They need to bring in more men yes. They use plenty of missiles, drone strikes, and air strikes. They also win more tactical battles, inflict greater casualties but the Ukrainians vastly outnumber them, at least over 20,000 near Lyman alone, and the Ukrainians could absorb the casualties. So even with tactical superiority, they lack numerical superiority. What I see they're doing is actually remarkable for their numbers, but it's time they need to go at it like the old Soviet Union. Right now the Russians are fighting this like the Americans in Vietnam War, counting a superior casualty ratio, doing all the bombing and air strikes, and winning tactical battles using superior firepower, but perhaps they need more boots on the ground like the way the Chinese Army did in Korea to force the US Army it's longest retreat or the Russians risk losing it like the US did in Vietnam or forced into a stalemate like in Korea. Right now it seems like the Russians are fighting like the Americans and the Ukrainians are fighting like the Chinese Army in Korea.
The War in the Ukraine
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
They need to bring in more men yes. They use plenty of missiles, drone strikes, and air strikes. They also win more tactical battles, inflict greater casualties but the Ukrainians vastly outnumber them, at least over 20,000 near Lyman alone, and the Ukrainians could absorb the casualties. So even with tactical superiority, they lack numerical superiority. What I see they're doing is actually remarkable for their numbers, but it's time they need to go at it like the old Soviet Union. Right now the Russians are fighting this like the Americans in Vietnam War, counting a superior casualty ratio, doing all the bombing and air strikes, and winning tactical battles using superior firepower, but perhaps they need more boots on the ground like the way the Chinese Army did in Korea to force the US Army it's longest retreat or the Russians risk losing it like the US did in Vietnam or forced into a stalemate like in Korea. Right now it seems like the Russians are fighting like the Americans and the Ukrainians are fighting like the Chinese Army in Korea.
Train with engineering equipment on the way to Kherson, uploaded a few hours ago but no confirmation of date
Another train loaded with MT-LB, BMP-1/2 and (I guess) T-80's on what seems to be the crimean bridge
Around 22 T-72A/B's allegedly on the way to UVZ to be refurbished/modernized. No idea on date or location
Another train loaded with MT-LB, BMP-1/2 and (I guess) T-80's on what seems to be the crimean bridge
Around 22 T-72A/B's allegedly on the way to UVZ to be refurbished/modernized. No idea on date or location
Last edited:
But IMHO what the russians has been doing is working. It is a marathon not a sprint race. They could have steamrolled Ukraine but this would have brought a tactical victory best. This method would end up ukraine becoming a norhern syria or nothern iraq style swamp spewing forth vermin and disease, which will drain russia's resources for years to come and provide a lever to NATO to influence politics within russia. Tactical victory for you but strategic win for NATO. We fell to he same trap, thought we could end the fight militarily. We killed PKK twice (thrice if you count ASALA) and they resurrected it each time enlarging its scope and influence. we are still swatting the flies but the swamp still remains.
Decisive front of this war is not ukraine. Ukraine is a failed state run by a foreign funded militia whose members' main motivations are greed and lust for power; on this we all agree I think. It can not take any important decisions by itself, we saw that during peace negotiations. It will do anything to keep the means of satisfaction flowing in, i.e. money and armaments; thus will abide to the decisions of the providers no matter what. Course of this war revealed that providers are in for profit -no top of the line equipment, emphasis of plausible deniability, no direct commitment-; it is not a jihad. So the strategy is clear; render the tool impotent to reduce losses; escalate cost of engagement for the providers so high that they will abandon the tool and will not interfere when swamp is drained; make an example from the abandoned tool so than nobody else will take its place.
There are some ebbs as well as flows in the implementation but I don't see anything derailing.
50k is worse than I thought. I imagined somewhere between 80,000 to 1000,000 troops operating in Ukraine, but if it's true this numerical amount of Russian troops in Ukraine makes sense to see all this Ukrainian advance in Kharkiv/Donbas.
But there is some reason to believe this, Russian propagandists will claim that Russia is not using the same numerical amount as in the first few months of the war, retaining units in Russia while Ukrainian propagandists will say that the Russians are running low manpower because of the losses, some even believe that the Russians lost 200,000 soldiers between dead and wounded, all this leads to the reason why Putin decreed the mobilization.
As said just above, the war seems to be starting now.
First one looks like the same video from this.
Except it says Ukrainians failed in their attack.
This thinking is archaic.
It doesn't matter how far a country is from its theater of operations, what matters is the logistics of forces involved in the surroundings of that theater.
Wouldn't be the first time Ukraine uses images and videos of their own losses to claim they are Russian.
They did the same during the initial tank vs tank engagements at the start of the war, including the one where a AFU T-64 got blown up while refueling in the middle of a street.
What seems to be factory fresh T-80BVM's being delivered
Considering that only a decade or so ago, T-80's were meant to be retired in general(save for Arctic duty), as the T-72's and T-90's were to become the mainstay of the army's MBT, I'm surprised how many of them are still operative and getting to the front faster than the T-72's.
Last edited:
Well that would be implying that the US had equivalent or better logistics half way around the globe than Russia does on its own border.
Absolutely right.
They would have the same if there's a land border where they can build up unlimited because that country allows them to be there. Which there was. It doesn't matter how far from the capital it is, what matters is if there's land to put and prepare troops on without them being striked.
In some cases like Serbia, US had de facto control over territory completely surrounding the other country, which is more control than what Russia has around Ukraine.