Ukrainian War Developments

Status
Not open for further replies.

Phead128

Captain
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Any idea of a negotiated settlement to this conflict seems absurd at the moment.

If Ukrainian guarantees meant anything to Russia, things would not have escalated to this point.
Agreed. The rabidly anti-Russia regime in Kiev must be eliminated once and for all. Leaving it intact is a major strategic mistake. A paper promise is as good as toilet paper if not reinforced by continued military presence or force, since the rabidly anti-Russian regime will salami-slice violate the terms of agreement after Russia unilaterally withdraws.
Russia has already taken the brunt of all likely economic damage, so there is no reason for them to stop short of their goal since the damage has already been done even if sanctions are lifted tomorrow.
1000% agree. These sanctions won't be lifted for a long long time. Might as well go all-out given the sunk costs.
While the west is focusing all on the media perception war, the realities on the ground is that the Russians are winning.

For sure they are making a mess of it and taking needlessly heavy losses, but those are just cosmetic blemishes. On the grand macro strategic level, it’s all going one way.

The big tactical and strategic shift by the Russians is to slow down and advance more slowly but methodically rather than trying to do thunder runs.
Yep, Russia is going to win. It's a matter of time. It will be costly in economics and human terms, but Russia is still going to win militarily.
I think the main reasons for this shift are threefold.

First and most importantly, NATO has proven to be an even bigger paper tiger than Putin could have hoped for in his wildest dreams.

The primary reason for the initial mad dashes by the Russians were their fear of NATO boots on the ground.

Had NATO had the balls to send troops in to physically block the Russian advances, I think Putin would have backed down rather than order his troops to open fire on NATO soldiers in Ukraine.

Thus the opening strategic imperative was to rush, at all costs, to key strategic crossroads and core objectives to secure them as backstops against such a NATO move. That would have allowed Putin to secure enough of Ukraine to achieve the minimum acceptable strategic outcome from the war to avoid needing to fight NATO directly to avoid a net strategic defeat, as just grabbing a few miles of Ukrainian territory would not have been worth the massive economic and diplomatic costs of the invasion.

With NATO categorically ruling out such an intervention, that risk failed to materialise, so the primary need for haste is gone. Thus the Russians can afford to take their time and go about this campaign in a more traditional and safe manner.
But why did US say in December 2021 and early February 2022 before the invasion that US will not send any troops to defend Ukraine? Ukraine is a non-NATO member and Biden said there is no chance of US intervention to defend Ukraine.

December 2021:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Early February 2022:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
The second reason for the initial overreach was a combination of over-estimation of Russian military capabilities and underestimating of Ukrainian capabilities and will to fight based on 2014 results.

The Ukrainians learnt from those painful lessons to not try to fight the Russians in open field traditional battles; while the Russians learnt the wrong lessons and took their very successful BTG formula and watered it down to the point of uselessness in order to apply it across the board to save money and time instead of investing to upgrade all their units up to true BTG standard properly.

That failure has already been well covered so I see no need to repeat.
Yes, I agree 1000%.

Russia won Crimea without firing a single bullet, one of the most flawless annexations in modern history, with retaliatory Western sanctions almost toothless and symbolic. It incorrectly assumed Ukrainian resistance/willpower to fight will dissolve like sugar in water just like in 2014.

Russia expected to blitzkrieg the capital, surround Kiev, and to force a quick negotiated settlement (likely limited to DNR/LNR independence and recognizing Crimea and paper neutrality). HOWEVER, now it has turned to a prolonged siege of cities. Russia must increase it's demands to match the intensity of strategic bombardment and lives lost (collateral and Russian soldiers). Russia should seek the total regime change in Kiev, not just a paper promise of neutrality.

The third reason for the change in approach is more of a reach, but I think Putin is now putting into motion broader and deeper strategic plans.

Putin is not Xi and Russia is not China. I think internally Putin has a lot more enemies and a lot less power than most western commentators and strategists would expect.

While the degree of western economic sanctions might have been unexpected, it would have been impossible for Putin to have not expected significant western sanctions and planned accordingly.

Such plans would not have been so small minded as to only move money and assets out of reach. I think someone like Putin would have also planned to use western sanctions to weaken or even take out many of his internal rivals and enemies. Most of whom probably had the bulk of their wealth and power based in the west, where Putin couldn’t reach. Now western sanctions and asset seizes are doing to them what Putin never could.
Agreed. There is strong elements of domestic politics involved here. There is also the mishandling of COVID-19 pandemic domestically which hurt Putin approval polls (lowest in recorded history). Also, pandemic has weakened growth globally (except China) so Putin likely used pandemic to exploit Western economic weakness and improve his domestic popularity. Quite brilliant actually with respect to pandemic timing of invasion. Too bad US telegraphed this invasion plan non-stop for 3 months, so EU was forced to suicide itself in name of moral faux outrage. Literally cucked due to peer pressure.
I also think Putin both firmly believes the future strategic position of Russia is best served allied with China and not the west; but also that much of the Russian elite have rose tinted glasses and an unhealthy obsession/worship of Europe and America.
After Putin is gone, there is every chance another Gorbachev would emerge. But not after Ukraine.

Russia is now so firmly wed to China that even Putin himself couldn’t undo the knot even if he wanted to, and I think that’s by design.
In the short-medium term, I agree.
I think the biggest longer term development from this war will be a new special-relationship forming between Russia and China much like the one between the UK and US, but where the junior partner gets actual respect and due consideration instead of being treated like a dog.
In the long-term, Russia and China would need to figure out weapon sales to China's enemies (e.g. Checkmates or Su-57 to India/Vietnam). How they handle competing national interests (Russian desire for export sales vs. China's core territorial disputes in SCS) will determine the viability of a long-term 'special relationship' akin to US-UK. UK doesn't sell America's enemies like Iran or Venezuela any Typhoons or Tempest in the name of export profits does it?
Putin and Xi already announced a full spectrum cooperative relationship before the invasion, now we will actually see it.
Agreed! A strong Sino-Russian strategic alignment is necessary to offset Western hegemony.
I do not, as yet, expect to see much if any direct military sales from China to Russia during the conflict both due to diplomatic considerations as well as practical. Since any weapons worth having for the Russians would take months to train and deliver. The only way such Chinese weapons could get on the battlefield in time to make much difference for this war is if Chinese operators went in with them. And I think that’s a much bigger escalation than anyone is yet envisioning as likely even if the Chinese went in as ‘volunteers’ again. Not without direct NATO combat involvement in the conflict first in any case.
100% agree!
 
Last edited:

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
But why did US say in December 2021 and early February 2022 before the invasion that US will not send any troops to defend Ukraine? Ukraine is a non-NATO member and Biden said there is no chance of US intervention to defend Ukraine.

December 2021:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Early February 2022:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Since when American's promises worth anything?
In the long-term, Russia and China would need to figure out weapon sales to China's enemies (e.g. Checkmates or Su-57 to India/Vietnam). How they handle competing national interests (Russian desire for export sales vs. China's core territorial disputes in SCS) will determine the viability of a long-term 'special relationship' akin to US-UK. UK doesn't sell America's enemies like Iran or Venezuela any Typhoons or Tempest in the name of export profits does it?
Doesn't matter as long as Russkies sell the same system to China for study
 

solarz

Brigadier
But why did US say in December 2021 and early February 2022 before the invasion that US will not send any troops to defend Ukraine? Ukraine is a non-NATO member and Biden said there is no chance of US intervention to defend Ukraine.

On this particular note, talk is always cheap. The US also said they were going to abandon South Korea, which emboldened North Korea to attack. As long as the dice hasn't been cast, Putin could not be certain.

That said, I think the initial offensive was meant to minimize civilian casualties. The reserves were holding back in case NATO intervened, and as we saw, when that intervention failed to materialize, Russia began committing more troops into Ukraine.
 

Abominable

Major
Registered Member
Before this war I thought being Ukrainian was more a political identity than an ethnicity. A bit like being North or South Korean. In the Ukraine if you considered yourself pro western you are Ukrainian and if you are pro Russian you are a Russian living in Ukraine.

However their behaviour during the war has led me to believe that being Ukrainian is more of a death cult. They are the Russian equivalent of Falun Gong.
Here's one of their "protests":
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Can anyone think of any anti-war protest where people behaved like this that wasn't linked to cult activity?
 

reservior dogs

Junior Member
Registered Member
Any idea of a negotiated settlement to this conflict seems absurd at the moment.

If Ukrainian guarantees meant anything to Russia, things would not have escalated to this point.

Russia has already taken the brunt of all likely economic damage, so there is no reason for them to stop short of their goal since the damage has already been done even if sanctions are lifted tomorrow.

While the west is focusing all on the media perception war, the realities on the ground is that the Russians are winning.

For sure they are making a mess of it and taking needlessly heavy losses, but those are just cosmetic blemishes. On the grand macro strategic level, it’s all going one way.

The big tactical and strategic shift by the Russians is to slow down and advance more slowly but methodically rather than trying to do thunder runs.

I think the main reasons for this shift are threefold.

First and most importantly, NATO has proven to be an even bigger paper tiger than Putin could have hoped for in his wildest dreams.

The primary reason for the initial mad dashes by the Russians were their fear of NATO boots on the ground.

Had NATO had the balls to send troops in to physically block the Russian advances, I think Putin would have backed down rather than order his troops to open fire on NATO soldiers in Ukraine.

Thus the opening strategic imperative was to rush, at all costs, to key strategic crossroads and core objectives to secure them as backstops against such a NATO move. That would have allowed Putin to secure enough of Ukraine to achieve the minimum acceptable strategic outcome from the war to avoid needing to fight NATO directly to avoid a net strategic defeat, as just grabbing a few miles of Ukrainian territory would not have been worth the massive economic and diplomatic costs of the invasion.

With NATO categorically ruling out such an intervention, that risk failed to materialise, so the primary need for haste is gone. Thus the Russians can afford to take their time and go about this campaign in a more traditional and safe manner.

The second reason for the initial overreach was a combination of over-estimation of Russian military capabilities and underestimating of Ukrainian capabilities and will to fight based on 2014 results.

The Ukrainians learnt from those painful lessons to not try to fight the Russians in open field traditional battles; while the Russians learnt the wrong lessons and took their very successful BTG formula and watered it down to the point of uselessness in order to apply it across the board to save money and time instead of investing to upgrade all their units up to true BTG standard properly.

That failure has already been well covered so I see no need to repeat.

The third reason for the change in approach is more of a reach, but I think Putin is now putting into motion broader and deeper strategic plans.

Putin is not Xi and Russia is not China. I think internally Putin has a lot more enemies and a lot less power than most western commentators and strategists would expect.

While the degree of western economic sanctions might have been unexpected, it would have been impossible for Putin to have not expected significant western sanctions and planned accordingly.

Such plans would not have been so small minded as to only move money and assets out of reach. I think someone like Putin would have also planned to use western sanctions to weaken or even take out many of his internal rivals and enemies. Most of whom probably had the bulk of their wealth and power based in the west, where Putin couldn’t reach. Now western sanctions and asset seizes are doing to them what Putin never could.

I also think Putin both firmly believes the future strategic position of Russia is best served allied with China and not the west; but also that much of the Russian elite have rose tinted glasses and an unhealthy obsession/worship of Europe and America.

After Putin is gone, there is every chance another Gorbachev would emerge. But not after Ukraine.

Russia is now so firmly wed to China that even Putin himself couldn’t undo the knot even if he wanted to, and I think that’s by design.

I think the biggest longer term development from this war will be a new special-relationship forming between Russia and China much like the one between the UK and US, but where the junior partner gets actual respect and due consideration instead of being treated like a dog.

Putin and Xi already announced a full spectrum cooperative relationship before the invasion, now we will actually see it.

The immediate effects are already happening with full economic integration.

After the war, I see it very likely that Russia will undertake a massive military modernisation programme to address the many issues and deficiencies identified by the war, and I think much of that will involve new joint venture developments with China, or even large scale Russian purchases of off-the-shelf Chinese weapons and/or subsystems. Which will also future deepen the military integration and joint operational capabilities of the two.

I do not, as yet, expect to see much if any direct military sales from China to Russia during the conflict both due to diplomatic considerations as well as practical. Since any weapons worth having for the Russians would take months to train and deliver. The only way such Chinese weapons could get on the battlefield in time to make much difference for this war is if Chinese operators went in with them. And I think that’s a much bigger escalation than anyone is yet envisioning as likely even if the Chinese went in as ‘volunteers’ again. Not without direct NATO combat involvement in the conflict first in any case.

There might be scope for plausible deniability transfers like giving back purchased Russian PGMs from PLA inventories and sale of commercially available dual use stuff like gen2 night vision, thermal scopes, body armour, drone jammers the like.

But to be honest, now that the Russians have moved back to a much more traditional form of warfare, any talk of needing such Chinese military assistances is unnecessary because they are doing far better on the battlefield. Just look at how little new combat footage the Ukrainians are putting out, and that’s not because of a lack of fighting.
Great post, agree with all your points. In the future, looking back, this move on Ukraine may be seen as a turning point for Russia economically. With a Chinese economy rising to 2x the U.S. economy in 2-3 decades, Russia can hitch that bandwagon and go very far by an all spectrum integration with China. There are many areas where Russia can offer to the Chinese which are worth substantial value to the Chinese.

1. The big item is the Russian natural resources and agricultural potential.
2. Intelligence sharing. Russia has a vast intelligence network in the world. The Chinese can benefit from that.
3. Maybe a port at the Sea of Japan. Currently, the Chinese do not have port access.
4. access to the North Pole.
5. There are still some technology, weapon or otherwise, that the Chinese can benefit from.
6. Further mutual reduction of troops at the Sino-Russian border.
7. Offer the Chinese access to the Middle East turf like Syria and Iran. Maybe a port in Syria?
8. Invite the Chinese to do infrastructure projects in Russia and the other area under Russian influence.

A future Russian fleet with type 55 and nuclear flattop will be beneficial to both nations.
 

supersnoop

Major
Registered Member
Oh my. I always thought that Nazism was BAD because they stands for National Socialism and not the GOOD "National Idea".
Since Deutsche Welle is the expert on Nazism. I concede and apologize that I was wrong about Nazism and Hilter.
Heil HITLER.
This is hilarious
I should start hanging Nazi flags outside my house, when the media/police comes I can explain it
"The swastika has far-right connotations, but it is a Buddhist symbol that the Nazis also used, it is not considered a fascist symbol by Asians... I want people to understand that this is just a stylized version of the symbol of peace"
 

Darkon112

Junior Member
Registered Member
1. The big item is the Russian natural resources and agricultural potential.
2. Intelligence sharing. Russia has a vast intelligence network in the world. The Chinese can benefit from that. Etc, etc


Split cost on civil aviation, split cost on R&D semiconductor engineering on top of that you have additional market for electronics. And many, many more opportunities.


Even better if you can add India as a partner and a market. Then it's all over ...there will not be another American century. and EU will be even more irrelevant.
 

RottenPanzer

Junior Member
Registered Member
I genuinely think discussing alleged casualty counts released to the public is mostly pointless since the data is not verifiable by any of us here. Your KIA guesses just seem to be based on alleged casualty counts published by news agencies, but with a range of a couple thousand. My question to you would be how could you possibly independantly verify these published figures?

Typically a real time assessment of casualties in war requires officers commanding in the field to regularly send casualty reports to their higher command. The higher command can then aggregate the reports and pass it on up until we get a final casualty report. This process in a large army could involve hundreds or thousands of officers sending reports on a somewhat regular basis. My point is a cumulative casualty report should have hundreds if not thousands of reports/documents supporting it. Do you really think the Russian or Ukrainian military are going to release their internal reports/documents in the middle of a war?

The above paragraph also assumes that casualty reports are even being produced. I doubt that the top priority of Ukrainian troops encircled in Mariupol is submitting a timely and accurate casualty report. In similar dire situations military units may simply be unable to produce a casualty report due to being destroyed or losing communications with higher command. Another problem could be documentation being lost/destroyed or falling behind paperwork due to an overburdened or failing command and control system.

An alternative casualty counting method is to analyze medical data instead of military casualty reports. But again, do you really think the Russian or Ukrainian military are going to release their internal medical reports/documents in the middle of a war? A break down of the military medical system would also rapidly inflate casualties. Care to guess the WIA (wounded in action) counts or the number of soldiers in a hospital bed right now? What is the state of the Russian and Ukrainian military medical system (shrugs, we don't know)?

The last resort in casualty counting is to simply perform a population census after the war is over.

The other complicating factor is Russian air superiority and artillery difference. Has the Russian military established a decisive advantage in firepower over the Ukrainian forces? Historical battles show that the side with a major advantage in firepower can inflict a disproportionate amount of casulaties (we are talking 3x, 5x or in extreme cases 10x the casualties). This is why many were extremely skeptical of early alleged casualty counts where Russian losses were many times higher than Ukrainian losses for no apparant reason. Sure NATO can keep sending MANPADS or ATGMS to Ukraine, but they can't replace the warplanes, artillery or tank losses.
No offense, i know that both sides wouldn't willing to share the actual number of casualties especially in times of war, but my rough estimation is from my own ranges, using calculations of last casualties statement from both sides and using the official Ukrainian MoD casualty report as the ranges.

I'm doing the casualties estimation is purely because of my curiousity and also to really make sure that Russian casualties were not as high as people think
 

wxw456

New Member
Registered Member
No offense, i know that both sides wouldn't willing to share the actual number of casualties especially in times of war, but my rough estimation is from my own ranges, using calculations of last casualties statement from both sides and using the official Ukrainian MoD casualty report as the ranges.

I'm doing the casualties estimation is purely because of my curiousity and also to really make sure that Russian casualties were not as high as people think
The fundamental problem is how do we know if the published figures are correct? At this point it's just a blind trust/believe the publisher situation.

If you want feedback, then at the very least you should cite the casualty sources and show step by step how you justify and derive your casualty ranges.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top