The War in the Ukraine

A

Abominable

Major
Registered Member
Botnet said:
Idk why Putin insists on fighting this war with his hands ziptied to his legs. He seems to care more about domestic approval, when the direction of the entire country is resting on this campaign. Yet he can afford 50k troops to participate in Vostok 2022 instead of bolstering defenses. We can all see the result of that here. He wont strike Kyiv, I'm not sure if they even have the capability to strike bridges near the UA frontlines or the Dnieper anymore. It should be clear there's no way to win the war with current force dispositions, but no mobilization is underway yet... Frankly if Russia is struggling this hard against Ukraine, I wouldn't even want to imagine how'd they do against the US. Which reminds me, how did Russia not spot the buildup near Kharkiv? This wasn't a small-time, local counterattack. I wont even go into the performance of the RuAF.
Click to expand...
They obviously did spot the build up because they were able to withdraw.

Up until now all fronts have been effective stalemates. Russians weren't prepared to do what was necessary to end the war (mass destruction of Ukrainian forces and cities). The Ukrainians were too afraid to leave their cities.

This Ukrainian offensive reminds me of the Battle of the Bulge. A big German counter offensive against allied positions. The Allies withdrew until the Germans overextended and then they were attacked. It lead to the collapse of the Siegfried line. I'll give the Ukrainians some credit for changing the status quo, but it seems suicidal to me.
 
G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
BoraTas said:
Russia did. But the RuAF's air to ground capabilities are limited to very basic CAS. And Russian forces were heavily outnumbered even before the buildup.
Click to expand...
Bollocks. Russia can attack across the whole strategic depth of Ukraine and they cannot do the opposite.
US will now supposedly supply Ukraine with long range land strike missiles to replace the Tochkas they lost.
If they do that, and strike targets in the Russian Federation, then Russia might attack NATO back.

Russia has used cruise missile strikes all the way to the border with Poland. And they have used strategic bombing in places where they had air superiority like in Mariupol.

As for being outnumbered the difference in material covers that.
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
FriedButter said:
Wasn’t this offensive planned by NATO? If I remember that was what CNN said.
Click to expand...

That may be this offensive’s fundamental problem.

The battle plans drawn up by NATO ultimately serves the interests of NATO. It only benefits Ukraine up to the point NATO and Ukrainian interests align.

NATO countries would have went in thinking this was an opportunity to kneecap the Russian economy and force regime change of Putin from within as the Russian economy collapses like a house of cards under western super sanctions. Because even western politicians would not be delusional enough to think Ukraine can win this on the battlefield. All the military aid was only meant to buy enough time for sanctions to do the heavy lifting.

But as western nations face economic, industrial and social catastrophe with the rapid approach of winter while the Russian economy carries on as normal and feeling unexpectedly little impact from western nuclear-kitchen-sink sanctions attack, one wonders just how much value west leaders still holds in continuing this fight purely to kill more Russian soldiers. Because that’s all they are able to achieve at this point.

Politically it’s impossible to stop supporting the Ukrainians, so the only way NATO could end this war anytime soon is if Ukraine lost suddenly and comprehensively.

I have been puzzled by these recent Ukrainian offensives because one could hardly purposely design a better and faster way for them to loose this war. Maybe this isn’t a bug but a feature?
 
Skye_ZTZ_113

Skye_ZTZ_113

Junior Member
Registered Member
Abominable said:
This Ukrainian offensive reminds me of the Battle of the Bulge. A big German counter offensive against allied positions. The Allies withdrew until the Germans overextended and then they were attacked. It lead to the collapse of the Siegfried line. I'll give the Ukrainians some credit for changing the status quo, but it seems suicidal to me.
Click to expand...
I do concur. The Russians have been imho waiting for months for the AFU to give them an opportunity to destroy them en masse in the open. No more urban areas to mitigate Russian firepower and civilians caught in the crossfire (for whatever reason). Having turned time into a weapon against Ukraine (and the west) they've applied huge pressure on the Ukranian military to do something, anything. Tbh, even in the worst-case scenario where the Russians got caught with their pants down, and Western weapons again flood to Ukraine, this is still good for Russia. Weapons/money the West cannot afford to send and will only hurt them economically long term. Regardless, I can't shake the sense that this whole thing is a contingency trap either. Ice cold but letting the AFU pour in heavy gear and everything it has left in terms of skilled personnel into one big cauldron makes a lot of sense. In fact, the longer this goes on the better, on terrain that others here(?) have already noted as fields and the like. Let the propaganda flood out and the push rush headlong to their deaths. There is no risk of being able to dig in here in time. There's nowhere to go. I don't want to say the war could basically be over even in Ukranian minds if the trap was confirmed real and closed, but it might be enough to trigger a general collapse in morale I suspect.

plawolf said:
Politically it’s impossible to stop supporting the Ukrainians, so the only way NATO could end this war anytime soon is if Ukraine lost suddenly and comprehensively.

I have been puzzled by these recent Ukrainian offensives because one could hardly purposely design a better and faster way for them to loose this war. Maybe this isn’t a bug but a feature?
Click to expand...
I have been wondering how the EU would extricate itself from this mess. But this is callous on a level I would have thought impossible before the war. Then again, when the German Foreign Minister said that "Support for Ukraine will continue “no matter what voters think”...." I can believe it. Would be classic politics to vehemently declare one thing to avoid being suspected of doing the exact opposite. You might be onto something with that theory, guess we'll find out in the coming months.
 
Last edited:
T

tokenanalyst

Brigadier
Registered Member
BoraTas said:
At this phase I'd say the war is mostly in a stalemate.
Click to expand...
If the war is stalemate that means Russian forces are stuck where they are and don't want to put more resources into pushing deeper into Ukrainian territory. So why aren't the Ukrainians taking this opportunity to build their forces, train more recruits, and increase their weapons stockpile, so that in the event of a larger Russian offensive, they can at least stop it?
I understand cheering for the little guy against the big guy and I understand that a lot of people don't like the Russians. But I don't understand encouraging a strategy that, if it fails, will probably doom the Ukrainians. Maybe if the Ukrainian military was 10 times stronger than it is now, maybe but at the current rate they will burn through the 3 billion military aid in weeks.​
 
tankphobia

tankphobia

Senior Member
Registered Member
We're not even seeing that many ukrainian heavy vehicles...
plawolf said:
That may be this offensive’s fundamental problem.

The battle plans drawn up by NATO ultimately serves the interests of NATO. It only benefits Ukraine up to the point NATO and Ukrainian interests align.

NATO countries would have went in thinking this was an opportunity to kneecap the Russian economy and force regime change of Putin from within as the Russian economy collapses like a house of cards under western super sanctions. Because even western politicians would not be delusional enough to think Ukraine can win this on the battlefield. All the military aid was only meant to buy enough time for sanctions to do the heavy lifting.

But as western nations face economic, industrial and social catastrophe with the rapid approach of winter while the Russian economy carries on as normal and feeling unexpectedly little impact from western nuclear-kitchen-sink sanctions attack, one wonders just how much value west leaders still holds in continuing this fight purely to kill more Russian soldiers. Because that’s all they are able to achieve at this point.

Politically it’s impossible to stop supporting the Ukrainians, so the only way NATO could end this war anytime soon is if Ukraine lost suddenly and comprehensively.

I have been puzzled by these recent Ukrainian offensives because one could hardly purposely design a better and faster way for them to loose this war. Maybe this isn’t a bug but a feature?
Click to expand...
I mean how do you define losing? The previous Ukrainian strategy of holding ground is also losing but slowly, as seen currently Ukraine seem to excel at maneuver warfare (at least better than Russia), it is better for them to do aggressive offensives to regain the initiative rather than sit in their defenses to be bombarded to dust by the Russian artillery advantage. Before this offensive Russian losses were smallish due to the static frontlines, now we're really seeing the effect attrition has on Russian performance, Ukrainians are literally punching through the Kharkiv front with light vehicles like it was made of paper.
 
Maikeru

Maikeru

Major
Registered Member
P

pmc

Major
Registered Member
Botnet said:
Idk why Putin insists on fighting this war with his hands ziptied to his legs. He seems to care more about domestic approval, when the direction of the entire country is resting on this campaign. Yet he can afford 50k troops to participate in Vostok 2022 instead of bolstering defenses. We can all see the result of that here. He wont strike Kyiv, I'm not sure if they even have the capability to strike bridges near the UA frontlines or the Dnieper anymore. It should be clear there's no way to win the war with current force dispositions, but no mobilization is underway yet... Frankly if Russia is struggling this hard against Ukraine, I wouldn't even want to imagine how'd they do against the US. Which reminds me, how did Russia not spot the buildup near Kharkiv? This wasn't a small-time, local counterattack. I wont even go into the performance of the RuAF.
Click to expand...
I am not sure how you came to this conclusion.
It is the most effective air campaign in modern history. minimal pilot losses/captured relative to sorties this despite taking the riskiest low attitude flying in both fixed wing/choppers in post covid era. very high reliability of the systems and pilot training.
Russians sensors are getting trained on how to spot patterns of forces and equipment if it has fight Nato style training in hide and seek manners in forests and urban environment. There is more clear picture in Arabic media about performance of systems and developing new systems based on experience gain. infact latest systems like S350 and Pantsir SM2 i havent seen in Ukraine. so all these TB2 type drones/missiles are getting shot at with 25 years old technology. and without Israel help. I doubt Europe stand much chance.
 
A

Abominable

Major
Registered Member
gelgoog said:
Bollocks. Russia can attack across the whole strategic depth of Ukraine and they cannot do the opposite.
US will now supposedly supply Ukraine with long range land strike missiles to replace the Tochkas they lost.
If they do that, and strike targets in the Russian Federation, then Russia might attack NATO back.

Russia has used cruise missile strikes all the way to the border with Poland. And they have used strategic bombing in places where they had air superiority like in Mariupol.

As for being outnumbered the difference in material covers that.
Click to expand...
He has a point. Cruise missiles are not a cost effective way to destroy infrastructure in a country the size of Ukraine.

For mass destruction of railway and road infrastructure, factories and cities you need to use dumb bombs, firebombs, basically a massive amount of ordnance. The Ukrainians are shelling your cities, using cluster bombs and AP mines designed specifically to injure civilians. The response from Russia has been insufficient.
 
G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Abominable said:
For mass destruction of railway and road infrastructure, factories and cities you need to use dumb bombs, firebombs, basically a massive amount of ordnance. The Ukrainians are shelling your cities, using cluster bombs and AP mines designed specifically to injure civilians. The response from Russia has been insufficient.
Click to expand...
As if Russia did not have a strategic bomber force about the same size as the US. If they wanted to carpet bomb the shit out of Ukraine they could. Russia has 18x Tu-160, 63x Tu-22M3, 55x Tu-95MS. The US has 20x B-2, 62x B-1, 76x B-52. Russia can basically obliterate whole cities with conventional bombardment if they wanted to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top