Ukrainian War Developments

xypher said:

The whole campaign revealed that the "number 2 status" of the Russian military has been a big overstatement, primarily driven by Soviet-era reputation and nuclear weapons. The marketed new toys are very scarce, most of the equipment is old; military strategists utterly failed in their planning; most soldiers are undertrained.

Click to expand...

One more thing that failed was their BTG. They formed small and agile formations on the basis of combined arm warfare which (on paper) would be formidable on penetrating enemy lines.

However reality has shown that Russians have messed the up too. They made this change but then they realised that they didn't have enough money to equip them properly. From what I remember its maximum 10-14 BTG that were properly equipped. The vast majority of the others, were just downscaled versions of their older formations without any modern capability boost.

Lesson:
If you are going to do a military formation change predicated on them having new equipment/capabilities, you better be damn sure that you actually buy the equipment needed for that to happe.

FairAndUnbiased said:

By about 2011 or so people started questioning whether Russia really was militarily #2 during their first poor showing in the Georgian War and PLAAF coming out with the J-20. It tilted back to them in 2014 with their successes in Crimea/Syria and coming out with the Su-57, but then tilted back towards China in 2015 with the launch of 052D and 055. Since then it's been seen that China and Russia are roughly equal with their own strengths and weaknesses - Russia had more experience, better intel and better strategic forces, China had the better navy and space forces.

Now it is clear. Russia is at best #3, and closer to Japan, Germany or UK than to China. And more than their military reputation, the feared Russian intel suffered even more. They got a neighboring Slavic country's basic political stance ("do they hate Russia?" "do they actually like their government?") dead wrong...

Click to expand...

Poor showing in Georgia War? That lasted just 12 days and the Russians met their objectives easily.

and why people's obsession about ranking ?

Weaasel said:

Poor showing in Georgia War? That lasted just 12 days and the Russians met their objectives easily.

Click to expand...

they got 1x Tu-22M, 1x Su-24 and 3x Su-25s shot down. A general also had to use a civilian phone to issue orders to troops.

Even here, their problems with command and SEAD were revealed. It's to their supreme luck that Georgia is as weak relative to Russia as Iraq was relative to US, but Ukraine is as strong relative to Russia as Imperial Japan was relative to the US. Imperial Japan inflicted some serious pain on the US too, and in a theater that decisively favors the bigger economy (naval), which disfavors Japan.

The war isn't over. Russia will refresh its troops and start a new attempt more concentrated in two month.

Overbom said:

One more thing that failed was their BTG. They formed small and agile formations on the basis of combined arm warfare which (on paper) would be formidable on penetrating enemy line.

However reality has shown that Russians have messed the up too. They made this change but then they realised that they didn't enough money to equip them properly. From what I remember its maximum 10-14 BTG that were properly equipped. The vast majority of the others, were just downscaled versions of their older formations without any modern capability boost.

Lesson:
If you are going to do a military formation change predicated on them having new equipment/capabilities, you better be damn sure that you actually buy the equipment needed for that to happe.

Click to expand...

They did not have enough personnel for their Kiev Offensive. They rushed to Kiev too quickly. They moved at speeds beyond which their logistics and supplies could cope with. All these blunders are plainly due to the assumption that the Ukrainians might give up as soon as the they showed up at the gates of Kiev. Otherwise, why advance so quickly. The rush to Kiev was done at speeds even quicker on a mile per time basis than the American rush to Baghdad during the Iraq War.

The Russians made the gamble that the Ukrainians might give up quickly and negotiate as soon as the Russians made it to the gates of Kiev. Otherwise, they wouldn't have rushed. I always make references to the 2nd Chechen War because that is a war that Russia fought in which it utilized a very cautious and patient approach and eventually succeeded, because it had learned of the costliness and humiliation of rushing things, undertaking very little defensive precautions and thereby suffering heavy losses, and as such they had utmost respect for the Chechens in the 2nd war.

I think there are many people who have the habit in life in operating under the principle of not respecting others unless they have shown that they are worthy of respect after having taken quite a few licks from such a person, even after having been taught a lesson by others before that should make them very cautious and stop assuming such an attitude.

With regards to both Chechnya and Ukraine, the Russians have been taught this lesson. If the Russians had been cautious from the onset, they would not be withdrawing from the Kiev front, even though they would not have approached as quickly towards the Kiev as they did.

FairAndUnbiased said:

Ukraine is as strong relative to Russia as Imperial Japan was relative to the US. Imperial Japan inflicted some serious pain on the US too, and in a theater that decisively favors the bigger economy (naval), which disfavors Japan.

Click to expand...

Ukraine is not strong it is just they cannot conduct it on military terms. They not only has to separate Pro and Anti Russian elements in each city but take care of so many other countries interests.
Thousands of Turks moved out and they still have more need to move out. Similar case is with so many other countries. Israel may be interested in 300K people.

FairAndUnbiased said:

they got 1x Tu-22M, 1x Su-24 and 3x Su-25s shot down. A general also had to use a civilian phone to issue orders to troops.

Even here, their problems with command and SEAD were revealed. It's to their supreme luck that Georgia is as weak relative to Russia as Iraq was relative to US, but Ukraine is as strong relative to Russia as Imperial Japan was relative to the US. Imperial Japan inflicted some serious pain on the US too, and in a theater that decisively favors the bigger economy (naval), which disfavors Japan.

Click to expand...

They lost a few aircraft in that war... Big FN deal... That war was quickly over... You act like they lost thousands of troops in such a short period of time... Even if they did, probably the Georgians lost tens of thousands... The war was way too short for anyone to make any conclusions of their performance then...

Intrepid said:

The war isn't over. Russia will refresh its troops and start a new attempt more concentrated in two month.

Click to expand...

The war is NOT over. Even if they secure the Donbass, I doubt that Russia will attempt any major thrust again on the Northern front, though it will threaten feints in order to bomb Ukraine to the negotiating table if the Ukrainians still continue to stall there...

People, remember, unlike in the North, the Donbass Region, and to a lesser extent even the Kharkiv Oblast, is friendly or at least much friendlier territory for the Russians. Combined with Russia having greater fire power and also much greater air power than the Ukrainians, it should make it significantly easier for the Russians there as long as they have the patience, do not take too many unnecessary risks, and actually decide use their firepower much more ruthlessly than the relatively timid and comparative half-heartedness that they showed in the North.