The War in the Ukraine
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
It should be easier and easier to keep the Ukrainians supplied with ammo. From what I heard, at least eight of the 16 were already destroyed. The number destroyed maybe as high as ten. Plus there were rumors that the Russians 'bought' one of these units. Soon, they just need to supply ammo to one or two units that are still functioning.
Actually the greatest conquest of human history tells the opposite.
The Mongol conquest of China took 60 years, started by Gingis Khan and ended by Kublai Khan. Five Khagans. It was won by attrition as plan A. Nobody (both Mongols and oponents) ever believed that the superior Mongol cavory tactics would ever win a quick and decisive war in short time. The Mongols and later Yuan (Kblai) gradually absorded large number of Han Chinese, Jurchens and Kihtans from northern China in their army to grinded down its oponents one by one, started by Western Xia (22 years), then Jin (23 years), then Southern Song (44 years). South of the Great Wall most of the siege and naval wars are fought by non-Mongols. Without these new recruits, the Mongol cavories would be all dead in front of the city walls. What the Khans did was to defeat one oponent, recruit the surrendered troops, gather food supplies from the newly conqured land and move on to next oponent. This is typical of attrition, bleed the enemy while increase own strength, one bite after another.
ONLY in Europe, central and western Asia was Mongols lucky in successive quick and decisive victories due to the oponents' disunity and being unfamiliar with the nomadic tactic which every people in China are familiar with for more than 1000 years.
What I want to say is, there is no quick victory between two equal and determined peers, no tactical (trick) or weaponry advantage between these two can make it quick. Attrition is the ONLY means to reach the end.
Last edited:
@Mohsin77, Continue from #4,686
I am not saying the Russians intended this way from the begining, probably not. Russia probably wanted a quick attack on Kyiv to draw the Ukrainian troops in the east out of their fortifications to save Kyiv, then bomb them in the open. Ukraine did not take the bait. So Russia changed to attrition (phase II). Is that a mistake (one plan only)? Or just an attempt knowing it may not work (forseen)? I don't know. But I do know that war is a game of not only plan, but also opportunity. 孙子兵法，虚则实之，实则虚之。Sun Tzu: Make it real if it is fake, make it fake if it is real, It may look real but is fake, it may look fake but is real.
I am not saying the Russians intended this way from the begining, probably not. Russia probably wanted a quick attack on Kyiv to draw the Ukrainian troops in the east out of their fortifications to save Kyiv, then bomb them in the open. Ukraine did not take the bait. So Russia changed to attrition (phase II). Is that a mistake (one plan only)? Or just an attempt knowing it may not work (forseen)? I don't know. But I do know that war is a game of not only plan, but also opportunity. 孙子兵法，虚则实之，实则虚之。Sun Tzu: Make it real if it is fake, make it fake if it is real, It may look real but is fake, it may look fake but is real.
Clearly the fast dash around Kiev by Russia was an intend to make the regime collapse and throw his marbles to settle things fast without an extended war. It just didn't work and it have taken way to long for the Russian to realize that. They stuck themselves in the north, disoriented and loss face a bit while retreating. After that it's attrition warfare and they act like a slow artillery steamroller.
I've asked earlier in this thread, where does the 8 destroyed HIMARS figure come from? Last time I asked this question I received no reply and I think we're all better than "I've heard" as a source for these forums.
Russia and Ukraine are not "equals." On every metric, Russia is supposed to be superior to Ukraine. Plus, you replied to a post in which the 1870 War was being cited, so you already have an example of an actual peer war which was executed quickly and elegantly (and that's not the only example.)
As for the Mongols vs China, how are you possibly comparing China to Ukraine? The Mongols going up against China was a nomadic group going up against one of the strongest and largest superpowers on the planet. That's definitely not the case here. Russia is supposed to be the superpower here. Ukraine isn't even close to being one. Also, this analogy is simply unfair to the Mongols, considering their operational brilliance in the rest of Eurasia.
Last edited:
Someone got maps of movement of front lines over the last month?
Things seem to have shifted to low gear after Severodonesk.
Things seem to have shifted to low gear after Severodonesk.
The demographics problem you are talking about is affecting every single developed country in the world, so the problem is a relative one. Its actually much worse in eastern Europe thanks to the EU. Not only do they need to deal with low fertility rates but also mass emigration.
You're wrong about how armies are deployed in the Ukraine. Ukraine IS a big void. The border with Russia/Belarus isn't lined up with soldiers in trenches waiting for the Russians to turn up, that would be dumb. Most deployed soldiers are on or supporting the front line, the rest are garrisoned in various cities close to the fighting, Kharkov, Odessa etc.
Ukraine is a big country and the current frontline is massive, they don't have the luxury of leaving their most experienced soldiers in the west checking paperwork while conscripts are getting hammered.
I got it second hand from Alex Mercouris and Brian Berletic of the New Atlas. You can find both on their youtube channels.