Ukrainian War Developments

Strangelove said:

I'm starting to do a 180... my contempt for India is turning into respect...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1506984043073740807

Click to expand...

It just proves Indians are capable of critical thinking...but turn it off when they are getting Western benefits against shared enemies. Now when Western people try to force Indians to choose sides against their interest (anti-Russia), they turn on their critical thinking. They are just looking out for their own self interest lol.

Abominable said:

I thought the whole thing was controversial, especially the imaginary encirclement of Russian forces around Kiev, and the use of the politically charged Ukrainian terminology "Russian saboteurs", who are likely just Ukrainian civilians who got caught stealing bread.

But one question to anyone who believes the above. If Russia has 40,000 casualties, how many do the Ukrainians have? In most wars casualties are close to each other, having a 2/3 times higher K/D is rare. Yet we're supposed to believe that the Ukrainians are doing this despite having no air force? Even if it was true, Ukrainian hospitals would be completely saturated with injured, yet they aren't.

How does the supposed casualty numbers tally with the number of prisoners of war from each side, which is usually the most accurate statistic in any war. On 2nd of March, Russia stated having 572 Ukrainian POW, while on the 20nd (nearly 3 weeks later) March the Ukrainians claimed to have 562 Russians captured.

All these western analysts have gone crazy, it is like the Afghan conflict but 10x worse.

Click to expand...

Even the ISW stated such regarding the encirclement:
"We are unable to corroborate most of these claims, particularly the claimed encirclement of large groups of Russian forces or the liberation of Irpin. The head of the Kyiv Oblast military administration stated on March 22 that Russian forces still controlled Bucha and Hostomel, that Ukrainian forces could conduct only local counterattacks, and that Ukrainian troops were preparing for a larger offensive operation—all of which would suggest that Ukrainian troops have likely not yet encircled Russian troops in these areas.[7] These Ukrainian claims may reflect the expectation that the Ukrainian counteroffensive will continue and cut off Russian forces currently in the Irpin salient. We will continue to monitor the situation closely and update our assessment and map if and when we find clear corroborating evidence of these claimed Ukrainian advances."

I think they should have left the part with Russian losses out of their assessment entirely. Just too speculative at the moment and most likely grossly exaggerated even from somewhat reputable sources. But that's just my opinion hence the "controversial" head line.

People here have to remember that the assessments are done from sources filled to the brink with misinformation and fog of war inaccuracies. ISW doesn't have direct inside access to the military command of either sides with 100% accurate information of current forces and operations. That would be totally unreasonable of us to demand. They are just trying their best to make some sense out of the same sources available to the rest of us. I think they do an overall decent job.

Richard Santos said:

Yes, it’s called the Russian air force, which uniquely amongst the world out side the US, has the assets to carpet bomb in high B-52 style.

Click to expand...

The B-52 doesn't even bomb B-52 style anymore. Still drops all the bombs but they're guided. Carpet bombing in a war like this is retarded. I think the last time the US carpet bombed anything were Iraqi troops out in the middle of the desert during Desert Storm. Id'be surprised if the US even bothers with dumb bombs anymore.

asif iqbal said:

no those cities must be taken otherwise Ukrainians will use those towns to hit Russian logistics

Bypassing the major towns and cities are not an option

Click to expand...

Tell that to the Grand Army in 1805, when Napoleon took 200,000 troops on a rapid forced march and trapped the Austrians at Ulm while bypassing almost everything. The Duke of Marlborough fought 30 sieges and like 4 pitched battles, simply because in the 18th century the average army size was too small to bypass major cities and fortresses. Doing so would leave an army's supply lines and communication lines badly exposed, as you said. But the French Revolution and the rise of mass conscription changed all that. France could suddenly put an army on the field larger than that of the Roman Empire, despite a much smaller population. That's why sieges declined in importance during the Napoleonic Wars. The French simply masked big targets with residual forces and continued on their way to destroy the enemy's field army. That has been the basic model ever since, but it hinges on a critical detail: you need a large army to pull it off, and some mobility in the war theater so you're not stuck in the trenches.

And that brings us to this war. The central problem with what the Russians did in this war isn't that they failed to capture places like Sumy and Chernihiv. It's that they failed to capture these places and kept advancing with a small army. They didn't bring enough troops for the kind of war theater they were facing. If they'd gone in with half a million troops, they could have easily encircled places like Sumy and Chernihiv and just bombed or starved them to death. Then there would still be enough troops in the rest of the Russian force to destroy the Ukrainian field army. Now they're stuck with the worst of all worlds: they haven't captured these cities and their supply lines are getting wrecked because they don't have enough troops to properly protect them. Also important to emphasize that this conclusion is very theater-dependent. Russian control in the eastern and southern territories is much more robust. Their stuff isn't getting raided like crazy over there. It's just the northern theater that has been catastrophic.

The Ukrainians seem to be claiming the Orsk hit earlier was actually done by a Bayraktar.

While more believable than the ballistic missile theory, it doesn't explain everything:

How did a drone get past the air defences of three ships?
Can the Bayraktar even carry anti-ship ordinance?
How did the Bayraktar make an appearance here while it has been largely absent in this whole conflict?

It still doesn't add up to me.

sferrin said:

The B-52 doesn't even bomb B-52 style anymore. Still drops all the bombs but they're guided. Carpet bombing in a war like this is retarded. I think the last time the US carpet bombed anything were Iraqi troops out in the middle of the desert during Desert Storm. Id'be surprised if the US even bothers with dumb bombs anymore.

Click to expand...

Kosovo, Afghanistan.

Yawn. Didn't we already establish who has a more credible nuclear deterrence?

"A senior administration official said any use of a 'small' tactical nuclear bomb by Russia — even inside Ukraine and not directed at a NATO member — would mean that 'all bets are off' on the United States and NATO staying out of the war."

Overbom said:

Yawn. Didn't we already establish who has a more credible nuclear deterrence?

"A senior administration official said any use of a 'small' tactical nuclear bomb by Russia — even inside Ukraine and not directed at a NATO member — would mean that 'all bets are off' on the United States and NATO staying out of the war."

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1506787762254528513

Click to expand...

This has been the pattern of the U.S. posturing. We pick an event that is highly unlikely to happen, draw a redline around it and claim that we will rain thunder and lightning on the Russians if it happens.

There is no military advantage for using tactical nukes. Cannons and bombs are not only cheaper, but also work far better in this situation.
Taking a thousand step back, let's say the Russians did use tactical nukes in Ukraine, I highly doubt it would cause NATO to enter the war. NATO will be even less likely to go to war with a nation that is willing to take this step.

Maikeru said:

Interesting analysis with bad news for both sides:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1507093566484623369

Click to expand...

so, a syrian style slog?

Bill Blazo said:

What's embarrassing are their numerous and inexplicable operational failures in the face of a clearly weaker enemy.

Click to expand...

The map has not changed in the past 2-3 weeks except maybe Kherson captured and other tiny towns.

I really think the war is not going as initially expected, I think Putin expected a quick victory, negligible to zero Ukrainian resistance, and quick negotiations on DNR/LNR/Crimea and neutrality paper treaty. Afterall, 120,000 troops assault along the entire border is insufficient and too little for prolonged siege or occupation. You need a 3:1 ratio advantage in manpower for assault on defender positions, whereas Russia only committed less than 1:1 ratio. Unfortunately, Putin miscalculated the political resolve and willpower of Ukrainian defenders. It is not similar to the 2014 Crimea annexation.

Russia can likely achieve the same negotiated settlement, but it chew off a lot more than it expected. It will still survive with partial Chinese support, but he was fed poor intelligence. Now it's going to be grinding Ukrainian to ashes/rubbles, which is the last resort....