The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[STURM]

I do not believe NATO doctrine would have allowed an invading force to be so underwhelming in nature, and so woefully incable of embarking on a 4-pronged attack.

Given the same operational conditions I don't believe it's given that NATO would have performed better.

Would We Do Better? Hubris and Validation in Ukraine - War on the Rocks

The hapless Russians are flailing in Ukraine. Their poorly prepared, unprofessional soldiers are incapable of modern combined arms warfare. Even if

warontherocks.com

Look at the U.S. invasion of Iraq, particularly in the early hours.

True but to be a devil's advocate that was against the Iraqis.. Last time the Yanks faced serious opposition was from the Vietnamese and to an extent the Serbs which conducted a very effective AD campaign. Over the years the Yanks have fought the likes of Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq. Also, as the years progressed things went extremely ratshit in Iraq and Afghanistan; superior tech and troops plus overwhelming firepower were not solutions. .

 

[vikingatespam]

Why would any country want Ukraine to have access to weapons such as ATACMS, Tomahawks, Storm Shadows...?
West interest is to weaken Russia as much as possible, not to help Ukraine becoming a military power.
Bureaus in Europe and USA are working to help their own country, not others. Thats the reason why weapons are given to AFU only when needed and why no strategic-capable weapons was given.

There is zero willing to arm an unstable country such as Ukraine at this specific moment, and there is zero willing to really achieve a victory over Russia.
A long, low-intensity war is the goal of NATO, so that both countries will drain resources in fighting the war.
I suggest to have a look at the very well made and precise websites of the European Union, that explains how Europe have no real intention to send the refugees back to Ukraine as they can alleviate Europe's birthrate and workforce problem.

Forced displacement from Ukraine: the role of the diaspora | Knowledge for policy

A

knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu

The impact of the influx of Ukrainian refugees on the euro area labour force

The European Central Bank (ECB) is the central bank of the European Union countries which have adopted the euro. Our main task is to maintain price stability in the euro area and so preserve the purchasing power of the single currency.

www.ecb.europa.eu

Refugees from Ukraine in the EU

Millions of people have fled the war in Ukraine to seek refuge in the EU. How many Ukrainian refugees are in the EU?

www.consilium.europa.eu

UKR is going EU and likely NATO after this is done. There is no harm in giving them some of these weapons - after all, they cant make them.

The Slow walking of weapons to UKR might end up being counter-productive.

 

[Vivendi]

I've posted in this thread several videos featuring Michael Kofman and others discussing the Russian military. You can also look at War On The Rocks for some excellent analysis.

Thanks. I will have a look at see if I reach the same conclusion.

Would you mind fixing the quotes in the above post, there are some errors in there (many quotes attributed to me, that was written by somebody else) Thanks.

 

[IIO2]

Given the same operational conditions I don't believe it's given that NATO would have performed better.

Would We Do Better? Hubris and Validation in Ukraine - War on the Rocks

The hapless Russians are flailing in Ukraine. Their poorly prepared, unprofessional soldiers are incapable of modern combined arms warfare. Even if

warontherocks.com

You're missing the point. NATO doctrine would not have led a NATO invading force to take such a foolish, misguided approach to invading a large, reasonably well defended country.

Russia was arrogant, inept and poorly prepared for an invasion of the type they attempted. NATO doesn't make such amateur attempts at invasion, for reasons that have played out... NATO invades with overwhelming force, or doesn't invade. Russia tried to thread the needle, and it's probably going to cost them the lives of north of 100,000 soldiers, and a majority of the army equipment that they spent a generation stockpiling.

This is a wonderful opportunity for NATO and its allies to make Russia pay, dearly, for this grave mistep. Not just militarily, but economically, and in terms of the way they're viewed globally.

 

[Feanor]

As much as I would tend to agree with what you said, the actual RU new tank construction capabilities are unknown. I doubt its very high, but we cannot know for sure.

UVZ produced ~350 in 2011, peak production year when domestic and foreign orders were large. Khlopotov recently claimed that the upper limit is 400 with current lines, which makes sense. However keep in mind production bottlenecks can exist in many places. UVZ might be able to churn out that many tanks, but can the engine plant and artillery plant put out the engines and guns? Does the T-90M depend on any foreign electronics that might be harder to source? Also the UVZ is now devoting some of its facilities to the T-72B3 program, as well as BREM-1M production. I suspect both cut into MBT production.

 

[STURM]

Would you mind fixing the quotes in the above post, there are some errors in there (many quotes attributed to me, that was written by somebody else) Thanks.

Apologies.. Rectified.

 

[Vivendi]

Samuel Ramani on Twitter: "Celebrations greet Ukraine’s liberation of Kherson https://t.co/rR2RCWmNXL" / Twitter

Happy citizens being liberated by Ukranian soldiers, or ethnic Russians being attacked by invading Ukrainian soldiers in Kherson Oblast? Judge for yourself.

 

[SolarisKenzo]

You're repeating Russian propaganda.

Firstly, NATO countries definitely don't want a long war. War is expensive. They want it to be as short as possible.

The discussions of refugees you link to aren't policy documents. The ECB one is an analysis of what they think will happen in the event of a protracted war, not an argument for such a war.

Am I?

I assure you I am as far from Russia as It Is humanly possible.

What I'm saying Is that yes, war Is expensive for western countries, but not even close to the price Russia Is paying.
If Europe can find a stable Energy flow from Africa and middle East, than war can go on Forever.
It Is a strategic win for NATO, and an enormous One, if they can give mostly old and cheap weapons ( creating work for their own industries ) to a country that Is fighting their biggest enemy, Russia.

NATO has all the interest in the world in taking the biggest advantage possible from this situation, and we surely dont care about ukrainians as much as we do about ourselves.

100k KIA, MIA and WIA Is a huge loss for Russia and an enormous win for NATO, whatever the cost in terms of Ukrainian lives was.

Edited as requested by mod

 

[tonnyc]

I want to point out that Russia can stop the loss at any moment by simply withdrawing. Nobody is stopping them from retreating back to their own border.

 

[Feanor]

Ukrainians are partying in the streets after the liberation of Kherson, following the Russian retreat to safety, across the Dnieper...

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/yscbmh

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1591073557068464128

So no forced evacuation then... after some speculated on Russia "kidnapping" the local population.

Yep! I follow it thoroughly. Seems like the Russians are experiencing limited succes around Bahkmut, where as the Ukrainians are collapsing the entire Kherson front as the Russians retreat to the left side of the Dnieper.

Very limited around there, as well as finally taking Pavlovka (now let's see what happens next, the village isn't itself significant and lies in a depression overlooked by Ukrainian positions in Ugledar), and pushing into Belogorovka. Other then the recent push into Pavlovka, it seems that all the offensive actions have been by Wagner.

Those four oblasts are not, according to what their populations say, populated more by ethnic Russians than ethnic Ukrainians. Do not assume that everyone who speaks Russian better than Ukrainian is Russian. Zelensky's first language is Russian. I have friends in Wales. Most of them speak English, & little if any Welsh. But they're Welsh, & would be offended if I called them English. Most of the population of Ireland speak little or no Irish, & communicate with each other in English.

Only Crimea (not one of the four) had a majority self-declaring themselves as Russian before Russian occupation made calling oneself Ukrainian a high-risk activity. Donets & Luhansk had very large minorities (ca 40%), & Kherson (15%) & Zaporizhzhia (25%) large minorities - but minorities.

LANGUAGE IS NOT ETHNICITY.

This is true but isn't the whole story. There are many Ukrainian who are essentially Russified. I.e. they're Ukrainians, but they speak Russian, and are friendly towards Russia culturally. They are easy to assimilate and are part of the passive majority that would likely not have protested if Russia occupied the area quickly and relatively bloodlessly. Russian leadership was no doubt counting on selling these as "Russians" to the public, and pretending that acquiescence is the same as acceptance. Remember there are about 2 million Ukrainians living in Russia today, not counting Crimea (the 2010 census). They mostly also fall into this category. This is what created the picture of the pro-Russian south-east, and anti-Russian north-west in pre-war Ukraine. And it was true, again in the sense that these people had good feelings towards Russia. Not in the sense that they were hoping Russia was going to annex them. Of course these good feelings were eroded by the massive propaganda campaign as well as heavy anti-Russian government policies in the '14-'22 period, and are now likely gone completely due to Russia's invasion. It's yet another reason why this invasion was a no-win scenario from the start.

I want to point out that Russia can stop the loss at any moment by simply withdrawing. Nobody is stopping them from retreating back to their own border.

Which border? The border of Crimea? Or the pre '14 border? And what happens to the LDNR where I suspect anti-Ukrainian attitudes are now prevalent?

 

[STURM]

You're missing the point. NATO doctrine would not have led a NATO invading force to take such a foolish, misguided approach to invading a large, reasonably well defended country.

I don't think I'm missing anything.. Doctrine aside; if faced with similar operational conditions it's not holy writ or written in stone that NATO would have performed any better. What's the yardstick; Libya and Kosovo?

Also, we need to make a distinction between political and military failings. No doubt the Russians have underperformed [although I believe they've performed better in several areas but it just that it's still early days and we still don't know a lot] but quite a bit of the military failing were the result of decisions made at a political level; namely the naive bad flawed assumption that the Ukrainians wouldn't fight.

 

[SolarisKenzo]

I want to point out that Russia can stop the loss at any moment by simply withdrawing. Nobody is stopping them from retreating back to their own border.

Exactly, but that Is surely out of western control.
Only Russia can withdraw their troops.
They decided to Attack, they're paying the price.
Thats it.

 

[SolarisKenzo]

UKR is going EU and likely NATO after this is done. There is no harm in giving them some of these weapons - after all, they cant make them.

The Slow walking of weapons to UKR might end up being counter-productive.

I seriously doubt anyone in EU really wants Ukraine in.
No One wants to repeat the same mistake made with Poland, Hungary or the Baltic.

IMHO Ukraine wont join EU for a long, long time.

 

[IIO2]

I don't think I'm missing anything.. Doctrine aside; if faced with similar operational conditions it's not holy writ or written in stone that NATO would have performed any better. What's the yardstick; Libya and Kosovo?

Also, we need to make a distinction between political and military failings. No doubt the Russians have underperformed [although I believe they've performed better in several areas but it just that it's still early days and we still don't know a lot] but quite a bit of the military failing were the result of decisions made at a political level; namely the naive bad flawed assumption that the Ukrainians wouldn't fight.

We can go in circles all day, but the fact is that the Russian military was faced with the operational conditions it was for one of, or a combination of two reasons.

1). Their military leadership was woefully delusional about their logistics, ability to project power and their interoperability. They were foolishly confident that they could complete the mission of invading and annexing Ukraine.

2). Political leadership ignored the Russian military leadership and their concerns about not having nearly the training, nor resources they needed to successfully invade Ukraine.

The truth likely lies somewhere in the middle. I highly doubt a modern NATO country would attempt the same type of underwhelming invasion.

It doesn't mattet if NATO troops would have performed any better. The facts on the ground (based on former campaigns) are that NATO / Western military leadership wouldn't have hatched such a woefully, inadequate plan, and put their woefully underprepared, illequipped troops in such a horrendous position.

 

[IIO2]

USA buying 100,000 rounds of 155mm ammunition from South Korea. The South Koreans are not sending lethal military aid directly to Ukraine, but it's easy to see what the plan is here. 100,000 South Korean rounds will go into U.S. stockpiles, freeing the U.S. to send a further 100,000 rounds out of their existing stockpiles to Ukraine. A nice work around by a non-NATO member, but close ally of the West.

As Italy sends additional M109 Howitzers and France sends more CAESARs, these rounds will likely accompany this latest tranche of Western aid.

The South Koreans are playing a low key, significant role in this conflict. Another example is them selling large amounts of artillery and tanks to Poland, further freeing the Poles up to send some of their legacy equipment to Ukraine.

U.S. in talks to buy South Korean ammunition for Ukraine, official says | Reuters

 

[STURM]

We can go in circles all day, but the fact is that the Russian military was faced with the operational conditions it was for one of, or a combination of two reasons.

It was mainly due to a combination of reasons which I've alluded to in previous posts.

 

[STURM]

The facts on the ground (based on former campaigns)

Against the likes of Libya and Serbia? That's the yardstick? The "facts on the ground"?

Whilst some might mock Russia for the predicament it's in and ignore or obfuscate key reasons as to why It has underperformed in the Ukraine; there is nothing to suggest that NATO or the U.S. [which has successfully invaded the likes of Grenada, Panama, Iraq and Afghanistan] would perform any better if faced with the same operational circumstances.

 

[IIO2]

It was mainly due to a combination of reasons which I've alluded to in previous posts.

They just weren't nearly as good as we (and they) thought they were. Now they're getting their teeth kicked in by one of the poorest countries in Europe, backed by some small / moderate Western support. Regardless of the details, this conflict is proving to be an enormous mistake by the Putin regime, and a once in a generation opportunity by NATO to make Russians suffer.

 

[IIO2]

Against the likes of Libya and Serbia? That's the yardstick? The "facts on the ground"?

Whilst some might mock Russia for the predicament it's in and ignore or obfuscate key reasons as to why It has underperformed in the Ukraine; there is nothing to suggest that NATO or the U.S. [which has successfully invaded the likes of Grenada, Panama, Iraq and Afghanistan] would perform any better if faced with the same operational circumstances.

Nobody cares about the operational circumstances that the Russian brought onto themselves. Nobody forced those circumstances onto Russia. They chose their own path here. The Russian politicians and military brass ordered the Russian Army to dig their own graves. The Russian Army dutifully obliged their leadership, and got to work digging. The Ukrainians, aided by a little bit of Western help, are simply ensuring that, that hard work was not in vein and that those graves are plentifully filled.

Don't put your military in a horrendous position and they won't have to face horrendous consequences. "Sucks to suck" as they say.

 

[tonnyc]

Which border? The border of Crimea? Or the pre '14 border? And what happens to the LDNR where I suspect anti-Ukrainian attitudes are now prevalent?

At this point it will have to be the pre-2014 border.

Had they not invaded, I believe Russia could have kept Crimea indefinitely with no trouble. But they rolled the dice and it came out bad.

The LDNR is no longer viable. The invasion and the atrocities and the missile strikes and everything have galvanized the rest of Ukraine that I don't think they will settle for anything less than the full restoration of Ukrainian land. A poll back in June showed 81% not wanting to cede any land at all for peace. I imagine this number is bigger now after further missiles strikes and drone strikes and Ukrainian forces getting substantial progress. Given this, if Russia stays in the Donetsk-Luhansk region they will just get ground down like now. If they have time, say, a year to train and arm the newly mobilized they may be able to hold, but everyone knows this and won't give Russia that time. And if Russia chooses to pull out, the remaining DPR/LPR troops can't hold. Unlike in the past, the current Ukrainian army is fully mobilized and have received better arms and better training. Russia is probably better off offering resettlement to anyone in that region to anywhere else in Russia. After all in Russia's eyes they are Russian citizens now, not foreigners. There should be no legal issue in assimilating them into Russia's proper. And since in Russia's eyes there is no such thing as an Ukrainian culture, there should be no cultural issue either. This will cause serious hardship but I am not seeing any better course. The winter looks to be mild. EU seems to have enough natural gas for this winter. The attempt to split the EU and NATO into indecision isn't working. China isn't helping in any significant way. US midterm result doesn't seem to indicate any foreign policy shift in supporting Ukraine.

I don't expect Russia to agree with my amateur analysis. I expect them to hunker down for at least the winter and who knows, maybe something will fundamentally change the situation. Maybe a severe cold snap will hit Europe and cause massive blackouts and followed by a mass protest as people all across EU demands the resumption of Russian gas delivery. Maybe China changes their mind and decides to send billions of dollars worth of military and financial aid to Russia. Maybe a meteor hits Kyiv. Who knows.