You mean aside from the casualty rates, the logistics and supply issues, the breakdown of communications, the parlous state of Russian equipment, the past three decades where Russia continues to pour money into keeping its Soviet era equipment around because of a lack of funds and the corruption involved with existing funds, etc?
No one is disputing the disparity in numbers between Russia and Ukraine. But winning by virtue of numerical disparity does not make your army competent. Nor is it evidence that your materiel supply is fine and dandy.Tractors stealing abandoned tanks pretty much has ended, but you, Mihalik and others seem to think Russian army is incompetent. Truly, the initial events have left such a mark that the rest is being ignored.
Winning by virtue of numerical disparity does not make your army competent.
Yes, I am armchair general, I know. But it doesn't take much knowledge (freely available, but knowing Russian in this conflict helps immensely) to at least partially see what is happening.
Again; your rebuttal boils down to "they couldn't possibly be that stupid" - the only evidence for that viewpoint being literal Kremlin propaganda. And no, before you start banging on about how people saying Russia is incompetence are relying on Ukranian propaganda, we're including evidence from the past three decades and not just what Zelensky or Ukrainian Twitter is saying. Context matters.
Last edited by Elegiac; 2022-03-12 at 08:34 PM.
Originally Posted by Marjane Satrapi
A lot of "abandoned" tanks and other war materiel captured by Ukrainians, often non-military, hence the tractors.
Lots of defections. The accounts of defectors about how awful conditions are for the Russians; how little food, gas, etc they have.
The sheer tactical idiocy that led to tank, artillery, and supply convoys stalled out on the highway with no Plan B. This was "forgot to check the fuel gauge before heading out" levels of stupid-as-fuck.
The constant lies about their actions and motives, both to themselves and to their own people and troops.
And so on.
It isn't any one thing. The Russian military has been demonstrated to be a laughingstock. A dangerous laughingstock, in that they still have tons of poorly-maintained materiel to deploy and people to press-gang into service, but that's their level of tactical intellect; throw more equipment and bodies and hope you drown the enemy in them. It's idiocy piled on top of idiocy. There's nothing here that could be lauded, militarily.
Russia and Belarus both wholeheartedly believed, and Lukashenko even publicly stated 4 days before the invasion mocking the Ukrainian military and saying that 'if they invaded" (which we later learned he already knew had been ordered at that time when he said this btw), that Ukraine would not last more than 3 or 4 days. So clearly Russia's intelligence and estimation of the state of their military was way off. And that poor intelligence lead to a poor decision. So the result for Russia is not what they expected. They also clearly underestimated global and NATO unity against the invasion.
The issue for Ukraine is that it's military can't really afford a long war of attrition. There would need to be more intervention to slow that, and they seem to be hitting the ceiling of what other countries can do to help without crossing a line to become directly involved. And that help can't be in 3 months, that's something they would need immediately.
So where Russia goes from here is the big question. Their original plan for a quick victory is out the window. Any ideas of further expansion after Ukraine are also likely out the window. Originally going back 1-2 years, their big complaint and goal was freshwater supply for Crimea, which Ukraine had cutoff after the annexation of Crimea. That water supply has been restored and was one of the first things Russia did after invading. The DNR and LNR are firmly held now. Russia could stop today where it is and it would have achieved most of it's pre-invasion strategic goals. It could hold much of that territory without too much long-term resistance.
However, the larger complete defeat of all of Ukraine, and then occupying it indefinitely, is a whole different objective. It's a major fork in the road for the future of Russia. If they choose that long war path it's difficult to see any path to victory. It would be repeating past mistakes that would lead to a 20 year occupation of getting IED'd and ambushed daily until a leader long after Putin is gone finally accepts reality and withdraws. And Russia financially would be a very different place after just a year of sanctions. So there are lots of questions on where this will go from here:
- Will a country end up supplying jets to Ukraine (before it's too late) if civilian attacks continue?
- Will China make a move on Taiwan after seeing how it went for Russia, both in global outrage and military outcome?
- Will Russia realize it's situation and try to make an exit deal that doesn't include all of Ukraine?
- If Zelensky's status changes, will Russia reconsider the previous question?
- Or will Russia continue on the path to a long Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan occupation war and isolation, while enduring global long-term sanctions?
Meanwhile, Putin/Russia is starting to threaten that they are considering targeting western shipments of weapons to Ukraine. The problem, of course, is that if they do this and end up killing non-Ukrainians in the process they are effectively starting World War 3. Russia is already struggling to beat Ukraine even with the numerical advantage they had over Ukraine. How long do you think the Russian military could withstand the pressure of NATO incursions into Russia to knock out Russian military bases near NATO borders?
NATO might be reluctant to be the ones to fire the first shot but if Russia fires the first shot NATO will shoot back.
"If you are ever asking yourself 'Is Trump lying or is he stupid?', the answer is most likely C: All of the Above" - Seth Meyers
The size of Ukraine's armed forces is actually fairly comparable to Russia's invasion force, though they have way fewer tanks and planes. Ukraine has a pretty big, well-trained, and well-equipped military all things considered.
It's still very naive to think that they can militarily "win" this fight. It's turning into a war of attrition and Russia can afford to keep throwing bodies, vehicles, and missiles at it for at least another month from the analyses I've read.
Russia obviously lacks the resources to effectively occupy the country, which means at some point they'll withdraw. This can't go on, certainly not for a decade. It's just that the longer it takes, the more damage and destabilization Ukraine will face.
At this point, IMO, it just seems to be a matter of finding the tipping point between the humanitarian cost for Ukraine and the economic cost for Russia. When the losses are no longer acceptable for one side or both, the negotiations will start to see success.
Last edited by Kathranis; 2022-03-12 at 08:51 PM.
You're talking about the forces deployed in Ukraine. On paper, Russia has a much larger army that hasn't been committed to Ukraine.
The problem is that Russia likely can't AFFORD to deploy those troops. As you said, they lack the resources to occupy Ukraine or to even support their existing troops given how horrible their logistics are.
That is why I keep pointing out that Ukraine and Russia have vastly different victory conditions. In order to win, Russia has conquer every last inch of Ukraine, hold it and break the will of the Ukrainian people while all but assuredly dealing with a motivated and pissed off insurgency. All this while the Russian economy collapses due to the sanctions they have been hammered with.
Ukraine wins by not losing.
THe problem for Putin if this turns into a war of attrition becomes "At what point do the Russian people tire of seeing their husbands, grandfathers, fathers, brothers and sons die in a pointless meat grinder?" The Ukrainian people have every reason to fight like hell. The Russians do not.
Last edited by Zaydin; 2022-03-12 at 09:00 PM.
"If you are ever asking yourself 'Is Trump lying or is he stupid?', the answer is most likely C: All of the Above" - Seth Meyers
some serious shenanigans going on around Mariupol right now. City is totally fucked absolute hellzone but heavy fighting around Volnovakha could be an attempt to get a supply line in and break the siege.
Russian "Reactive Armor" is literally just empty pouches stuffed with random shit.
I wonder which Russian general bought himself a beach front property in Italy?
why does putin and his cronies have so much luxury spendings in Western domains when he is supposedly a neo-nazi pro-Russian fascist that is waging a war in the name of his country? Seriously, what's with these spendings on yahcts and villas in the West
Because Russia is a kleptocracy and the wealth Russia generates is confiscated by the fascist Putin and his buddies for their benefit? Him being a fascist and spending Russia's money on luxuries and yachts don't contradict each other at all. He doesn't give a shit about the wellbeing of his population.
Last edited by Barzotti; 2022-03-12 at 09:53 PM.
People keep citing "world war 3," but to me that implies multiple countries fighting other countries, fought on multiple fronts, not "the whole world versus Russia and one or two of its puppet states." I really doubt China would throw their lot in with Russia when effectively staying neutral and selling to both sides is so lucrative, and they have very, very little to gain from actually siding with Russia.
The sort of escalation of rhetoric, I think, comes from the potential nuclear aspect of it, which I think is really why countries aren't doing more. They don't fear Russia's conventional military forces at all, they fear ICBMs.
“Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
Words to live by.
that doesn't add up with why he would throw his decadent rich lifestyle away for a war now. Has he just gone fucking insane?
- - - Updated - - -
if NATO fights Russia, which won't be mere pest control effort, China will move in to take over Taiwan, the disputed Japanese seas, and North Korea will nuke South Korea in the ensuing distraction as part of their strategy. It has nothing to do with loyalty toward Russia.
The UA must be familiar with the way the SAA operated with the assistance of Russian advisors and the RUAF. This is how they would break resistance in urban areas; they let the enemy get reinforcements, then cut the advance off and proceed with absolute annihilation of the area with artillery and aircraft. The soldiers they sacrifice in the process of luring the enemy to reinforce have been shown to be meaningless to them, which is why the SAA would send some paramilitary and NDF force. I imagine Russia will waste their "DPR" and "LPR" paramilitaries in this case.
It's just because they enjoy vacationing in Europe or living there part-time, and also because it's usually financially safer to spread your wealth around instead of keeping it all in one country.
It's because countries like Ukraine would eventually ally themselves with the West if given freedom and choice. So Putin wants to prevent that and make an example out of Ukraine in order to maintain his control over his client states.
Last edited by PC2; 2022-03-12 at 10:43 PM.