Ukraine is almost 50% bigger than Iraq. It’s also larger than France.
Ukrainian War Developments
- Thread starter james smith esq
- Start date
- Status
it doesn’t matter how much they achieved. if in a country the size of the one they invaded that is not enough to win the war, then regardless of how much they achieved they are still not winning the war, and they appear to have shot their wad, so they need to rethink their strategy to retrieve their situation.
+1. A superpower cannot withstand too many hot war tests just like an alpha wolf cannot withstand too many fighting challengers at once. Typically an alpha wolf gets the other wolves in line with intimidation alone or shows of force against pups. An old alpha wolf might kill the first challenger but the bites and scratches from the first fight leave it weakened for younger, more hungry wolves.
IMO the talk about Russia prefering a war of attrition to a fast war is some grade A copium.
No one with 50+ IQ would want a slow grinding war.
Also, that Russia faced problems in their troops numbers and type ratio (conscripts/professionals) shows a past failure in strategic planning for what wars Russia would have to be prepared in the future. After all, Russian planners should have known (even from 20+ years ago) that a possible war scenario could very logically involve a war with Ukraine while also deterring NATO from intervening and taking into account possible political constraints (can't use conscripts)
No one with 50+ IQ would want a slow grinding war.
Also, that Russia faced problems in their troops numbers and type ratio (conscripts/professionals) shows a past failure in strategic planning for what wars Russia would have to be prepared in the future. After all, Russian planners should have known (even from 20+ years ago) that a possible war scenario could very logically involve a war with Ukraine while also deterring NATO from intervening and taking into account possible political constraints (can't use conscripts)
I think Ukraine realizes they can't fight Russia in the open fields and flat land, so it strategically cede tons of land in exchange for more time to withdraw and fortify in large city, where Russian dominance in air and tanks is equalized more or less. Russia may hold vast amounts of land, but it's control of the population center and the industry that confers negotiations leverage, not open fields and agricultural land.
I agree..... Save the slow grind of attrition warfare against a superior force like NATO. With third rate powers like Ukraine, it's should overwhelming dominance and quick victory as possible to minimizing damage to lives and economy so that you can fight NATO later on if necessary. If at all possible, avoid bleed yourself on a third rate power and potentially expose weakness to NATO vultures circling above.
Yes, a war of attrition is the least preferred option since it costs lives, economy, and domestic support. Attrition war is an avenue for Russia to still win this war, but it's not their original first choice strategy.
It is not a matter of preference. You go to war with the resources and limitations you have. I am sure the Russian military is quite aware of the shortcomings they have, much better than you or I do. Still, if you decide to go to war, you will choose a strategy that allow you to win with the resource at your disposal. This means a fast war was never realistically in the cards. The only kind of war they can fight was a slow war of attrition.
This is what amuses me the most from western liberal ignoranceThe funny part is if Putin party is detroned, it will be the Communist Party of the Russian Federation that will take his place,!
They have convinced themselves that guys like Navalny are the leaders of the opposition to Putin and a threat to him, when in reality the guy has single digits of support and the actually leading opposition party is the communists.
They didnot commit troops to Kiev alone. They committed troops to Belarus to built logistic chains, upgrade airbases and deterrence against Poland. They just used those troops for Kiev for time being as they still wanted to do missile and gunship strikes from North. they needed ground troops to stir hornest nest for effective use of airpower. North is North. South is South.
Politically you are correct. But if a quick war is impossible then spending 6 months with 5k casualties may be preferred compared to spending 3 months and 10k casualties.
I don't consider Russia as resource limited....they only dedicated 15% of their active service members and a fraction of their land and airforces. They can dedicate more, nothing is stopping them from throwing more men, equipment, and firepower that are holding in reserve since their Plan A (minimal force, quick enemy collapse) failed. Time to go to Plan B (manuever warfare to concentrate forces against Donbass), and maybe Plan C (throw more reservists and troops to reinforce), etc....
Hindsight is 20/20, doesn't mean their initial first choice is attrition warfare. They have the ability to muster far more troops/equipment at initial stages to achieve quick victory but chosen not to. Likely because they overestimated themselves and underestimated the Ukrainian willpower to resist. Now they are forced to engage in attrition warfare, but it's not their preferred first choice.
- Status