The War in the Ukraine

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
A few square kilometers here and there don't matter, what Russia is after is the destruction of the Ukrainian state.
A few square of kilometers on the other side of a major river, sure matter. I am sure you realise the difference between land in a middle of nowhere and what's happening now.

After all, without a foothold on the other side how can Russia stop Ukraine from randomly shelling them. They need to destroy Ukraine as a country for them to get out of this now

They're already radicalized and their hatred is at maximum. Ten times maximum isn't any more maximum. Ukrainians hated Russia before, they'll hate it cold and hungry now.
Previous hatred was nothing. I am talking about a Ukraine that is preparing for the next 10 years for a real war with all their strength, with all their economic strength committed to it.

The post-2014 Ukraine was preparing but with a lot less resources invested and with much less knowledge that there would 100% be a war (at least for their general population).
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Lot of copium today. Just take a breath and relax. At least you aren't the poor Russian soldier who is being played like a puppet by his superiors. How much blood and lives has Russia shed for Kherson? All of this, for nothing.

This is a strategic retreat. Once Russia retreats to the other side of the river, its chances of regaining back that lost land is almost nil. A fine mess indeed, made by the you-know-who guy.

Their population would be about 10x times more radicalised and about 10x more committed to killing Russians.

Hate is a powerful thing, I wouldn't underestimate it if I was you. I would much rather face a "strong" but peaceful Ukraine than a hateful and radicalised poor Ukraine
They already hate Russia as much as possible so might as well reduce their economy to make translation of hate into results harder.

A hateful radicalized Ukraine is going to get no FDI, be a permanent aid drain, and a permanent source of instability in Europe. Their economy was on life support even prewar, and losing 10 million refugees + 40% generation capability and rising doesn't help.
 

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
They already hate Russia as much as possible so might as well reduce their economy to make translation of hate into results harder.
I don't disagree. Although I would prefer that Russia go and eat all of Ukraine (or at least its eastern and southern parts)


A hateful radicalized Ukraine is going to get no FDI, be a permanent aid drain, and a permanent source of instability in Europe. Their economy was on life support even prewar, and losing 10 million refugees + 40% generation capability and rising doesn't help.
Agreed. Something akin to the Sino-Vietnamese war then. Doesn't sound too bad if Russia hadn't invested so much in this war and suffered so much economic damage.

Well we will see if it was worth it. China succeeded, will Russia succeed on its aims? I am sceptical
 

RedMetalSeadramon

Junior Member
Registered Member
10 bridges? Have you seen the width of the channel? For the number you mentioned, at least something like +30 engineering vehicles are needed just to keep the 5 floating bridges operational, not to mention the vehicles needed to support the 5 backup bridges and the other 5 bridges in reserve, considering the length of the MTU-72(MLC-50).
Mobile bridge vehicles are offensive, we are talking about defensive. They dont need those specialized vehicles, just set the sections and anchor them as appropriate, anchor them to the existing bridge pier (which is what they eventually did). You dont even really need floating sections, Just start sinking concrete caissons as piers for the shallow depths and use floating sections in the middle. When you are on the defensive and had over 6 month these are options that should have been tried within weeks.

Another thing, how will they assume a defensive posture to maintain positions on the right bank with only a limited beachhead in Kherson and with much lower numbers in addition to being under pressure against the Ukrainian advance? If the Russians still had the bridges intact, not depending on engineering vehicles and far from the range of AFU artillery and also Ukrainian air power, it would make sense to do that and you would be right.

You're acting like this is Anzio, the Russians had 40km to the river in most places and the beachhead wouldnt be so limited if they had extra bridges and backup bridges. This is complicity and incompetence

The Russians did not create a defensive posture to maintain positions on Kherson. This is not a defensive posture to maintain positions in order to reinforce the fronts, but to create a defensive retrograde posture. On Telegram, it's pretty clear that if they could, they could maintain this position on the right bank, but with limited supplies leading to heavy casualties, which is quite believable.

The delaying action is conducted to exchange space for time. Thus, it is carried out in such a way as to allow the majority of troops to retreat in an orderly and rapid manner through the watercourse.

There isnt a delaying action, this is just them leaving. Ukrainian would be forced to fight in urban Kherson, the best terrain for a defender if this is a delaying action.

Trading space for time is just that, a trade. Forcing Ukrainians to 3v1 a defensive position is a good trade, forcing them to spend 130k missiles on a 12k pontoon section is a good trade, downing a SU24 and losing one bridge-layer destroyed is a good trade. Leaving the entire western bank is not a good trade.
 

Anlsvrthng

Captain
Registered Member
Their population would be about 10x times more radicalised and about 10x more committed to killing Russians.

Hate is a powerful thing, I wouldn't underestimate it if I was you. I would much rather face a "strong" but peaceful Ukraine than a hateful and radicalised poor Ukraine
Wow, so Ukraine will pack "Russia HATE" into boxes, and sell it for food and firewood?

Interesting idea.

Anyway, at the moment the only thing that keep them allive, and let them to do real "HATE" is the money fromthe USA.

As soon as it gone the only thing that left will be love for Russia, because, suprise suprise, Russia is a neighborught country, and the USA 10 000 km away.

This whole hate is a quid pro quid, the Ukrainan warlords receiving the money, and making lot of Russian "hate" on order.
 

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
Wow, so Ukraine will pack "Russia HATE" into boxes, and sell it for food and firewood?

Interesting idea.

Anyway, at the moment the only thing that keep them allive, and let them to do real "HATE" is the money fromthe USA.

As soon as it gone the only thing that left will be love for Russia, because, suprise suprise, Russia is a neighborught country, and the USA 10 000 km away.

This whole hate is a quid pro quid, the Ukrainan warlords receiving the money, and making lot of Russian "hate" on order.
My concern is more about Ukraine becoming another Israel. Amidst a war, Ukraine can't properly reorganise and rebuilt itself.

This transition can only happen at peacetime, which is why I am saying that Russia should be extremely careful on when and on what conditions it stops the war. One misstep and next thing you know in 2030 you are facing a poorer Ukraine but a much stronger and militarized Ukraine.
 
Last edited:

abc123

Junior Member
Registered Member
Russia cannot politically afford mass casualties. Ukraine can;
And why is that? Why the Russian citizens don't want to fight as hard like they did in WW2? Why Ukraineans are willing to fight to the last in Azovstahl, and Russians will not do so in Kherson?
 

abc123

Junior Member
Registered Member
I realized that the Russian military almost looks like a European military from the times before European kings managed to assert their authority over regional lords. Before then kings had a little part of their country under their direct control. Even though they were the sovereigns of the other parts of their countries, they weren't actually managing the lands. When they needed soldiers, most of the army was mobilized, sent and, sometimes, even led by the local lords and nobilities. To give a popular culture reference to describe how armies were raised, think of the Seven Kingdoms from the Game of Thrones.
The concentration of martial power under central governments happened mostly after the Thirty Years' War and then the French Revolution. Nowadays, almost every national government holds a monopoly over martial power and has a standing national military. That national military commands a vast majority of the country's martial power. You don't see modern nations clumping together a lot of different regional armed organizations to wage war.

Now let's look at the Russian forces in Ukraine:
- Russian Armed Forces. The standing national military of Russia.
- Rosgvardiya. It is like a gendarmerie but is uniquely independent of the national military and ministries. It is effectively a second military.
- LPR and DNR armies. The militaries of recently annexed de-facto republics. Separate from the Russian Armed Forces.
- Various police forces from Russia. I have no idea who is commanding them.
- Militias from various parts of Ukraine. Again, I have no idea who is commanding them.
- Chechen forces. Another military force from Russia that is independent from the Russian national military. But this time, it is raised, trained, and commanded by a local governor.
- Wagner and a lot of other mercenaries. Largely independent from the Russian Armed Forces.

Russophiles here, I am sorry but this is not how a modern nation wages war. This is a widely inefficient organization. It makes coordinated action and uniformity impossible. This is how military forces looked until the late-1700s. I am not sure how Russian Federation ended up like this. The results are easily observable, though.
This.
I wanted to say the same thing for a long time. Kadyrov is the best example of that. Now, how Russia backslided into quasi-feudalism, that's interesting phenomenon.
 
Top