Growing potatos and shooting 20 bullets from AK-47 doesn't equates as military training to me.
The War in the Ukraine
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
At least they tried but putting their remaining air asset in the air to shot some sam is risky too, the new bigger switchblade could be better at this than the haywire fitting of agm-88.
Going west past Odessa and north to Zaporizhzhia would be prime objectives , if they are able to land bridge all the way to Transnistria it would be enough to consolidate and hold ground.
Kiev is a long shot, it look like Belarus have catched some kind of coldfeet, i'm not sure if they will support an offensive with Poland boosting is weaponery and US troops building up slowly there.
Probably more. IMO 2 months if they want to have a semi-competent military ability
Yes they are reservists but if Russia wants to maximise their potential then 2 months would be enough. 1 month can work, but with more casualties and less combat ability.
They just don't have enough to cover ground... they have 200 000, more than half of these are probably just for units logistics. They have 1000 km front, it's 100 active soldiers to cover each km. Even 300 000 more is not a lot. When you rely on small rivers for fortifications it's a sign of not enough boots on the ground.
Can't they be trained in Ukraine as well? As long as they're only fighting in the least risky situations, it might be safe to send them in early
Take control of all Donbass, recapture parts of Kharkov lost, and secure the rest of the lines as they are presently constituted... They do not need 500,000 troops for that... But they certainly needs several tens of thousands of comprehensively equipped personnel to do that...
Beyond that I think.
We have seen time and time again that Russia has the fire power to blow the Ukrainian lines and defense fortifications wide open, but lack the manpower (or at least expendable manpower) to be able to move forward and rapidly and decisively exploit these opening and opportunities. This is why the progress in the Donbas has been so slow and tortuous, as the Russians it seems have largely waited until the Ukrainians have simply given up and retreated, before they are prepared to advance.
Where they have been prepared to pay the price, they have made impressive gains and advances, but they have been the exceptions, rather than the rule.
The Ukrainians have been the opposite, prepared to sacrifice as many men as it took to swarm and overwhelm Russian positions and force they to withdraw.
Clearly its not an untenable long term practice if Russia wants to win the war. It may have helped damage the professional Ukrainian army for relatively light cost, but it does not bring things to a rapid and desired close.
Hopefully, we are now seeing this position re balanced to one which is far more proactive.
Personally, I have doubts about whether RU army can effectively absorb the newly mobilized troops. Unless they can quickly and effectively raise a new officer and NCO corps to train, command, and control the mobilized troops, these newly mobilized men would probably be more trouble than they're worth.
Of course, there's another possible scenario: Those who died are mostly the enlisted, officers and NCOs came out mostly unscathed. Then in that case, as long as the newly mobilized troops have effective basic training, RU army can have relatively OK basic cannon fodders. Though RU army performance so far didn't exactly inspire confidence.
on Twitter explained it better, though he also has a pro-Ukraine view and put his belief in more absolute terms.
Of course, there's another possible scenario: Those who died are mostly the enlisted, officers and NCOs came out mostly unscathed. Then in that case, as long as the newly mobilized troops have effective basic training, RU army can have relatively OK basic cannon fodders. Though RU army performance so far didn't exactly inspire confidence.
on Twitter explained it better, though he also has a pro-Ukraine view and put his belief in more absolute terms.