The War in the Ukraine

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
This operation is one big major cluster f..k from the way it's looking so far, militarily. The Russians were or are either too arrogant and dismissive of the Ukrainian capabilities (fighting prowess), staying power, and will to fight to the last Russian which is why they're not increasing the numbers of troops needed to pacify their area of responsibility (occupied territories) and mount a formidable defense against any counter offensive from the Ukrainian side. From what I have read, typically, the defending army has an advantage over the attackers provided they defenders have ample manpower, ammunition, food etc...it's getting clear that Russian military and her allies are fat too stretched thin and spread out allowing the Ukrainians aided by U.S. led NATO to exploit the many holes into the Russian held territories that experienced the Ukrainian counter attacked that's looking to be successful.

Face with this yet again tactical losses and a boon for Ukrainian military not to mention a boost of propaganda for many western government leaders worried about their own standings with their increasingly restless public due to inflationary hikes, and energy spikes can now at least show their respective citizens that Russian defeat in Ukraine is more than possible, and the money provided to the Ukrainians have proven their worth which may or may not ameliorate the West's public itchiness against this war.

Russian leadership and especially Putin needs to be shaken up to wake him up from his daydream of which I have yet to know and find out. The prestige of Russian military has been slowly but surely being eroded to the point of mockery and this is something he can't and should not afford to lose since it's one of Russia's core calling cards against any military would be opponents. Not to mention the fact that some of Russia's core allies military leadership are beginning if not begun to question Russian training, weapon effectiveness etc..like some retired general officers in India and maybe even inside the PLA. Thar could spell trouble for the Russians because any further loss of prestige from their military would just emboldened some countries in Central Asia who wish or are inkling to carve a path that's not too beholden of Russian influence or machinations. Then the Russian fear and concerns of China's further encroachment to their old sphere of influence of countries will all but definitely be tilting towards the Chinese.

Russian dominance in energy commodities is what's keeping them in the current game at the costs of their overall strategic significance in their own region and the world. What awaits Russian industries in terms of domestically led companies meeting Russian needs in electronics, automotive, even their military industrial capacity looks like it's struggling to produce their T-14 Armata their supposed F-35 killer SU-57 etc...Sooner or later the Ruskies will realize that the only thing that's keeping them from being overrun by her many enemies is their bazillion NUKES other than that nothing else.

Crimea takeover was easy as putting boots on the ground and planting flags. Of course they'd be cocky.
 

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Ukraine in this operation is resorting to equipment they got from NATO. This includes the 300x T-72M1 tanks, and other vehicles.
In addition there are multiple reports of foreign forces from NATO countries in the pushes near Kherson and Kharkov.

I think it is pretty fair to say that Russia at this point broke the equipment of Ukraine armed forces otherwise they would not be resorting to tanks which are worse than the T-64 mod. 2017 they already had. The T-72M1 does not have modern optics or armor. It is on the level of a 1980s export T-72 with first generation ERA bricks.

The question is does Russia escalate as well or not. Does Russia just allow NATO to continue to supply Ukraine like this or not?
 

Atomicfrog

Major
Registered Member
Going to be interested to see how well the IRIS-T SLM will do in Ukraine, which are supposed to arrive this month.
They will do less than if they had received a system that they know how to use already... would have been better to send them some old buk launchers and missiles.
 

Pmichael

Junior Member
They will do less than if they had received a system that they know how to use already... would have been better to send them some old buk launchers and missiles.

Ukraine has proven they can put NATO equipment into action quite efficiently. And the IRIS-T with its outstanding agility and it's LOAL capability including using GPS data should be a massive step above the old Soviet/Russian missile families.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
I think there is a miss here a bit, so if I may:

Ukraine has always been personnel heavy, but equipment light. They have a LOT of people, but not enough tanks, APCs, machine guns, etc. We have all seen the pictures of Maxim machine guns (!!!) being used by the Ukrainians. If the West resupplies the equipment, the Ukrainians will have the bodies. Those bodies will have been trained as proper troops: we are nearing 7 months of war and not all of the volunteers for the war were moved to the front. There is plenty of evidence the Ukrainians are also rotating troops back and those can be used to train others. The Ukrainian government will have time to train their troops now as Russia is unable to amount major offensives without full mobilization.

I suspect for political reasons full mobilization is not doable. However, I could be wrong. I have been before and will be again.

They are still light on artillery compared to Russians. The difference is still very large. And more importantly, you can recruit as many people as you want as cannon fodders, but that's not going to work very well with modern weapons. Ukraine may claim it has 1 million soldiers, but the real number that can use modern weapons is going to be a fraction of that.

It's clear on the Russian side, LPR/DPR conscripts are not the same quality as Chechens or the more experienced Russian troops. Just handing people a gun and sending them out on the battle field doesn't work anymore. similarly, if Ukrainians are sending its elite troops to lead the charge (I don't know if they are) in Kherson and lost a bunch of them, that would be a big deal.

Perhaps. There is a case for that scenario. I think we need more information. That will probably come in the form of what happens next in Kharkov and Lugansk.

IFF (computer nerd time), the Ukrainian reports are true, it's quite possible the Ukrainians will blitz again somewhere else (perhaps even over the Oskii into Lugansk) and the Russians will be unable to defend. If the Russian withdrawal is true, then the Ukrainians will be unable to do so.

OTOH, it should be noted the Ukrainians did attack Pisky at the same time and that attack failed.

OTGH, we're just going to have to wait and see.

This war should have been over months ago. The Russians ought to have crushed the Ukrainians like a bug. The Russians did not. The how and why and what are going to be studied to no end in the future, both with data and bombastic navel gazing. Time may make it clearer what has happened, but if the Russians are unable to defend more than one front, we are seeing a massive degradation of the Russian army force in Ukraine. If that is truly the case, unless Russia fully mobilizes, the Ukrainians are going to bleed out the Russians faster than the Russians will bleed out the Ukrainians.

People here keep misunderstanding the Ukrainians, their rage and their determination.
Why are you still on this "Russians ought to have crushed Ukrainians like a bug" nonsense? Seriously. Russians are what they are. I think we've followed this conflict long enough to know what they are. There will obviously be opportunities for Ukrainians as long as Russian occupies a larger territory with fewer troops. If you can get past this pre-conceived notion of what Russia should be, then their current performance is basically at where we have observed for a while now.

I'm not going to make prognostications on what will happen for the rest of this war. But to me, this particular battle is a case where Ukrainians caught Russians off guard in 1 location because it was not taking things seriously. Based on what we've seen, the Russians will adjust. And the Ukranians will adjust after that. I don't see this battle actually fundamentally change anything because the Russian combat strength didn't seem to decrease. They didn't lose any land that's easily defendable.

To me, this entire victory is more PR than anything else. Maybe this will force Russians military to do some attacks. I don't know.

I'm going to take it easy now. I just want to point out how ridiculous some of this hyperventilating has been.
 

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
Not to mention the fact that some of Russia's core allies military leadership are beginning if not begun to question Russian training, weapon effectiveness etc..like some retired general officers in India and maybe even inside the PLA.
I have read that the PLA had long ago started questioning the state of the Russian military (although I am sure that even they are surprised by their performance in this war)

@siegecrossbow probably knows more about the PLA's assesment of the Russian military
 
Last edited:

Pmichael

Junior Member
Russia will thunder back. What we are seeing is text book Russian war. They almost always lost battles at beginning and then come back. All these recent "wins" by Ukraine/NATO will further solidify Russian resolve. I bet 6 months ago when a deal reached in Istanbul (later torpedoed by boris) they were not asking for Kherson, Karkov, Odesa etc... Now, they will.

That's quite the uniqueview but in reality we are seeing a textbook example of Clausewitz' famous culminating point. Historians will decide if the culminating point was the failure of taking Kyiv or the lack of advancement through the Summer months.
 
Top