the military industrial sector. Now it looks because it was capable to defend themselves, mining a country in unprecedented volume, blowing up dams that they are master strategist
- That NATO is fighting Russia and winning when NATO is not there in any boots on the ground, wings in the sky and boats at the sea capacity. Talking about NATO failing because they thought that Russia is a weaker opponent when is a peer rival, when is the way around, Ukraine a weaker opponent

Again, the answer is always in the middle. Nor Russia was so shit (despite of the shitty beginning) nor Ukraine with the western support is so rosy. And in the end is what Obama said, Ukraine is not as important for the West as it is for Russia, and Russia is going all in because Putin needs to survive and US is starting to wishy wash as it has not that much at stake while Europe is not prepared and hope that this stops in Ukraine

Actually, Michael Kofman has consistently been one of the more calmer & rational voices. I don't think he ever suggested that Russia was a joke or close to collapsing.

 

[4bars]

Actually, Michael Kofman has consistently been one of the more calmer & rational voices. I don't think he ever suggested that Russia was a joke or close to collapsing.

I remember reading Kofman back at the beginning that he doubted that Russia would have the capability to last 3-6 months more in terms of war resources. It is true that his discourse is poised, but often times he gives his opinion followed by "who knows" or "we need more information" or "fog of war". So yes, he is not pontificating that "this is what is going to happen for sure" etc...And I like his general tone, the way he analizes, but he lost me quite a lot in predictions at the beginning with that dicourse, he just failed miserably and it showed that he had little idea what was going on besides explaining things after events already happened

 

[the hea]

[

 

[DT12]

If NATO was actually fighting in this conflict, the Russian Army would be about as combat effective as the Wehrmacht in April 1945.

So this is the 3rd time on the last page alone that this sentiment has been expressed. I wasn't planning to respond to it, because it is a part of the same arrogant Western thinking that has led Ukraine this far down the garden path. The people who now say NATO would effortlessly smash Russia in a direct conflict are the same people who 2 years ago were saying the Russian army would collapse by summer 2022, or that Western sanctions would shatter the Russian economy within months and make it impossible for Putin to continue the war.

But by a happy coincidence, earlier today one of the most unwaveringly pro-Ukrainian outlets (Times Radio) published a lengthy interview with one of Ukraine's staunchest supporters, 'General Sir' Richard Shirreff (NATO's former Deputy Supreme Allied Commander). In short, he knows what he's talking about. And here he is, today, saying that NATO is nowhere near ready to fight a war with Russia, and won't be for many years unless very severe changes are made now across all NATO countries.




There is a reason why every single Western leader is on record as setting "never entering into a direct war with Russia over Ukraine" as the one indelible red line in this conflict, and it has nothing to do with "Putin may use nuclear weapons". It would be complete and utter carnage for both sides. Again, don't take my word for it. Listen to actual NATO commanders. How many leaders of democratic Western European nations are ready to campaign on the back of sending (as it would require) literally hundreds of thousands of their soldiers to die in a war with Russia? Putin, we are told, is ready to sacrifice all these Russian lives, because he's an ectothermic psychopath. Are your leaders ready to do the same? As Richard Shirreff suggests in that video, it would take a monumental effort on the part of politicians to convince their voters to go along with the types of colossal sacrifice required to fight a war with Russia.

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

[

I think Ukraine needs to retaliate by redirect their long-range weaponry against Crimea, especially in downtown Sevastopol as a statement of intent. Being the nice guy can only go so far.

 

[VorZakone]

I think Ukraine needs to retaliate by redirect their long-range weaponry against Crimea, especially in downtown Sevastopol as a statement of intent. Being the nice guy can only go so far.

What would be the point of that statement of intent? Better use it for actual military targets.

 

[AfonsoAlves]

So this is the 3rd time on the last page alone that this sentiment has been expressed. I wasn't planning to respond to it, because it is a part of the same arrogant Western thinking that has led Ukraine this far down the garden path. The people who now say NATO would effortlessly smash Russia in a direct conflict are the same people who 2 years ago were saying the Russian army would collapse by summer 2022, or that Western sanctions would shatter the Russian economy within months and make it impossible for Putin to continue the war.

But by a happy coincidence, earlier today one of the most unwaveringly pro-Ukrainian outlets (Times Radio) published a lengthy interview with one of Ukraine's staunchest supporters, 'General Sir' Richard Shirreff (NATO's former Deputy Supreme Allied Commander). In short, he knows what he's talking about. And here he is, today, saying that NATO is nowhere near ready to fight a war with Russia, and won't be for many years unless very severe changes are made now across all NATO countries.




There is a reason why every single Western leader is on record as setting "never entering into a direct war with Russia over Ukraine" as the one indelible red line in this conflict, and it has nothing to do with "Putin may use nuclear weapons". It would be complete and utter carnage for both sides. Again, don't take my word for it. Listen to actual NATO commanders. How many leaders of democratic Western European nations are ready to campaign on the back of sending (as it would require) literally hundreds of thousands of their soldiers to die in a war with Russia? Putin, we are told, is ready to sacrifice all these Russian lives, because he's an ectothermic psychopath. Are your leaders ready to do the same? As Richard Shirreff suggests in that video, it would take a monumental effort on the part of politicians to convince their voters to go along with the types of colossal sacrifice required to fight a war with Russia.

Cool:

I served in the Army Intelligence Corps for 8 years, did two tours to Afghanistan, three times advisory attache for the diplomatic mission to Poroshenko's Government in Ukraine, spent cumulatively two years at Lask AB, and two consecutive stints serving on Scaparotti's SACEUR staff operations in Belgium before moving to the private sector to advise on weapons procurement and performance for the AFU. I am also married to a Ukrainian woman

What you see is typical Nato public speech. At SACEUR they called it "UPOD". Under promise, over deliver. NATO is a political organization as much as it is military one and one of our playbooks was to always tell how poorly we would perform in a shooting war to try and convince the politicians in respective NATO nations to provide more money and funding.

Part of my job was to provide accurate assessments of Western military capability in contrast to Russia, mine specifically was on the tactical fires level. You are right in that we were all wrong in 2022.

All of us, collectively, were horrified at how poorly the Russians performed. Every bit of intelligence gathered on Russian doctrine, equipment performance, usage was just horribly miscalculated. We assumed that the Russian capability was about 3-3.5x what is was (we have a complex numerical system for calculating weapon platform effectiveness).

Without breaking any OPSEC and NDA's on how bad the Russian Army actually is, I can highlight to you a few broad points regarding the sheer level of incompetency that the Russian Armed Forces is in:

- Russian pilots calculate airtime on their frames differently to the west, whilst the hours remain high, the way their resource allocation and scheduling works means that pilots in the same squadron do not get a lot of air-time together. Which is why air support by Russia is very piecemeal and usually comes in pairs, they simply do not have the training intimacy to go beyond that.

-complete lack of aerial ELINT and AWACS support. Complete lack of network centric warfare. AFU were sharing radar tracking data to LASK and the boys at LASK were pointing out that Frogfoots were running tactical bombing missions without any AWACS support, C&C assets for hundreds of miles, if at all. Guidance and mission planning was all done beforehand. NATO stopped doing this in the mid 1980's. We were all incredibly confused by this - how can a modern airforce operate without real time operational command and control? Well, turns out the estimations of VKS assets was completely off, because the satelitte images of those planes on runways were just old cannibalized parts that weren't able to fly. As of 2024, Russia in total has less than 10 flyable frames that can do C&C/AWACS.

-The simple inability in 2022 (and still to this day) to handle 1970's 'Shoot and Scoot' Tactics employed with MLRS systems. This is all linked to the above; without eyes in the sky to pinpoint MLRS fires, it's very hard to launch counter batteries. This problem still exists today.

-Their air defense systems, on paper, are excellent. The problem is any singular weapons platform needs to be integrated with the broader doctrine of its utility. S300/400 is a strategic level asset that requires layered defenses against tactical level threats. On paper, Russia had this. S3/400's supported by Pantsir's, Tor's and Buk's. Then we started getting reports of jerry-rigged Mig29's with old variants of HARMS somehow taking out S-400 control stations. Why? Because the complete lack of co-ordination between the control stations and the tactical level assets. Complete misuse of very good weapons platforms due to obsolete doctrines and a terrible standard of training on the air defense crews.

-Tooth to tail ratio's are completely screwed. Russian BTG's operated with a 1:2.5 tooth to tail ratio which is absurd. NATO brigades operate on a 1:5 -> 1:9 tooth to tail ratio. This means that you sometimes have 10 soldiers responsible for somehow repairing and refuelling 20 armoured vehicles in a 24 hour period.

-Russian Army prior to 2022 had a very nice, on paper, strategic doctrine. Gerasimov was the theorist who came up with the doctrine and it is called the "Gerasimov Way of War" in Russian. Yet, when the war broke out, the Russians did not follow their own, documented, doctrines. BTG's were not co-ordinating with one another, nor were they reacting in real time to the battlefield around them. This is a result of a combination of lack of training, lack of material, lack of non coms and a lack of ability of the Chief of Staffs to actually implement the doctrines they wish to employ.

I could go on and on, but I get the feeling you're not going to listen and I'm also not going to risk going any deeper due to OPSEC.

 

[Simbo]

Cool:

I served in the Army Intelligence Corps for 8 years, did two tours to Afghanistan, three times advisory attache for the diplomatic mission to Poroshenko's Government in Ukraine, spent cumulatively two years at Lask AB, and two consecutive stints serving on Scaparotti's SACEUR staff operations in Belgium before moving to the private sector to advise on weapons procurement and performance for the AFU. I am also married to a Ukrainian woman

What you see is typical Nato public speech. At SACEUR they called it "UPOD". Under promise, over deliver. NATO is a political organization as much as it is military one and one of our playbooks was to always tell how poorly we would perform in a shooting war to try and convince the politicians in respective NATO nations to provide more money and funding.

Part of my job was to provide accurate assessments of Western military capability in contrast to Russia, mine specifically was on the tactical fires level. You are right in that we were all wrong in 2022.

All of us, collectively, were horrified at how poorly the Russians performed. Every bit of intelligence gathered on Russian doctrine, equipment performance, usage was just horribly miscalculated. We assumed that the Russian capability was about 3-3.5x what is was (we have a complex numerical system for calculating weapon platform effectiveness).

Without breaking any OPSEC and NDA's on how bad the Russian Army actually is, I can highlight to you a few broad points regarding the sheer level of incompetency that the Russian Armed Forces is in:

- Russian pilots calculate airtime on their frames differently to the west, whilst the hours remain high, the way their resource allocation and scheduling works means that pilots in the same squadron do not get a lot of air-time together. Which is why air support by Russia is very piecemeal and usually comes in pairs, they simply do not have the training intimacy to go beyond that.

-complete lack of aerial ELINT and AWACS support. Complete lack of network centric warfare. AFU were sharing radar tracking data to LASK and the boys at LASK were pointing out that Frogfoots were running tactical bombing missions without any AWACS support, C&C assets for hundreds of miles, if at all. Guidance and mission planning was all done beforehand. NATO stopped doing this in the mid 1980's. We were all incredibly confused by this - how can a modern airforce operate without real time operational command and control? Well, turns out the estimations of VKS assets was completely off, because the satelitte images of those planes on runways were just old cannibalized parts that weren't able to fly. As of 2024, Russia in total has less than 10 flyable frames that can do C&C/AWACS.

-The simple inability in 2022 (and still to this day) to handle 1970's 'Shoot and Scoot' Tactics employed with MLRS systems. This is all linked to the above; without eyes in the sky to pinpoint MLRS fires, it's very hard to launch counter batteries. This problem still exists today.

-Their air defense systems, on paper, are excellent. The problem is any singular weapons platform needs to be integrated with the broader doctrine of its utility. S300/400 is a strategic level asset that requires layered defenses against tactical level threats. On paper, Russia had this. S3/400's supported by Pantsir's, Tor's and Buk's. Then we started getting reports of jerry-rigged Mig29's with old variants of HARMS somehow taking out S-400 control stations. Why? Because the complete lack of co-ordination between the control stations and the tactical level assets. Complete misuse of very good weapons platforms due to obsolete doctrines and a terrible standard of training on the air defense crews.

-Tooth to tail ratio's are completely screwed. Russian BTG's operated with a 1:2.5 tooth to tail ratio which is absurd. NATO brigades operate on a 1:5 -> 1:9 tooth to tail ratio. This means that you sometimes have 10 soldiers responsible for somehow repairing and refuelling 20 armoured vehicles in a 24 hour period.

-Russian Army prior to 2022 had a very nice, on paper, strategic doctrine. Gerasimov was the theorist who came up with the doctrine and it is called the "Gerasimov Way of War" in Russian. Yet, when the war broke out, the Russians did not follow their own, documented, doctrines. BTG's were not co-ordinating with one another, nor were they reacting in real time to the battlefield around them. This is a result of a combination of lack of training, lack of material, lack of non coms and a lack of ability of the Chief of Staffs to actually implement the doctrines they wish to employ.

I could go on and on, but I get the feeling you're not going to listen and I'm also not going to risk going any deeper due to OPSEC.

It's wasted on a troll as you suspect, but still, thanks for posting!

 

[4bars]

Cool:

I served in the Army Intelligence Corps for 8 years, did two tours to Afghanistan, three times advisory attache for the diplomatic mission to Poroshenko's Government in Ukraine, spent cumulatively two years at Lask AB, and two consecutive stints serving on Scaparotti's SACEUR staff operations in Belgium before moving to the private sector to advise on weapons procurement and performance for the AFU. I am also married to a Ukrainian woman

What you see is typical Nato public speech. At SACEUR they called it "UPOD". Under promise, over deliver. NATO is a political organization as much as it is military one and one of our playbooks was to always tell how poorly we would perform in a shooting war to try and convince the politicians in respective NATO nations to provide more money and funding.

Part of my job was to provide accurate assessments of Western military capability in contrast to Russia, mine specifically was on the tactical fires level. You are right in that we were all wrong in 2022.

All of us, collectively, were horrified at how poorly the Russians performed. Every bit of intelligence gathered on Russian doctrine, equipment performance, usage was just horribly miscalculated. We assumed that the Russian capability was about 3-3.5x what is was (we have a complex numerical system for calculating weapon platform effectiveness).

Without breaking any OPSEC and NDA's on how bad the Russian Army actually is, I can highlight to you a few broad points regarding the sheer level of incompetency that the Russian Armed Forces is in:

- Russian pilots calculate airtime on their frames differently to the west, whilst the hours remain high, the way their resource allocation and scheduling works means that pilots in the same squadron do not get a lot of air-time together. Which is why air support by Russia is very piecemeal and usually comes in pairs, they simply do not have the training intimacy to go beyond that.

-complete lack of aerial ELINT and AWACS support. Complete lack of network centric warfare. AFU were sharing radar tracking data to LASK and the boys at LASK were pointing out that Frogfoots were running tactical bombing missions without any AWACS support, C&C assets for hundreds of miles, if at all. Guidance and mission planning was all done beforehand. NATO stopped doing this in the mid 1980's. We were all incredibly confused by this - how can a modern airforce operate without real time operational command and control? Well, turns out the estimations of VKS assets was completely off, because the satelitte images of those planes on runways were just old cannibalized parts that weren't able to fly. As of 2024, Russia in total has less than 10 flyable frames that can do C&C/AWACS.

-The simple inability in 2022 (and still to this day) to handle 1970's 'Shoot and Scoot' Tactics employed with MLRS systems. This is all linked to the above; without eyes in the sky to pinpoint MLRS fires, it's very hard to launch counter batteries. This problem still exists today.

-Their air defense systems, on paper, are excellent. The problem is any singular weapons platform needs to be integrated with the broader doctrine of its utility. S300/400 is a strategic level asset that requires layered defenses against tactical level threats. On paper, Russia had this. S3/400's supported by Pantsir's, Tor's and Buk's. Then we started getting reports of jerry-rigged Mig29's with old variants of HARMS somehow taking out S-400 control stations. Why? Because the complete lack of co-ordination between the control stations and the tactical level assets. Complete misuse of very good weapons platforms due to obsolete doctrines and a terrible standard of training on the air defense crews.

-Tooth to tail ratio's are completely screwed. Russian BTG's operated with a 1:2.5 tooth to tail ratio which is absurd. NATO brigades operate on a 1:5 -> 1:9 tooth to tail ratio. This means that you sometimes have 10 soldiers responsible for somehow repairing and refuelling 20 armoured vehicles in a 24 hour period.

-Russian Army prior to 2022 had a very nice, on paper, strategic doctrine. Gerasimov was the theorist who came up with the doctrine and it is called the "Gerasimov Way of War" in Russian. Yet, when the war broke out, the Russians did not follow their own, documented, doctrines. BTG's were not co-ordinating with one another, nor were they reacting in real time to the battlefield around them. This is a result of a combination of lack of training, lack of material, lack of non coms and a lack of ability of the Chief of Staffs to actually implement the doctrines they wish to employ.

I could go on and on, but I get the feeling you're not going to listen and I'm also not going to risk going any deeper due to OPSEC.

Dont think we can find this level of expertise,firsthand on the topic

Thank you

 

[Semper Fudge]

I think Ukraine needs to retaliate by redirect their long-range weaponry against Crimea, especially in downtown Sevastopol as a statement of intent. Being the nice guy can only go so far.

This is just a ridiculous suggestion. What would it accomplish?

 

[4bars]

I think Ukraine needs to retaliate by redirect their long-range weaponry against Crimea, especially in downtown Sevastopol as a statement of intent. Being the nice guy can only go so far.

Yeah, lets kill civilians at random and if possoble ukranians that want to be liberated. Is very nice to have the opinion to ask to kill civilians. How would you feel if your country would be at war and a random guy without 0 stake would suggest to attack your DT city from its desk eating cheetos in a sleeveless white shirt?

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

What would be the point of that statement of intent? Better use it for actual military targets.

This is just a ridiculous suggestion. What would it accomplish?

Wars are never won by the side that plays totally nice. If you start believing that it is possible, then it is pure naivety. Every single winning side to any conflict throughout history had to cross the line and resort to quite some really dirty stuff enough times in order to move the needle forward.

@4bars Don't sell me that crap about Ukrainians waiting to be liberated anymore in Sevastopol. That horse has left the barn over the last 10 years and particularly in the last 2.

 

[4bars]

@4bars Don't sell me that crap about Ukrainians waiting to be liberated anymore in Sevastopol. That horse has left the barn over the last 10 years and particularly in the last 2.

Oh. You dont think there are thousands of them? You dont think that 25% (100k) are not proukraine? Regardless, even pro russians that had been in sevastopol for generations that just try to get by with their lifes without harming anyone deserve to die bc putin took that decision. Who the feck are you for eagerly suggest that innocent people should be killed because you want to play hearts of iron IV?

 

[That_Bloke]

This is just a ridiculous suggestion. What would it accomplish?

That's the suggestion of a random bloke on the Internet advocating for war from the comfort of his couch.

His views and understanding of the world are akin to Ed Woodward's of Manchester United.

 

[Semper Fudge]

Cool:

I served in the Army Intelligence Corps for 8 years, did two tours to Afghanistan, three times advisory attache for the diplomatic mission to Poroshenko's Government in Ukraine, spent cumulatively two years at Lask AB, and two consecutive stints serving on Scaparotti's SACEUR staff operations in Belgium before moving to the private sector to advise on weapons procurement and performance for the AFU. I am also married to a Ukrainian woman

What you see is typical Nato public speech. At SACEUR they called it "UPOD". Under promise, over deliver. NATO is a political organization as much as it is military one and one of our playbooks was to always tell how poorly we would perform in a shooting war to try and convince the politicians in respective NATO nations to provide more money and funding.

Part of my job was to provide accurate assessments of Western military capability in contrast to Russia, mine specifically was on the tactical fires level. You are right in that we were all wrong in 2022.

All of us, collectively, were horrified at how poorly the Russians performed. Every bit of intelligence gathered on Russian doctrine, equipment performance, usage was just horribly miscalculated. We assumed that the Russian capability was about 3-3.5x what is was (we have a complex numerical system for calculating weapon platform effectiveness).

Without breaking any OPSEC and NDA's on how bad the Russian Army actually is, I can highlight to you a few broad points regarding the sheer level of incompetency that the Russian Armed Forces is in:

- Russian pilots calculate airtime on their frames differently to the west, whilst the hours remain high, the way their resource allocation and scheduling works means that pilots in the same squadron do not get a lot of air-time together. Which is why air support by Russia is very piecemeal and usually comes in pairs, they simply do not have the training intimacy to go beyond that.

-complete lack of aerial ELINT and AWACS support. Complete lack of network centric warfare. AFU were sharing radar tracking data to LASK and the boys at LASK were pointing out that Frogfoots were running tactical bombing missions without any AWACS support, C&C assets for hundreds of miles, if at all. Guidance and mission planning was all done beforehand. NATO stopped doing this in the mid 1980's. We were all incredibly confused by this - how can a modern airforce operate without real time operational command and control? Well, turns out the estimations of VKS assets was completely off, because the satelitte images of those planes on runways were just old cannibalized parts that weren't able to fly. As of 2024, Russia in total has less than 10 flyable frames that can do C&C/AWACS.

-The simple inability in 2022 (and still to this day) to handle 1970's 'Shoot and Scoot' Tactics employed with MLRS systems. This is all linked to the above; without eyes in the sky to pinpoint MLRS fires, it's very hard to launch counter batteries. This problem still exists today.

-Their air defense systems, on paper, are excellent. The problem is any singular weapons platform needs to be integrated with the broader doctrine of its utility. S300/400 is a strategic level asset that requires layered defenses against tactical level threats. On paper, Russia had this. S3/400's supported by Pantsir's, Tor's and Buk's. Then we started getting reports of jerry-rigged Mig29's with old variants of HARMS somehow taking out S-400 control stations. Why? Because the complete lack of co-ordination between the control stations and the tactical level assets. Complete misuse of very good weapons platforms due to obsolete doctrines and a terrible standard of training on the air defense crews.

-Tooth to tail ratio's are completely screwed. Russian BTG's operated with a 1:2.5 tooth to tail ratio which is absurd. NATO brigades operate on a 1:5 -> 1:9 tooth to tail ratio. This means that you sometimes have 10 soldiers responsible for somehow repairing and refuelling 20 armoured vehicles in a 24 hour period.

-Russian Army prior to 2022 had a very nice, on paper, strategic doctrine. Gerasimov was the theorist who came up with the doctrine and it is called the "Gerasimov Way of War" in Russian. Yet, when the war broke out, the Russians did not follow their own, documented, doctrines. BTG's were not co-ordinating with one another, nor were they reacting in real time to the battlefield around them. This is a result of a combination of lack of training, lack of material, lack of non coms and a lack of ability of the Chief of Staffs to actually implement the doctrines they wish to employ.

I could go on and on, but I get the feeling you're not going to listen and I'm also not going to risk going any deeper due to OPSEC.

This is very interesting, cheers! Need a breakdown of the acronyms though.

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

Oh. You dont think there are thousands of them? You dont think that 25% (100k) are not proukraine? Regardless, even pro russians that had been in sevastopol for generations that just try to get by with their lifes without harming anyone deserve to die bc putin took that decision. Who the feck are you for eagerly suggest that innocent people should be killed because you want to play hearts of iron IV?

The one who sees why no one in the Allied world had any iota of sympathy for German nor Japanese civilians until both of their respective fascist regimes folded and were never allowed to fester again. You're the one who don't have a single clue about history here. You never negotiate nor appease with fascists; they only stop when they either choose to give up early or when they lose everything.

And by the way, I couldn't give a flying toss about the pro-Kremlin people in Crimea because they were brought in to replace the real native people who used to live there: Tatars. So you know where to put your sympathy for pro-Kremlin.

 

[That_Bloke]

Cool:

I served in the Army Intelligence Corps for 8 years, did two tours to Afghanistan, three times advisory attache for the diplomatic mission to Poroshenko's Government in Ukraine, spent cumulatively two years at Lask AB, and two consecutive stints serving on Scaparotti's SACEUR staff operations in Belgium before moving to the private sector to advise on weapons procurement and performance for the AFU. I am also married to a Ukrainian woman

What you see is typical Nato public speech. At SACEUR they called it "UPOD". Under promise, over deliver. NATO is a political organization as much as it is military one and one of our playbooks was to always tell how poorly we would perform in a shooting war to try and convince the politicians in respective NATO nations to provide more money and funding.

Part of my job was to provide accurate assessments of Western military capability in contrast to Russia, mine specifically was on the tactical fires level. You are right in that we were all wrong in 2022.

All of us, collectively, were horrified at how poorly the Russians performed. Every bit of intelligence gathered on Russian doctrine, equipment performance, usage was just horribly miscalculated. We assumed that the Russian capability was about 3-3.5x what is was (we have a complex numerical system for calculating weapon platform effectiveness).

Without breaking any OPSEC and NDA's on how bad the Russian Army actually is, I can highlight to you a few broad points regarding the sheer level of incompetency that the Russian Armed Forces is in:

- Russian pilots calculate airtime on their frames differently to the west, whilst the hours remain high, the way their resource allocation and scheduling works means that pilots in the same squadron do not get a lot of air-time together. Which is why air support by Russia is very piecemeal and usually comes in pairs, they simply do not have the training intimacy to go beyond that.

-complete lack of aerial ELINT and AWACS support. Complete lack of network centric warfare. AFU were sharing radar tracking data to LASK and the boys at LASK were pointing out that Frogfoots were running tactical bombing missions without any AWACS support, C&C assets for hundreds of miles, if at all. Guidance and mission planning was all done beforehand. NATO stopped doing this in the mid 1980's. We were all incredibly confused by this - how can a modern airforce operate without real time operational command and control? Well, turns out the estimations of VKS assets was completely off, because the satelitte images of those planes on runways were just old cannibalized parts that weren't able to fly. As of 2024, Russia in total has less than 10 flyable frames that can do C&C/AWACS.

-The simple inability in 2022 (and still to this day) to handle 1970's 'Shoot and Scoot' Tactics employed with MLRS systems. This is all linked to the above; without eyes in the sky to pinpoint MLRS fires, it's very hard to launch counter batteries. This problem still exists today.

-Their air defense systems, on paper, are excellent. The problem is any singular weapons platform needs to be integrated with the broader doctrine of its utility. S300/400 is a strategic level asset that requires layered defenses against tactical level threats. On paper, Russia had this. S3/400's supported by Pantsir's, Tor's and Buk's. Then we started getting reports of jerry-rigged Mig29's with old variants of HARMS somehow taking out S-400 control stations. Why? Because the complete lack of co-ordination between the control stations and the tactical level assets. Complete misuse of very good weapons platforms due to obsolete doctrines and a terrible standard of training on the air defense crews.

-Tooth to tail ratio's are completely screwed. Russian BTG's operated with a 1:2.5 tooth to tail ratio which is absurd. NATO brigades operate on a 1:5 -> 1:9 tooth to tail ratio. This means that you sometimes have 10 soldiers responsible for somehow repairing and refuelling 20 armoured vehicles in a 24 hour period.

-Russian Army prior to 2022 had a very nice, on paper, strategic doctrine. Gerasimov was the theorist who came up with the doctrine and it is called the "Gerasimov Way of War" in Russian. Yet, when the war broke out, the Russians did not follow their own, documented, doctrines. BTG's were not co-ordinating with one another, nor were they reacting in real time to the battlefield around them. This is a result of a combination of lack of training, lack of material, lack of non coms and a lack of ability of the Chief of Staffs to actually implement the doctrines they wish to employ.

I could go on and on, but I get the feeling you're not going to listen and I'm also not going to risk going any deeper due to OPSEC.

This is one of the most informed and one of the best posts I've seen here. I mean it.

By reading it, I can safely conclude that the Russians are shit, their army is shit, their military doctrine is shit and their equipment is shit.

So why is that we're currently hammered by the media about the danger of Russia gobbling up Ukraine (which they couldn't in the first place and won't), then turning on the Baltic States, engaging (and defeating) NATO to finally swallow the whole of Western Europe?

Genuine question.

 

[stefan92]

This is one of the most informed and one of the best posts I've seen here. I mean it.

By reading it, I can safely conclude that the Russians are shit, their army is shit, their military doctrine is shit and their equipment is shit.

So why is that we're currently hammered by the media about the danger of Russia gobbling up Ukraine (which they couldn't in the first place and won't), then turning on the Baltic States, engaging (and defeating) NATO to finally swallow the whole of Western Europe?

Genuine question.

He called it: UPOD.

A shit army still is a danger if it is fully committed. Those dangers only exist if no one supports each other, so just read it as a call to stand together to all NATO countries.

 

[McGrathsipan]

Cool:

I served in the Army Intelligence Corps for 8 years, did two tours to Afghanistan, three times advisory attache for the diplomatic mission to Poroshenko's Government in Ukraine, spent cumulatively two years at Lask AB, and two consecutive stints serving on Scaparotti's SACEUR staff operations in Belgium before moving to the private sector to advise on weapons procurement and performance for the AFU. I am also married to a Ukrainian woman

What you see is typical Nato public speech. At SACEUR they called it "UPOD". Under promise, over deliver. NATO is a political organization as much as it is military one and one of our playbooks was to always tell how poorly we would perform in a shooting war to try and convince the politicians in respective NATO nations to provide more money and funding.

Part of my job was to provide accurate assessments of Western military capability in contrast to Russia, mine specifically was on the tactical fires level. You are right in that we were all wrong in 2022.

All of us, collectively, were horrified at how poorly the Russians performed. Every bit of intelligence gathered on Russian doctrine, equipment performance, usage was just horribly miscalculated. We assumed that the Russian capability was about 3-3.5x what is was (we have a complex numerical system for calculating weapon platform effectiveness).

Without breaking any OPSEC and NDA's on how bad the Russian Army actually is, I can highlight to you a few broad points regarding the sheer level of incompetency that the Russian Armed Forces is in:

- Russian pilots calculate airtime on their frames differently to the west, whilst the hours remain high, the way their resource allocation and scheduling works means that pilots in the same squadron do not get a lot of air-time together. Which is why air support by Russia is very piecemeal and usually comes in pairs, they simply do not have the training intimacy to go beyond that.

-complete lack of aerial ELINT and AWACS support. Complete lack of network centric warfare. AFU were sharing radar tracking data to LASK and the boys at LASK were pointing out that Frogfoots were running tactical bombing missions without any AWACS support, C&C assets for hundreds of miles, if at all. Guidance and mission planning was all done beforehand. NATO stopped doing this in the mid 1980's. We were all incredibly confused by this - how can a modern airforce operate without real time operational command and control? Well, turns out the estimations of VKS assets was completely off, because the satelitte images of those planes on runways were just old cannibalized parts that weren't able to fly. As of 2024, Russia in total has less than 10 flyable frames that can do C&C/AWACS.

-The simple inability in 2022 (and still to this day) to handle 1970's 'Shoot and Scoot' Tactics employed with MLRS systems. This is all linked to the above; without eyes in the sky to pinpoint MLRS fires, it's very hard to launch counter batteries. This problem still exists today.

-Their air defense systems, on paper, are excellent. The problem is any singular weapons platform needs to be integrated with the broader doctrine of its utility. S300/400 is a strategic level asset that requires layered defenses against tactical level threats. On paper, Russia had this. S3/400's supported by Pantsir's, Tor's and Buk's. Then we started getting reports of jerry-rigged Mig29's with old variants of HARMS somehow taking out S-400 control stations. Why? Because the complete lack of co-ordination between the control stations and the tactical level assets. Complete misuse of very good weapons platforms due to obsolete doctrines and a terrible standard of training on the air defense crews.

-Tooth to tail ratio's are completely screwed. Russian BTG's operated with a 1:2.5 tooth to tail ratio which is absurd. NATO brigades operate on a 1:5 -> 1:9 tooth to tail ratio. This means that you sometimes have 10 soldiers responsible for somehow repairing and refuelling 20 armoured vehicles in a 24 hour period.

-Russian Army prior to 2022 had a very nice, on paper, strategic doctrine. Gerasimov was the theorist who came up with the doctrine and it is called the "Gerasimov Way of War" in Russian. Yet, when the war broke out, the Russians did not follow their own, documented, doctrines. BTG's were not co-ordinating with one another, nor were they reacting in real time to the battlefield around them. This is a result of a combination of lack of training, lack of material, lack of non coms and a lack of ability of the Chief of Staffs to actually implement the doctrines they wish to employ.

I could go on and on, but I get the feeling you're not going to listen and I'm also not going to risk going any deeper due to OPSEC.

Thanks. Great post

 

[4bars]

The one who sees why no one in the Allied world had any iota of sympathy for German nor Japanese civilians until both of their respective fascist regimes folded and were never allowed to fester again. You're the one who don't have a single clue about history here. You never negotiate nor appease with fascists; they only stop when they either choose to give up early or when they lose everything.

And by the way, I couldn't give a flying toss about the pro-Kremlin people in Crimea because they were brought in to replace the real native people who used to live there: Tatars. So you know where to put your sympathy for pro-Kremlin.

So basically you are proposing throwing atomic bombs to crimea or any city in russia (Japan) if we following history, right history boy? Things changes

Also, another lesson. Russia lost 27 million in the WWII and didn't fold. Do you think Putin would blink for Crimea?

And of course you don't give a toss about civilians, why should you? you are comfy looking the conflict like a board game

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

So basically you are proposing throwing atomic bombs to crimea or any city in russia (Japan) if we following history, right history boy? Things changes

Also, another lesson. Russia lost 27 million in the WWII and didn't fold. Do you think Putin would blink for Crimea?

And of course you don't give a toss about civilians, why should you? you are comfy looking the conflict like a board game

That was the Soviet Union not Russia and I don't think they could loose anywhere near these types of losses and sustain their attack on Ukraine.

 

[4bars]

That was the Soviet Union not Russia and I don't think they could loose anywhere near these types of losses and sustain their attack on Ukraine.

Well, will get into semantics now. I am not talking about killing 27 millions. also, another point that we are in another point of history to keep doing the same as he propose

Nevertheless, I am talking that in comparison, killing some thousands of civilians in crimea as he proposed, would not move the needle one bit and the civilians would die in vain for pointless revenge.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Well, will get into semantics now. I am not talking about killing 27 millions. I am talking that in comparison, killing some thousands of civilians in crimea as he proposed, would not move the needle one bit and the civilians would die in vain for pointless revenge.

I don't disagree on the civilian point. That said I don't think Putin survives the loss of Crimea.

 

[4bars]

I don't disagree on the civilian point. That said I don't think Putin survives the loss of Crimea.

Bombing civilians in sevastopol as he proposed it doesn't equal losing Crimea, which I agree, would be a lethal blow to this war. Putin would kill everyone and destroy everything if that would mean keeping Crimea. But bombing Sevastopol downtown for retaliation is dumb. Would accomplish nothing and would kill innocents. At the same time Ukraine would lose support and Galvanize Putin

 

[stefan92]

I don't disagree on the civilian point. That said I don't think Putin survives the loss of Crimea.

To lose Crimea you would need to destroy the bridge, the harbours and the airfields. Not downtown Sevastopol. That's the point why that suggestion is stupid.