solarz
Brigadier
Russia has annexed four strategically vital Ukrainian oblasts, and Ukraine is throwing everything they have at Russia trying to dislodge them.
Sounds to me you are the one desperate to convince others of something.
The War in the Ukraine
- Thread starter SampanViking
- Start date
Russia has annexed four strategically vital Ukrainian oblasts, and Ukraine is throwing everything they have at Russia trying to dislodge them.
Sounds to me you are the one desperate to convince others of something.
Well is Russia significantly better off as a result of the current invasion? I would say your position has merit if that was the case. Russian position on the world pecking order was largely due to its imagery as a military power house, after showing most of its cards in Ukraine, that illusion is now shattered. Some land that will sustain low level insurgency for years to come will not make up for permanent loss of prestige that the Russian military took.
You're looking at this from a purely territorial perspective, after this conflict Russia has:
- isolated itself from the West/EU, now it has no choice but to partner with China forever
- Have NATO pretty much against its entire western border
- No end in sight for western sanctions for anything other than resources
- Spending an absurd amount of resources on what was a cheap frozen conflict that they could've continued indefinitely
- Loss of military prestige/power that will take decades to rebuild.
Even if the Eastern Ukrainian territory they captured was resource and industry rich, it would STILL take decades to recoup what blood and treasure it did cost Russia, I just don't see how Russia came out on top even if Ukraine turn tails and run right at this moment and Russia holds the current lines forever. The geopolitical results so far are dire for Russia，there is no other way to put it.
solarz
Brigadier
It was never Russian tanks that the US feared, it was Russian nukes.
No it would be like China invading Kazakhstan if Kazakhstan's population was close to 500 million people. Indonesian population is far smaller to be right in this analogy but it is also an entire ocean away and across many, many other adjacent nations away. Ukraine is right next to Russia and Belarus.
Ukraine is not Russia's near peer in too many ways. Russia is considerably larger, has a MIC whereas Ukraine's have dissolved far more than RF's post USSR. Russia is considerably wealthy per capita and nominally. Ukraine's formal military has been countered by Russia. What remain as problems for Russia is fairly effective western support. Even then, western support is simply not extensive as it could be.
solarz
Brigadier
The Russian invasion of Ukraine was a historically pivotal moment, and Russia is undergoing a massive transition.
Apparently we're not supposed to talk economy of politics here, so let me just say that unless Ukraine manages to push Russia out of all four of the oblasts they just annexed, Russia's strategic position is going to be much better than it was going into the war.
For all the things that we are (rightfully) criticizing Russia for. The reality still is that they are doing something to correct their mistakes that is the mobilization of 300k soldiers. Once this additional force of 300k soldiers are sent to Ukraine there will definitely be a major difference on the ground.
However it will take time to prepare these soldiers, during this time the Russians will definitely lose more land, their current objective is to minimize their losses.
Once the 300k soldiers are in Ukraine they will give Russia a second chance at this war. The Russian leadership has no right to waste this chance. if the war turns to a stalemate again after a month from the time the extra soldiers are sent then this time Russia has to act fast by mobilising an additional 200k-400k soldiers and not wait 6 months like they did the last time since the training itself would take few months.
they will have to do war the right way. when you attack a city you don't do it by sending the soldiers to attack the enemy head on. a soldier's job isn't to go have a shoot out with the enemy till he wins. killing enemy soldiers is the job of the artillery and the airforce. The only thing the soldiers have to do is go in there and kill or capture who ever it is that managed to survive the carpet bombing. they should leave just one direction of the city away from the frontline that is open and not being bombed to allow the civilians and the retreating enemy soldiers to escape through it, that is what the Syrian army used to do to allow civilians to escape. And if the AFU chooses to stay and not retreat and prevents the civilians from escaping and instead chooses to go down alongside them in a blaze of glory then so be it, Russia should not hold back especially against central and western Ukraine, the only place in which there could be a case for not carpet bombing everything is in Khakov and Odessa.
However it will take time to prepare these soldiers, during this time the Russians will definitely lose more land, their current objective is to minimize their losses.
Once the 300k soldiers are in Ukraine they will give Russia a second chance at this war. The Russian leadership has no right to waste this chance. if the war turns to a stalemate again after a month from the time the extra soldiers are sent then this time Russia has to act fast by mobilising an additional 200k-400k soldiers and not wait 6 months like they did the last time since the training itself would take few months.
they will have to do war the right way. when you attack a city you don't do it by sending the soldiers to attack the enemy head on. a soldier's job isn't to go have a shoot out with the enemy till he wins. killing enemy soldiers is the job of the artillery and the airforce. The only thing the soldiers have to do is go in there and kill or capture who ever it is that managed to survive the carpet bombing. they should leave just one direction of the city away from the frontline that is open and not being bombed to allow the civilians and the retreating enemy soldiers to escape through it, that is what the Syrian army used to do to allow civilians to escape. And if the AFU chooses to stay and not retreat and prevents the civilians from escaping and instead chooses to go down alongside them in a blaze of glory then so be it, Russia should not hold back especially against central and western Ukraine, the only place in which there could be a case for not carpet bombing everything is in Khakov and Odessa.
Positives for Russia: their shooter platforms and munitions are actually very good, so their firepower is sufficient to suppress Ukrainian forces and take out strong points.
Negatives for Russia: their ISR is so bad as to render their excellent shooter platforms mediocre in end effect.
Earlier on in this war a lot of people (including myself) were expecting Ukraine would run out fuel and supplies because of the constant barrage of missiles on those targets.
However, it's clear Ukraine still has more than enough to conduct the recent offensives. I suppose Ukraine is getting their fuel supplies as well from the West? What's baffling is Russia seems to have slacked off a lot going after these targets, and are not attacking the transit points in Western Ukraine at all.
Now onto Ukraine, I hate to say a single weapon changed the conflict but it does seem like ever since Ukraine got HIMARS it's been Russia reacting to Ukrainian initiative. With the big help of NATO ISR and pro-Ukraine locals given intel on the ground, HIMARS has basically turned into a very effective strategic weapon systematically destroying the Russian munition depots, command posts, etc. It's range is not that impressive for us who are familiar with PLA systems or even the Russian Tornado-S, but it's accuracy + mobility (shoot and scoot it's full salvo of 6 in under a minute) is very troublesome for Russia who is lacking in UCAVs and lacking full control of Ukrainian skies. HIMARS will continue to be a big problem now that the US is equipping Ukraine with not just the M31, but also the M30A1 tungsten alloy airburst type warhead which Ukraine purportedly used against the Russians at Lyman. In the future it could be equipped with even longer ranged guided rockets.
What Russia needs is to disrupt logistics, just as the Ukrainians are attempting to by attacking the Crimean bridge. Perhaps even an incursion from Belarus into Western Ukraine as a distraction. Slowing Ukraine's momentum for Russia should be a priority but for some reason Russia is really passive. It may be that a lot of their warplanes are worn out by now and also because Ukraine's AD is still strong. But if they can't do it by air or if they're tight on cruise missiles, there's other options like sabotage which we don't really see happening either. Perhaps Ukraine's SBU is really good at countering this. Russia can also try launching massed Shahed-136s from Belarus.
The 25k Russian troops west of Kherson are most likely quite worn out from fighting in outnumbered situations constantly, and the difficult logistics situation with the bottlenecks at the Dnieper crossings. If Ukraine masses enough forces and achieves another breakthrough, those 25k will be in serious danger of being unable to retreat. These are also some of the better Russian troops, so to lose them would be a decisive blow imo. As embarrassing and painful as it is to consider for Russia, from a military standpoint they may want to seriously consider leaving Kherson and pre-emptively withdrawing east of the Dnieper.
However, it's clear Ukraine still has more than enough to conduct the recent offensives. I suppose Ukraine is getting their fuel supplies as well from the West? What's baffling is Russia seems to have slacked off a lot going after these targets, and are not attacking the transit points in Western Ukraine at all.
Now onto Ukraine, I hate to say a single weapon changed the conflict but it does seem like ever since Ukraine got HIMARS it's been Russia reacting to Ukrainian initiative. With the big help of NATO ISR and pro-Ukraine locals given intel on the ground, HIMARS has basically turned into a very effective strategic weapon systematically destroying the Russian munition depots, command posts, etc. It's range is not that impressive for us who are familiar with PLA systems or even the Russian Tornado-S, but it's accuracy + mobility (shoot and scoot it's full salvo of 6 in under a minute) is very troublesome for Russia who is lacking in UCAVs and lacking full control of Ukrainian skies. HIMARS will continue to be a big problem now that the US is equipping Ukraine with not just the M31, but also the M30A1 tungsten alloy airburst type warhead which Ukraine purportedly used against the Russians at Lyman. In the future it could be equipped with even longer ranged guided rockets.
What Russia needs is to disrupt logistics, just as the Ukrainians are attempting to by attacking the Crimean bridge. Perhaps even an incursion from Belarus into Western Ukraine as a distraction. Slowing Ukraine's momentum for Russia should be a priority but for some reason Russia is really passive. It may be that a lot of their warplanes are worn out by now and also because Ukraine's AD is still strong. But if they can't do it by air or if they're tight on cruise missiles, there's other options like sabotage which we don't really see happening either. Perhaps Ukraine's SBU is really good at countering this. Russia can also try launching massed Shahed-136s from Belarus.
The 25k Russian troops west of Kherson are most likely quite worn out from fighting in outnumbered situations constantly, and the difficult logistics situation with the bottlenecks at the Dnieper crossings. If Ukraine masses enough forces and achieves another breakthrough, those 25k will be in serious danger of being unable to retreat. These are also some of the better Russian troops, so to lose them would be a decisive blow imo. As embarrassing and painful as it is to consider for Russia, from a military standpoint they may want to seriously consider leaving Kherson and pre-emptively withdrawing east of the Dnieper.
Important points:
1. this bridge has conformal thickness across all span element , due to the manufacturing method. Means if shearing method used on the bridge, chiping away/cutting thorught materials then the MIDDLE of the span could be targeted (like with in the case of the Kherson bridge) rather the point close to the column .
removing material from the middle (approx) proportianly decrease the strength of the confromal girder element, the part close to the column in this case will hold the bridge until the shear stress smaller than the maximum allowed, and the later require magnitude less material than the related tension stress.
2. Visibly the explosion pushed down the bridge element, like a giant finger, the superstructure buckled down, NO sheared .
on the full picture it is visible the superstructure at the -1 column moved horizontaly, as the road surface was pressed down, the length stayed the same, so the segment of the road moved toward the explosion point by a meter. The surface between column 2-3 moved down due to the blast wave, buckled down into the water, pulled up the C1-C2 segment, that lost its rigidity, and collapsed the water afterwards.
The position of the explosion was irrelevant, because the blast wave did the job, not the shearing.
Attachments
-
c3_.jpg
In fact, mobilization is imo the "easy" part.
I am more concerned about the extra logistics required required to support all these troops.
Also, Russia should definitely train them well and not rush them to the front lInes otherwise their casualties will multiply
I think the best course of action is to put these reservists as a garrison force, logistic force, and maybe put them in the front lines at some areas where there is little fighting with Ukrainians.
The freed up professional troops should then be used exclusively on offensive operations, on the front-lines, or to get rotated effectively in order to not lose combat effectiveness