The War in the Ukraine

TK3600

Major
Registered Member
At this point, the war is a foregone conclusion. The Russian economy is on fire, its military production is in full ramp, and it has integrated all the latest weapon systems.

In contrast, NATO has exhausted all of its spare arsenal and its production capabilities can't keep up with the attrition.

The only question is where and when Russia will stop.
It is remarkable Ukraine has not collapsed internally at this point. If I recalled, its civil service is bankrolled by west at this point. Losing funding will make state unable to function.
 

tankphobia

Senior Member
Registered Member
At this point, the war is a foregone conclusion. The Russian economy is on fire, its military production is in full ramp, and it has integrated all the latest weapon systems.

In contrast, NATO has exhausted all of its spare arsenal and its production capabilities can't keep up with the attrition.

The only question is where and when Russia will stop.
It was meant to be a foregone conclusion the moment Russia cross the border yet here we are.

Sure NATO has exposed that its arms industry is not up to the task, but to say that Ukraine has lost is still premature.

A 100m advance into a pile of slag is now seen as a major development, I struggle to see how this can be seen as a one sided war if Ukraine can still hold ground.
 

solarz

Brigadier
It was meant to be a foregone conclusion the moment Russia cross the border yet here we are.

Sure NATO has exposed that its arms industry is not up to the task, but to say that Ukraine has lost is still premature.

A 100m advance into a pile of slag is now seen as a major development, I struggle to see how this can be seen as a one sided war if Ukraine can still hold ground.

The only thing that can change the outcome right now is NATO entering the war directly, bringing to bear its entire stockpile of weapons instead of just the surplus stuff.
 

Mirek

New Member
Registered Member
It was meant to be a foregone conclusion the moment Russia cross the border yet here we are.

Sure NATO has exposed that its arms industry is not up to the task, but to say that Ukraine has lost is still premature.

A 100m advance into a pile of slag is now seen as a major development, I struggle to see how this can be seen as a one sided war if Ukraine can still hold ground.

The SMO is a war fought with limited political objectives and not a war of conquest. The goal is to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine in addition to guaranteeing their neutrality and eventual reincorporation into the Russian sphere of influence.

From a larger perspective, the war is a confrontation with NATO, a war of attrition in the Donbas which is a favourable battlefield for the Russians. Russian lines of communication are short and abundant while NATO is forced to move their equipment across a long distance with all the logistical difficulties of dispersal and camouflage this requires. In addition, Russia has secured Crimea, restored its access to freshwater, and increased their control over the Black Sea. The fortifications which have threatened Donbas for so long are in the process of being systematically dismantled. If Russia continued to wait its undoubtable that Ukraine would have launched an invasion into the Donetsk and Luhansk republics with subsequent de-Russification measures. Putin would be faced with an inflamed Russian public opinion and either be forced to rush to their defence or resign.

The belief that Russia should have fought a rapid war of destruction against Ukraine is fraught with strategic errors. First of all, Ukraine is just the first of many Eastern European proxies NATO can coerce into conflict with Russia, not to mention Germany or France. There is no benefit in antagonizing the rest of Europe or “conquering” Ukraine which currently does not desire reunification with Russia. The purpose of operations on the battlefield are to support Russia’s stated political objectives, the largest of which remains convincing the Ukrainian people that it’s not worth it to keep fighting and they should surrender.

The second major political objective of Russia in this war is to undermine the unity of NATO and the EU, convincing their public and leaders that Ukraine is not worth supporting and a waste of funds. There are many proxy wars in history which America had to abandon because the political endurance of a population is much lower when they are forced to bankroll unknown regimes on the other side of the globe. Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan all come to mind.

Has major damage been done to the Russian military or economy as a result of the war in Ukraine? Quite the opposite, the Russian military has filled their ranks with combat experienced officers and soldiers, stress-tested their arms industry and civil society, and opened up lucrative new markets with the assistance of China. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Russia could fight this war for another decade and not have reduced their overall combat potential in the slightest.
 

tankphobia

Senior Member
Registered Member
The only thing that can change the outcome right now is NATO entering the war directly, bringing to bear its entire stockpile of weapons instead of just the surplus stuff.
Ukraine doesn't need to "win" in the sense that they will decisively defeat the Russian army on the field and recapture all lost territory (not that they are capable now).

It only needs to make occupation so expensive for Russia that they no longer see holding on to Eastern Ukraine as being worth it, so far they are having a decent go at it. Russia has lost a brigade worth of armored vehicles at Avdiivka already, that does not sound sustainable at all.
 

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
From a larger perspective, the war is a confrontation with NATO, a war of attrition in the Donbas which is a favourable battlefield for the Russians. Russian lines of communication are short and abundant while NATO is forced to move their equipment across a long distance with all the logistical difficulties of dispersal and camouflage this requires. In addition, Russia has secured Crimea, restored its access to freshwater, and increased their control over the Black Sea.
Not just that. They also basically turned the Azov Sea into a Russian lake. Through the Azov Sea the Russians carry all their food exports and most of their food imports. These waters are connected to all the grain silos and the best land used to grow wheat. The Don River that flows into the Azov Sea is basically the Russian equivalent to the US Mississipi River.

Imagine if someone other than the US controlled the Gulf of Mexico and cut sea access to the Mississipi. That's why Russia can't allow NATO to have control over either Crimea or the Azov Sea. Russia also fought many wars to allow them to have naval access through the Turkish Straits in the past.

The fortifications which have threatened Donbas for so long are in the process of being systematically dismantled. If Russia continued to wait its undoubtable that Ukraine would have launched an invasion into the Donetsk and Luhansk republics with subsequent de-Russification measures. Putin would be faced with an inflamed Russian public opinion and either be forced to rush to their defence or resign.
I will also add that if Ukraine continues launching long range missiles into Russia, like the Vikhr MLRS with fragmentation ammunition that Ukraine threw towards Kursk region recently, then Ukraine will just continue losing more and more territory as Russia continues to expand its security bubble. Russia will go all the way to the Ukrainian border with NATO if necessary.

The belief that Russia should have fought a rapid war of destruction against Ukraine is fraught with strategic errors. First of all, Ukraine is just the first of many Eastern European proxies NATO can coerce into conflict with Russia, not to mention Germany or France. There is no benefit in antagonizing the rest of Europe or “conquering” Ukraine which currently does not desire reunification with Russia. The purpose of operations on the battlefield are to support Russia’s stated political objectives, the largest of which remains convincing the Ukrainian people that it’s not worth it to keep fighting and they should surrender.
I would agree that Russia is being really conservative with its resources. They could have done a mass mobilization like Israel has done, but the thing is, even the partial mobilization they did had all those issues with equipment initially. They are better off slowly equipping troops and rotating them like they have been doing.
 

TK3600

Major
Registered Member
Ukraine doesn't need to "win" in the sense that they will decisively defeat the Russian army on the field and recapture all lost territory (not that they are capable now).

It only needs to make occupation so expensive for Russia that they no longer see holding on to Eastern Ukraine as being worth it, so far they are having a decent go at it. Russia has lost a brigade worth of armored vehicles at Avdiivka already, that does not sound sustainable at all.
Then they are doing a poor job. Wherever Russia takes in the east, resistance from public is minimal. If anything those regions resist Ukraine more. Western Ukraine will put up more resistence, but Russia is not anywhere close to there, and has no need to occupy them. Russia just need to take over what it claimed, and make sure Ukraine cannot re challenge what it lost.

Current condition:
  • Ukraine lost a large portion of its original equipment, evident by the fact western equipments takes more and more % of footage. Personal estimate roughly 30% western.
  • Western aid is rapidly declining, specifically US basically canceled the aid. That's alone is roughly half the aid gone.
  • By the time western equipments stop appearing on footage, we can infer that 30% is gone.
  • Judging from Ukraine's conscription policy, it is critically short on manpower, but it can continue to bleed a year or 2 on lower quality recruits (women, old men important for economy). The result of expanding conscription adds up to equipment shortage.
  • Equipments seems to be the bigger bottleneck. It is already significantly hampering Ukrainian ability, but not at critical level yet. By summer 2024, we can expect equipment shortage to truly come to play.

short term prediction
  • Ukraine will still put up a decent fight in the next few month. Effect of aid cut is not significant yet.
  • Knowing this, Russia will only focus on key positions instead of full on assault.
  • The idea is to delay full assault until Ukraine is sufficiently weakened. Taking down key position makes sure when assault does happen, it will not be bogged down by these fort.
  • The recent Russian gains seems to be mostly probing in nature. Only places like Avdivika are serious push.
  • The fact probing led to gains means Ukraine is changing its strategy of holding every last inch of territory. They are only reinforcing important places now.
  • Ukraine's push in the south across river seems suicidal. Possibly a diversion, but it is clearly not working.
Medium term prediction
  • Expect sizable gains for Russia in 2024. For the first time after 2 years.
  • The gain will involve everything past current line of fort in Donbass, until Russia meets the next line of city. Then Russia will get stuck again for a while.
  • Reduced Ukrainian firepower may lead Russia reopening front they pulled back in 2022. Evident by new Ukrainian forts over there.
  • Ukraine will not collapse yet in 2024, not in terms of military at least. But this time the line of forts will not be as solid. Russians will make slow, but steady gains from that point onward.
Long term prediction
  • Russia should reclaim most of Donbass by 2025, if war do not cease by then.
  • Ukrainian military can still put up a good fight in 2025, even if retreating. Equivalent of early 1944 Germany.
  • We might see internal division in Ukraine earlier than military collapse. If true, negotiation for peace will start.
  • Difficult to predict how negotiation will go at this point. My gut feeling tells me it will not be smooth, war will persist a long time while negotiation under way.
 

Tam

Brigadier
Registered Member
TOS Solintsepek being used on Ukrainian positions in Krynki.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And another

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

US supplied Puma AE UAV taken down in Kherson region.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

UAV from the 9th Brigade deals with a Ukrainian Starlink antenna.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Artillery saturates a Ukrainian DRG in the Kupyansk direction.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Artillery dealing with thermally spotted Ukrainian forces in Belogorovka, courtesy of the 7th Brigade.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Russian FPV drone hits an ATGM nest. Courtesy of the Beaver detachment.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Ukrainian positions in Tyaginka gets hit by a FAB.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Pickup used by Ukrainians for transport gets hit by Upyr FPV drone in the right side of the Dniepr.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Ukrainian citizens trying to escape recruitment by escaping through the border are caught by the Ukrainian border guard.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

French SPG CAESAR not suitable for the conflict in Ukraine according to Ukrainian officer interview in Le Monde.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"In an interview with Le Monde, the Ukrainian officer complained that CAESAR was a quick-fire and high-precision gun, but he used the installation very rarely, since it is fragile and poorly adapted to military realities and has a large size.
This lady loves cleanliness. Its operators are like surgeons, always wearing gloves and caloons, they are forced to sleep in them so as not to stain her", — added the commander of the brigade of Ukrainian troops Jan Yatsychin"

'People Snatchers': Ukraine recruiters use harsh tactics to fill ranks --- The New York Times.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"Army recruiters are becoming increasingly aggressive... They take men from the streets and send them to conscription centres using intimidation and even physical force".
"The videos on which soldiers push people into the machines and keep men against their will in conscription points, are increasingly appearing in the Network and in local news"

A lair of Baba Yaga drones was taken out by Russian artillery once it was discovered by UAVs of the Seversk-V Brigade. This around the Artemovosk area.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Russian Army concentrated 80,000 troops in the Bakhmut direction --- press officer of the AFU 26th Brigade.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Russian forces are in full counterattack mode in the Rabotino Verbove sector, capturing positions piece by piece.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Listening devices found in the office of Zaluzhny --- RBC Ukraine

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

How Putin turned a Western Boycott into a Bonanza --- The New York Times.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Western companies that have left the market since the beginning of the SMO has lost over $103 billion. That's money that's not leaving Russia but instead is circulating in the economy.

Effectiveness of forcibly mobilized Ukrainians is almost zero, admits head of the GUR Budanov.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

SolarWarden

Junior Member
Registered Member
Ukraine doesn't need to "win" in the sense that they will decisively defeat the Russian army on the field and recapture all lost territory (not that they are capable now).

It only needs to make occupation so expensive for Russia that they no longer see holding on to Eastern Ukraine as being worth it, so far they are having a decent go at it. Russia has lost a brigade worth of armored vehicles at Avdiivka already, that does not sound sustainable at all.
Without some sort of control of the skies over the frontline it doesn't matter what both sides have when it comes to advanced/modern tanks and vehicles. Arty, mines and kamikaze drones will make short work of any offensive as we've seen from both sides. If Ukraine can't control the skies over the front with couple squadrons of F-16's with all the goodies supposedly NATO will give then the war is pretty much over and the current lines will stay the way they are for the foreseeable future. The F-16's are NATO's final play for Ukraine in 2024.

This war has shown how important air superiority is and Russia has totally blown it on this.

How different this war would be right now if Russian air to air missiles didn't have a huge fail rate against Brit ISR aircraft.
 

TK3600

Major
Registered Member
Without some sort of control of the skies over the frontline it doesn't matter what both sides have when it comes to advanced/modern tanks and vehicles. Arty, mines and kamikaze drones will make short work of any offensive as we've seen from both sides. If Ukraine can't control the skies over the front with couple squadrons of F-16's with all the goodies supposedly NATO will give then the war is pretty much over and the current lines will stay the way they are for the foreseeable future. The F-16's are NATO's final play for Ukraine in 2024.

This war has shown how important air superiority is and Russia has totally blown it on this.

How different this war would be right now if Russian air to air missiles didn't have a huge fail rate against Brit ISR aircraft.
Ukraine air defense went down, so ISR aircraft matters less now. Russia is dumping bombs normally now.

What Russia struggle with is drones. Those are the real intel wunderwaffe.
 
Top