The Russian-Ukrainian War Thread

[koxinga]

The US has been bankrolling and giving the most military aid of anyone. They have given huge support. But the US isn't endless. The US has an election coming up, and Trump says he is going to end the war. I doubt he means escalating it, or increasing support. It is quite probably the opposite.

I presume, they continue to count on US support on the assumption that a Europe that is tied up with Russia or weakened by Russia is not advantageous to the US. A dangerous assumption IMO.

All IMO. I know my perspective seems to upset people. I may be very wrong, but I hope this perspective is accepted in the way its offered. If I was in Europe I would be stocking up on food and supplies. 2024 isn't far away.. I don't see a Ukraine winning a strategic victory by 2024.

If anything this last 3 months of shown, breaking down Russian defences is going to take far more than what UKR has right now.

The first batch is Ukrainian F-16 pilots won't be ready till 2024 if reports are to be believed and it is also naive to assume that those F-16 will make an immediate impact. Air power has always been a system of systems fight, and the same can be said of western combined arms operations. We are seeing the limits of that adoption here, which has basically degenerated into a 21st century version of WWI.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I presume, they continue to count on US support on the assumption that a Europe that is tied up with Russia or weakened by Russia is not advantageous to the US. A dangerous assumption IMO.

There are bigger things moving around in the Forest than Russia. Russia is no longer the main game, its probably not even in the top two. Russia is going to have its own problems. Anyone want to take any best how cohesive russia will be when putin inevitably dies in office? Will the remaining ogliarchs form a cohesive administration? A Russia broken by conflict, fractured internally, and broke.

The first batch is Ukrainian F-16 pilots won't be ready till 2024 if reports are to be believed and it is also naive to assume that those F-16 will make an immediate impact. Air power has always been a system of systems fight, and the same can be said of western combined arms operations. We are seeing the limits of that adoption here, which has basically degenerated into a 21st century version of WWI.

F-16 are fairy dreams. What airframes have been allocated? Training pilots and maintainers is and was a easy out. F-16's alone aren't going to change things, hugely, they will just burn more of the Ukraine budget. F-16 but no US/EU money and support quickly turns them into hangar queens or one way tickets.

The NATO meeting went very poorly for Ukraine.
IMO Ukraine should have grabbed those Australian F-18s. The bashed western europe to make at least and near theoretical equal commitment. They should have gotten the Germans to buy metric mega tonnes of South Korean shells, and pushed to end this and accept they won't recover 100% of the territory. Make a 75% territory target and make a realistic 6-10 month goal to get there. Push to make the last 25% an autonomous zone or some other sort of compromise.

Ukraine and western Europe thinking the US is going to sweep in like China did in the Korean war is wrong. China did it because UN forces went too far and went to the Chinese border. China acted in her own interests. Even then, no one "won". Even if the Americans swarm in, they could Vietnam it. Then leave and have forces rush in. Seen it a dozen times.

Kasparov's absolutism, and lack of real politik appeals to Ukraine leadership. But here in the real world, talk is cheap, and force is real. So Unless Ukraine has some magical force coming to save them, hard line talk is no longer helpful. They fought hard, they fought bravely, they can still have their country, and they have learnt a valuable lesson about Russian military power and diplomacy. They could then join NATO and the EU and stand alongside Poland and the rest of eastern Europe who have concerns about their neighbor(s). Europe and others can learn a hard lesson (again) about being neutral and treaties with great powers.

 

[swerve]

The US has been bankrolling and giving the most military aid of anyone. They have given huge support. But the US isn't endless. ...

Western Europe seems to think US commitment is endless. It certainly acts like it is. ...

European countries, on average, have given a bigger share of GDP than the USA to Ukraine, & a larger total amount, collectively. Less military aid (though still a lot: about 75-80% of what the USA's given, between them) but more financial aid, both as a share of incomes & in absolute numbers. And don't just look at national contributions: EU members have been giving huge amounts of financial aid via the EU, so it doesn't show up in national totals. That money has kept Ukraine running & able to continue fighting, including enabling it to pay its troops.

Germany's often criticised, but it's given a much bigger share of GDP than the USA. The only W. European countries to have given less than the USA as a share of GDP are (in order) Belgium, Italy, France, Luxembourg, Malta, Ireland, Iceland & Switzerland, & Belgium, Italy & France are pretty close behind.

https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/

Australia's in a different category, giving about about a tenth the GDP share of Italy. That isn't a criticism: Australia's a long way away & has things closer to home to attend to, but I think it adds perspective. Japan has given 5 times as big a share of income. Critics should consider these things.

 

[tonnyc]

One quick question though, the presidency in Ukraine has a 5 year term limit from what I read. Is the plans still to hold elections in 2024 or will they postpone it? Politically, it would not be healthy or ideal. But a change in government in the middle of a hot war seems... challenging.

Under Ukrainian law there is no election while a martial law is in effect. All elections are postponed until the crisis is over and the Ukrainian Parliament (the Rada) decides when the crisis is over. (that is, the president can declare when the martial law starts, but the Rada gets to decide when it's over) And while the sample I've seen so far on social media is pretty much anecdotal, it seems the Ukrainians accepts that it's impossible to hold an election while there's a war ongoing. Yes the western half of the country is relatively safe though there's no guarantee the Russians won't try lobbing a cruise missile or eleven during voting, but the impossibility of holding the election in Russian-occupied territories and near the frontline should be obvious. They could skip them, but then the people of those regions would not be represented.

The 2023 parliamentary election is supposed to be held on October and that's going to be postponed and likely the 2024 presidential election will be postponed. Dunno about 2025 onward.

EDIT: The 2015 law has more details. Specifically Article 11 & 12. Using Google Translate, basically the gist is that in the event that the presidential term passed during martial law, the authority of the president is extended until a new president is elected after the martial law is over and similarly for the Rada.

 

[ImperatorOrbis]

Hi guys I just joined DT and am therefore new to this thread, so can I ask what your current (August 2023) thinking is on the conflict, namely who do you think will win, Russia or Ukraine or neither?

Well if we look at some previous wars like Iran-Iraq war or Korean war, where both sides are somewhat equal in strength (aka. not Gulf war), this conflict is still young and can easly drag on for a few more years. So in my mind it is a war of attrition between Ukraine and NATO support vs Russia and Iran support. Who will bring more shells to the front before money, manpower or political support runs out?

As far as winners go, Russia is not one of them even if it got a bit of land. Russia if F-ed in more than a few ways.
-Its demographics were bad before the war, even worse now.
-Its economy is going downhill fast. Endless sanctions.
-Its world standing is shattered. Very few friendly nations left. No prestige left.
-Its millitary might shattered. No more number 2 army in the world.
-Its political future looks bleak. When you are a dictatorship and your dictator is old and likely loosing nerves fast.
-Its slavic brothers hate Russia again like in the USSR days. Russia literally decided to kill its closest brothers. Imagine if USA started killing Canadians.
-NATO got bigger.
+Maybe it will get some war torn land. Too soon to tell.

Ukraine is also badly F-ed, but potentialy has a brighter future.
-Its demographics were bad before the war, even worse now.
-Its economy is going downhill fast.
-Might loose land. Too soon to tell.
+It actualy survived the Russian invasion. In a different timeline, there would be no more Ukraine by now.
+Will likely get financial aid to start rebuilding after war. Has many friendly nations.
+It will finally get rid of Russian influence and get to join EU/NATO to prosper, even if in a smaller size.

 

[koxinga]

Under Ukrainian law there is no election while a martial law is in effect. All elections are postponed until the crisis is over and the Ukrainian Parliament (the Rada) decides when the crisis is over. (that is, the president can declare when the martial law starts, but the Rada gets to decide when it's over) And while the sample I've seen so far on social media is pretty much anecdotal, it seems the Ukrainians accepts that it's impossible to hold an election while there's a war ongoing. Yes the western half of the country is relatively safe though there's no guarantee the Russians won't try lobbing a cruise missile or eleven during voting, but the impossibility of holding the election in Russian-occupied territories and near the frontline should be obvious. They could skip them, but then the people of those regions would not be represented.

The 2023 parliamentary election is supposed to be held on October and that's going to be postponed and likely the 2024 presidential election will be postponed. Dunno about 2025 onward.

EDIT: The 2015 law has more details. Specifically Article 11 & 12. Using Google Translate, basically the gist is that in the event that the presidential term passed during martial law, the authority of the president is extended until a new president is elected after the martial law is over and similarly for the Rada.

Thanks. Useful information. While it might be difficult to hold elections under such conditions, the other concern is around internal resentment if this is held off for too long, and especially when this conflict will like be a long drawn, slow burn.

 

[koxinga]

There are bigger things moving around in the Forest than Russia. Russia is no longer the main game, its probably not even in the top two. Russia is going to have its own problems. Anyone want to take any best how cohesive russia will be when putin inevitably dies in office? Will the remaining ogliarchs form a cohesive administration? A Russia broken by conflict, fractured internally, and broke.

Well, NATO talks about open an office in Asia and recent deployments by France / Germany to Asia shows they are not clueless about the "pacing threat".

The only challenge is able to match action with words.

F-16 are fairy dreams. What airframes have been allocated? Training pilots and maintainers is and was a easy out. F-16's alone aren't going to change things, hugely, they will just burn more of the Ukraine budget. F-16 but no US/EU money and support quickly turns them into hangar queens or one way tickets. The NATO meeting went very poorly for Ukraine. IMO Ukraine should have grabbed those Australian F-18s.

I don't think they will be hangar queens but the my point is similar to yours. They are not Wunderwaffe / wonder weapons that the press made them out to be.

 

[Mainframe]

...Overall the long term picture for Ukraine is bleak...

Yes, Russia has much more troops than Ukraine, so in a war of attrition Zelensky is going to run out of men long before Putin.
Even if the West continues sending military hardware to Ukraine, it'll be useless without anybody to man it.
And some western commentators are beginning to say Ukraine is a lost cause, like Max Hastings in this bit from a London Times article he wrote earlier this year-

 

[Mainframe]

...Ukraine..actualy survived the Russian invasion. In a different timeline, there would be no more Ukraine by now....

Yeah, and if Russia had a different leader in charge it'd probably have been a quick decisive victory for Russia long ago.
Beats me why Putin invaded on a wide front dispersing many of his troops in the north instead of simply surgically pincering out the pro-Russian Donbas with armoured spearheads in blitzkrieg style down the red arrows like in the diagram below, then digging in and announcing the war was over-

 

[tonnyc]

Yes, Russia has much more troops than Ukraine, so in a war of attrition Zelensky is going to run out of men long before Putin.
Even if the West continues sending military hardware to Ukraine, it'll be useless without anybody to man it.
And some western commentators are beginning to say Ukraine is a lost cause, like Max Hastings in this bit from a London Times article he wrote earlier this year-

View attachment 50732

As has been observed in early 2022 and then confirmed again and again, to Ukrainians this is an existential war. They have seen the mass graves. Their relatives are in those graves. Even those who aren't soldiers have died from missile attacks. Meanwhile, to Russians this isn't an existential war. If they can avoid getting sent to the frontline they're fine. Economy's tough, but they'll live. To them this is a fight between big boys that doesn't involve them and while they all say they support the war and such, whether they're willing to pick up arms and risk death is another thing.

So while in a true war of attrition Ukraine will indeed run out of able-bodied men before Russia, the real issue is who's going to run out of willing able-bodied men (and women) first. And that's not a simple thing to predict.

 

[PervasiveSurveillance]

Well if we look at some previous wars like Iran-Iraq war or Korean war, where both sides are somewhat equal in strength (aka. not Gulf war), this conflict is still young and can easly drag on for a few more years. So in my mind it is a war of attrition between Ukraine and NATO support vs Russia and Iran support. Who will bring more shells to the front before money, manpower or political support runs out?

As far as winners go, Russia is not one of them even if it got a bit of land. Russia if F-ed in more than a few ways.
-Its demographics were bad before the war, even worse now.
-Its economy is going downhill fast. Endless sanctions.
-Its world standing is shattered. Very few friendly nations left. No prestige left.
-Its millitary might shattered. No more number 2 army in the world.
-Its political future looks bleak. When you are a dictatorship and your dictator is old and likely loosing nerves fast.
-Its slavic brothers hate Russia again like in the USSR days. Russia literally decided to kill its closest brothers. Imagine if USA started killing Canadians.
-NATO got bigger.
+Maybe it will get some war torn land. Too soon to tell.

Ukraine is also badly F-ed, but potentialy has a brighter future.
-Its demographics were bad before the war, even worse now.
-Its economy is going downhill fast.
-Might loose land. Too soon to tell.
+It actualy survived the Russian invasion. In a different timeline, there would be no more Ukraine by now.
+Will likely get financial aid to start rebuilding after war. Has many friendly nations.
+It will finally get rid of Russian influence and get to join EU/NATO to prosper, even if in a smaller size.

This assumes an end to the war that is relatively favorable for Ukraine, I'm curious what you think that ending might look like?

 

[SinisterMinister]

Yeah, this is pretty far off. Russia has increased defense production considerably but Russia hasn't exactly gone for the total war approach, likely due to concerns with domestic stability. When Russia tried to mobilize 300 000 men, more then double that number left the country. Many came back once they realized the mobilization was a once-off event, but it shows you the nature of the situation. Russian use of Soviet stockpiles isn't some sort of clever saving of modern equipment.

Appreciate the reply, let me clarify a bit. My point is that Russia has not and likely will not need to go to a total war footing to continue the current pace of the war in perpetuity. I'm not trying to suggest that anything they have done is clever, just that they have been able to fight the war while leaving a great pool of resources untapped. If we are forecasting 3-4 years into the future, Russian production is almost certain to cover whatever needs they have; they seem to have solved many of their component bottlenecks, at least for now. Russia will not lose the war for want of materiel.

For Ukraine, they're fighting with anything that gets handed to them. And mostly it's been fairly consistent kit. Ukraine got ~1k M113s. That's not a hodgepodge, that's a massive and relatively standardized vehicle fleet. Ukraine also got buckets of T-72s and BMP-1s from all over. This matches existing gear, and again is supplied in quantities by the hundreds. Those a considerable-sized unified vehicle fleets. Same goes for MaxxPro MRAPs, humvees, and other common western kit. The quantities supplied are quite large. The hodgepodge part only started recently with a mix of Bradleys, CV90s, and Marders. But even then Bradleys supplied are over 100, and Marder deliveries are likely to continue too (as Germany re-arms with Pumas). Even if some things like VABs, and XA-180s are relatively uncommon, they represent a small portion of total kit. They may suffer from maitenance delays due to delivery issues or scarcity of uncommon spares, but again they're the exception. Ukraine's industrial capacity is irrelevant. Foreign aid is the driver here. Ukrainian tanks are being repaired in Poland and Ukraine is getting kit shipped en masse from all over the world, including many non-NATO members.

Nothing is standardized about what Ukraine is getting. They are receiving whatever old stockpiles any NATO member has. Yes this has included lots of M113s, but that is essentially a one off; once stockpiles are dry, no more M113s. The same goes for nearly everything else. The exceptions are of course CV90s, Marders, and maybe Bradleys, but production of these is not sufficient to meet Ukrainian needs at this point. Ukraine will continue to receive NATO kit for years, but nothing about it will be standardized. The fact that they have to ship tanks back to Poland to be repaired is illustrative of the logistical nightmare that maintaining their assorted kit has become. Numerous publications have noted this, including War on the Rocks here What the Ukrainian Armed Forces Need to Do to Win - War on the Rocks

"Ad Hoc Logistics and Maintenance

Western aid has been critical for Ukraine’s defense. However, the variety of equipment Ukraine now uses has led to significant logistics and maintenance challenges. In our experience, the Ukrainian military cannibalizes new equipment arriving in Ukraine to service equipment deployed in the field. As a result, front-line units only receive a small percentage of what is sent to the country. For example, a .50 caliber machine gun arrives in Ukraine with extra barrels, parts, manuals, and accessories, but by the time it gets to Donbas, all that remains is the gun."

As an example, we have evidence of Bradleys being cannibalized in the field for spare parts; the same goes for western supplied artillery. I'm not trying to suggest that on its own this dooms the Ukrainian war effort, but it illustrates that a country that cannot produce its own weaponry and ammunition (which is a whole other problem) cannot fight a war nearly as efficiently as a country that can.

Lastly Ukraine is nowhere near scraping their manpower dry. Ukraine has a shortage of trained personnel. Not a shortage of population. At least not yet. Ukrainians aren't eager to fight, and many, when not well trained, perform poorly or even surrender early on. But there are plenty of replacements available. The scale of casualties simply isn't high enough for Ukraine to actually deplete it's mobilization potential. Ukraine can keep this current level of losses up for years, assuming nothing drastic happens internally to alter the stability of Ukraine's government.

My point isn't really about a shortage of population, but rather about an administrative inability to properly mobilize that population base. There is a reason Zelensky fired all heads of regional military recruitment. Not that this will fix the corruption endemic in the post-Soviet state architecture. A healthy mobilization organization is not grabbing men off the street. Problems are noted here:

Bribes and hiding at home: the Ukrainian men trying to avoid conscription

Some are spending life savings to stay out of the war, but such actions are seen as treasonous by those already fighting

www.theguardian.com

 

[Feanor]

Its unlikely that F-16s are ever going to turn up. Russia seems keen on reminding Europe why they made need those jets. We may have already hit peak support for Ukraine.

I think this is wrong and western jets are almost guaranteed to turn up. Ukraine is going to run out of their stockpile of flyable Soviet jets eventually, likely sooner rather then later. Casualties aren't the only issue, availability of spares is another, resource on the engines and the airframe is a third.

If Trump gets in and the US stops support completely, I would imagine Ukraine as a state would basically stop

Inertia is a great thing. Even if supports stops on the spot, Ukraine doesn't instantly collapse. Foreign aid has not been solely or even primarily American. Ukraine would be in trouble without US aid, but the Ukrainian state certainly wouldn't stop. European aid would still be coming, and existing stocks would allow for weeks if not months of resistance. Ukraine would probably start losing ground but even that not right away. It would also massively depend on Europe's reaction. A US pullout could push Europe to increase supplies. They probably can't replace US supplies completely, but they can do quite a bit. Presumably Trump wouldn't prevent European countries from buying US kit, which means replacement sales could boom. Countries could buy US kit and send their own older kit to Ukraine, so the US MIC would still be in play. For munitions countries could even do direct buys. In other words, Ukraine could lose some ground, but certainly wouldn't be out of the war completely.

 

[Mainframe]

Zelensky is playing a dangerous game by sticking pins in the russian bear with these recent drone strikes that served no useful purpose at all except to provoke Putin into retaliating-



@Mainframe

You are banned from posting in this thread until the Moderators decide your future on here. This is because you:

1. Are posting material without posting the links.
2. Your posting style leaves a lot to be desired and does not comply with the rules here.
3. You illustrate similarities to a troll and trolls are not tolerated here.

Ngatimozart.

 

[Feanor]

As has been observed in early 2022 and then confirmed again and again, to Ukrainians this is an existential war. They have seen the mass graves. Their relatives are in those graves. Even those who aren't soldiers have died from missile attacks. Meanwhile, to Russians this isn't an existential war. If they can avoid getting sent to the frontline they're fine. Economy's tough, but they'll live. To them this is a fight between big boys that doesn't involve them and while they all say they support the war and such, whether they're willing to pick up arms and risk death is another thing.

So while in a true war of attrition Ukraine will indeed run out of able-bodied men before Russia, the real issue is who's going to run out of willing able-bodied men (and women) first. And that's not a simple thing to predict.

Ukraine is continuing to grab people off the streets in order to fill its ranks. Russia has continued primarily volunteer recruitment after the mobilization. It seems that the demographic difference is severe enough for Ukraine to run out of willing manpower first. That having been said, an unwilling mobilized force can and will still fight. Running out of willing men isn't enough. And while people fled Russian mobilization people are also continuously fleeing Ukrainian mobilization. It was just much easier to get out of Russia. In Ukraine they're actively working to prevent mobilization-age personnel from leaving.

 

[Feanor]

Appreciate the reply, let me clarify a bit. My point is that Russia has not and likely will not need to go to a total war footing to continue the current pace of the war in perpetuity. I'm not trying to suggest that anything they have done is clever, just that they have been able to fight the war while leaving a great pool of resources untapped. If we are forecasting 3-4 years into the future, Russian production is almost certain to cover whatever needs they have; they seem to have solved many of their component bottlenecks, at least for now. Russia will not lose the war for want of materiel.

They might if they can't solve the problem of Ukrainian counter-battery fires, and kick artillery production into gear. Russia depends badly on its artillery.

Nothing is standardized about what Ukraine is getting. They are receiving whatever old stockpiles any NATO member has. Yes this has included lots of M113s, but that is essentially a one off; once stockpiles are dry, no more M113s. The same goes for nearly everything else. The exceptions are of course CV90s, Marders, and maybe Bradleys, but production of these is not sufficient to meet Ukrainian needs at this point. Ukraine will continue to receive NATO kit for years, but nothing about it will be standardized. The fact that they have to ship tanks back to Poland to be repaired is illustrative of the logistical nightmare that maintaining their assorted kit has become. Numerous publications have noted this, including War on the Rocks here What the Ukrainian Armed Forces Need to Do to Win - War on the Rocks

Ukraine has gotten ~150 M777s, ~100 M109s, and ~50 L119s for artillery. These are all fairly large and standardized artillery forces. Ukraine has also received some 2S1s and Grads from Poland, both of which fit well with existing inventory, as well as Czech Vampirs which are just Grads. Ukraine also received a quantity of ex-Finnish Giatsint-B, again a good fit with existing inventory. Ukraine also received ~25 PzH-2000s, and ~35 Caesars. These are one-off hard to maintain complex modern systems. But they represent a tiny portion of overall artillery supplied. I won't break down type by type, but this picture holds true for light armor and MBTs too. The non-standard harder to maintain systems are all in smaller quantities. The bulk of deliveries are either large enough to form a solid vehicle fleet in its own right (MaxxPros, M113s, etc.) or fit with existing inventory (Romanian BTRs, Pol/Cz BMP-1s and T-72M1, PT-91, etc.) Exceptions in the form of modern CV90s, or relatively modern Bradleys, or older Marders are the exception. And Bradley deliveries are continuing practically non-stop, with the US committing to additional batch after batch. In other words, we are likely going to see an eventual Ukrainian Bradley fleet in the hundreds. Things like Marders, Leo-2s, CR-2s, VABs, XA-180s, are all going to be rare and harder to maitain. On the other hand vehicle get destroyed a lot and quickly, so it's likely many of these smaller fleets will simply disappear through attrition. The bigger ones will be relatively maintainable. Don't get me wrong, trying to maintain a giant force under the strain of constant Russian strikes is going to be difficult and painful. But these problems aren't big enough to break Ukraine's war effort, and are being robustly supported from abroad.

My point isn't really about a shortage of population, but rather about an administrative inability to properly mobilize that population base. There is a reason Zelensky fired all heads of regional military recruitment. Not that this will fix the corruption endemic in the post-Soviet state architecture. A healthy mobilization organization is not grabbing men off the street. Problems are noted here:

Bribes and hiding at home: the Ukrainian men trying to avoid conscription

Some are spending life savings to stay out of the war, but such actions are seen as treasonous by those already fighting

www.theguardian.com

Sure these problems persist, but so far there's no evidence that Ukraine can't scrape together the manpower. By whatever broken and corrupt means necessary. There's no sign that Ukraine won't be able to continue drafting people. Just that it will slowly get uglier and more unpleasant.

 

[ImperatorOrbis]

This assumes an end to the war that is relatively favorable for Ukraine, I'm curious what you think that ending might look like?

Like I said in my post. Russia might gain occupied land and Ukraine might loose it. Beyond that Ukraine will be free to decouple from Russian imperialism and seek to join NATO/EU. Or do you think Russia is in a position to demand anything more than the occupied territories?

Remember that the original plan was 3 days to Kiev. Russia is suffering greatly in all possible ways.

 

[SinisterMinister]

They might if they can't solve the problem of Ukrainian counter-battery fires, and kick artillery production into gear. Russia depends badly on its artillery.



Ukraine has gotten ~150 M777s, ~100 M109s, and ~50 L119s for artillery. These are all fairly large and standardized artillery forces. Ukraine has also received some 2S1s and Grads from Poland, both of which fit well with existing inventory, as well as Czech Vampirs which are just Grads. Ukraine also received a quantity of ex-Finnish Giatsint-B, again a good fit with existing inventory. Ukraine also received ~25 PzH-2000s, and ~35 Caesars. These are one-off hard to maintain complex modern systems. But they represent a tiny portion of overall artillery supplied. I won't break down type by type, but this picture holds true for light armor and MBTs too. The non-standard harder to maintain systems are all in smaller quantities. The bulk of deliveries are either large enough to form a solid vehicle fleet in its own right (MaxxPros, M113s, etc.) or fit with existing inventory (Romanian BTRs, Pol/Cz BMP-1s and T-72M1, PT-91, etc.) Exceptions in the form of modern CV90s, or relatively modern Bradleys, or older Marders are the exception. And Bradley deliveries are continuing practically non-stop, with the US committing to additional batch after batch. In other words, we are likely going to see an eventual Ukrainian Bradley fleet in the hundreds. Things like Marders, Leo-2s, CR-2s, VABs, XA-180s, are all going to be rare and harder to maitain. On the other hand vehicle get destroyed a lot and quickly, so it's likely many of these smaller fleets will simply disappear through attrition. The bigger ones will be relatively maintainable. Don't get me wrong, trying to maintain a giant force under the strain of constant Russian strikes is going to be difficult and painful. But these problems aren't big enough to break Ukraine's war effort, and are being robustly supported from abroad.



Sure these problems persist, but so far there's no evidence that Ukraine can't scrape together the manpower. By whatever broken and corrupt means necessary. There's no sign that Ukraine won't be able to continue drafting people. Just that it will slowly get uglier and more unpleasant.

I think overall I'm focusing on what the war looks like 2-3 years down the road, because that is probably where, in my opinion, endgame possibilities come into play unless a peace deal has been negotiated before that. I'm not saying any of the problems I'm pointing out will lead to an imminent collapse. Rather I'm of the opinion that they make sustaining a war effort for years extremely difficult. If Ukraine is resorting to conscripting men off the streets now, what will they have to do in 2 years to fill their ranks? Can they really depend on Western (let's be honest, US) production to fulfill all their material needs for years to come? What happens if election results in the US are unfavorable? On top of military industrial needs, their economy is becoming frighteningly dependent on Western aid packages just to keep functioning.

Compare that with the Russian situation, where the only real challenges to a long term war are industrial production (no reason they cannot achieve sufficient capacity even if they are not fully there now) and political willpower (no sign of any issues there). Manpower is a non-issue. Economically they have stabilized, although with some limitations, in spite of the full throttle sanctions from the West.

 

[Feanor]

Interesting look at the Patriot Park in Moscow. There is an exposition of captured Ukrainian vehicles there. You will notice the Bradley and Leopard are absent despite reports of the latter, and two confirmed captured instances of the former. They were likely too difficult to haul away.

Colonelcassad

В парке "Патриот" открылась выставка трофейной западной техники фото: @rian_ru

t.me

Colonelcassad

Еще небольшая подборка трофеев в парке «Патриот» фото: @mod_russia

t.me

I think overall I'm focusing on what the war looks like 2-3 years down the road, because that is probably where, in my opinion, endgame possibilities come into play unless a peace deal has been negotiated before that. I'm not saying any of the problems I'm pointing out will lead to an imminent collapse. Rather I'm of the opinion that they make sustaining a war effort for years extremely difficult. If Ukraine is resorting to conscripting men off the streets now, what will they have to do in 2 years to fill their ranks? Can they really depend on Western (let's be honest, US) production to fulfill all their material needs for years to come? What happens if election results in the US are unfavorable? On top of military industrial needs, their economy is becoming frighteningly dependent on Western aid packages just to keep functioning.

Compare that with the Russian situation, where the only real challenges to a long term war are industrial production (no reason they cannot achieve sufficient capacity even if they are not fully there now) and political willpower (no sign of any issues there). Manpower is a non-issue. Economically they have stabilized, although with some limitations, in spite of the full throttle sanctions from the West.

One would think a year is enough to ramp up howitzer production given the key role of artillery in the fight. Instead we have D-1s pulled from storage, and S-60s mounted on trucks. Was there no reason they couldn't? I suspect there were reasons. We just weren't aware of them. Could those reasons still exist and prevent production ramp-up for another two years? Don't know.

As for political will... Russian political will was so weak that Russia relied on a mercenary force tens of thousands strong, recruiting from prisons, a literal penal legion. And that force then attempted a half-baked coup d'etat. What happens if the next coup d'etat is more effective, possibly handled by oligarchical interests from within? Or the opposite, "angry patriots" that decide they've had enough, and it's time to nuke the bridges across the Dnepr? Russian political willpower (i.e. political stability of the current course) is not a given. And Russian leadership has been ready to negotiate their way out of this war for over a year now. They're just not willing to negotiate from the position of defeat when they haven't really been defeated.

Lastly we had T-90Ms shipping at a fairly high rate last fall and winter, and into spring. Now it's gone quiet. Perhaps Russia isn't publicizing it as much, there has been a decrease in transparency and publicity of specifics. On the other hand it's also possible that Russian stockpiles and work-arounds for components ran ok for a while but are running thin now. Let's see what happens. I'm far from confident that Russia's MIC will be able to churn away unimpeded. It's certainly possible, but it's not guaranteed. I think interesting markers will be whether Russia will be able to produce the new BMP-3 Manul variant, and new BTR-82A "Improved" which is really a whole new APC, essentially a simplified Bumerang variant with some BTR-82A commonality on suspension, and other components. At the end of the day T-90M production was running pre-war. This will be a real test, and will be very easy to spot, unlike the T-90M part where hundreds have already been delivered.

 

[PervasiveSurveillance]

Like I said in my post. Russia might gain occupied land and Ukraine might loose it. Beyond that Ukraine will be free to decouple from Russian imperialism and seek to join NATO/EU. Or do you think Russia is in a position to demand anything more than the occupied territories?

Remember that the original plan was 3 days to Kiev. Russia is suffering greatly in all possible ways.

Not really about what Russia is in a position to demand, more about what they will accept. I'm skeptical that they would ever willingly sign a peace deal that leaves the door open for NATO membership or stops short of giving them Crimea and the Donbass, given that these seem to be Russia's central war aims. If that's the case, the question is how does Ukraine impose these terms on them?