Ukrainian War Developments

Richard Santos · Apr 7, 2022

the key is the force withdrawn from around kyiv by default forms a sizeable mobile reserve that can be used to support resumed offensive on some scale. If russia really meant to end the war before any major new offensive, they might have held onto the positions around kyiv so as to gain leverage and improve their bargaining position.

So the claim that russia wants to end the war soon is not credible. everything the russians had done since pulling back from kiev says they are changing their disposition to give themselves the uncommitted force to launch a major attack. The new mobile reserve would be used at least once if only to improve bargaining position.

MortyandRick · Apr 7, 2022

meckhardt98 said:
With talks of a potential cease-fire and operational end to the war in Ukraine what did the Russian Federation gain?

Geopolitical achievements by the Russian Federation in regards to their intervention in the Ukraine:
Potential recognition of the DPR and LNR breakaway regions by the international community
Potential recognition of the Crimea by the international community and Ukraine
Destruction of vast amounts of Ukrainian infrastructure; including the destruction of military infrastructure and equipment including most key assets and naval forces
Critical combat experience and expertise
Key justification(s) for further military expenditure and expansion
Push for self-reliance in certain technological and economic industries not seen since the collapse of the Soviet Union due to sanctions

Geopolitical ramifications for the Russian Federation in regards to their intervention in the Ukraine:
Europe and the United States rapidly armed Ukrainian Forces with surplus weapons; creating a demand and further justification for an increase in defense spending for procurement of replacements and rearmament
Poland stating it’s willingness to host nuclear weapons; with an escalation in American presence in Poland
Expansion of military assets and expenditure in NATO counties
Germany looking to acquire an [ABM] network; most notably the procurement of Arrow-3
Russian removal from the UN Human Rights Council
Plethora of sanctions; resulting in the devaluation of the ruble
Seizure of assets and property abroad owned by the Oligarchy
Further justification for western paranoia of the Russian Federation; discredit to the Russian Federation and its government on an international level
Russian diplomat expulsion in Europe
Major loss of military equipment and hardware; loss of confidence in key military planners and decision makers

It seems that the Russian Federations objective and alleged justification for intervention in the Ukraine; the denazification of the Ukraine; has not since been accomplished. They’ve taken major material losses after Ukrainian resistance far exceeded expectations leading to a conflict that has cost the Russian Federation far more than it originally predicted and planned for. Their war in the Ukraine has only had the effect of counteractively reversing years of political maneuvering and military expansion by the Russian Federation, which sought to prevent the expansion of NATO and the influence of the United States in Europe; which is now occurring at an unprecedented level not seen since the height of the Cold War.

The war has not yet concluded, however what has the Russian Federation truly accomplished thus far?

If the war ended tomorrow and the Russians keep what they have right now, then Putin is done. Too much lost for this.

Maikeru · Apr 7, 2022

As I said before, Putin's aim was in fact to re-nazify Ukraine:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1512233920544542721

meckhardt98 · Apr 7, 2022

Maikeru said:
As I said before, Putin's aim was in fact to re-nazify Ukraine:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1512233920544542721

That seems a little too convenient; the RuMOD has regulations for their military in regards to tattoos not too dissimilar to the American policy;

According to Russian directives tattoos are supposed to be a useful indication of character. "Special attention should be paid to tattoos around the face, and on the sex organs and buttocks," defense officials said it was a matter of health and appearance.

It could be a LNR/DPR volunteer soldier but my skepticism remains high.

Richard Santos · Apr 7, 2022

gelgoog said:
That is the kind of attitude that is really dangerous to have. The Finns seem to have drank the kool-aid.
Why do you think the Russians did not send their whole army into Ukraine? Their military actually went into this conflict with the notion they might have to fight NATO too.

Stalin started the Winter War because he wanted Finland to give up part of its territory next to the Soviet border so St. Petersburg (then Leningrad) got out of the range of Finnish artillery. Before the war started he tried to negotiate land swaps. When those failed the war started. Yet today, what do you see? Finland gets air launched cruise missiles with 500km range and wants to join NATO. Good luck.

The Finns forget they had a military garrison in their territory for over a decade to ensure compliance after the Continuation War. But if the Russians went in this time I doubt they would just settle for neutrality.

The only real danger from a russian attack oh finland would be a losing russia launching nuclear weapons to salvage the situation.

Finland is not like ukraine. Ukraine is the kind of flat country where a reasonably well led and well coordinated conscript army should be able to triumph over second rate opposition.

much of Finland is rugged, mountainous, riven with lakes and streams, where mechanized attackers are easily channeled and flanks hard to secure. to operate effectively in finland requires sizeable forces consisting of very well trained small units that can operate with great initiative, channelizing nature or finnish topography also means effective close air support can be devastating.

So no, russian forces as we have seen will be out matched in troop quality and small to medium unit leadership by what is needed from them to a much higher degree than is the case with ukraine.

Compare to the likely challenges of dealing with finnish opposition, the current russian army is no doubt not much better prepared than the soviet army if 1939. Except unlike in 1940, Russia is unlikely to have 400,000 troops to throw at finlsnd, and the rest of the europe os not distracted by 5 million french and germans staring ar eachother across the Maginot line.

FairAndUnbiased · Apr 7, 2022

Overbom said:
Soviet Union collapsed from mental weakness and lack of resolve, so its not a surprise to me whats happening now.

It is forgiveable to be physically weak but with strong resolve. These sorts of countries can survive regardless of humiliation or even total loss of sovereignty.

It is absolutely unforgivable to be physically strong with weak resolve. These countries are just dead man walking because they do not care about their own existence.

Bill Blazo said:
Prediction is a dangerous game, but Blazo's gonna play that shit right now. The recent Russian and separatist attacks on the eastern front are a mere prelude to the massive escalation coming later this month. For example, the recent Russian push towards Barvinkove is not a real attempt to knock out the Ukrainian army. It's just a localized effort to gain some space south of Izium in anticipation of a more comprehensive assault later this month.

I expect that the Russians will launch their major assault in the east around April 25th, so just over two weeks from now. I base this assessment on several things. First, there are still many Russian units coming through Belgorod, suggesting that the Russians are not yet fully positioned for a second major assault within Ukraine proper. Second, muddy conditions have hampered several Russian advances, as many people on this forum have mentioned already. Waiting until late April or early May could be enough time for the ground to dry after the spring thaw. And third, the Russians will likely need until April 20th before they fully control and pacify Mariupol. Since the troops currently tied down in that siege will be critical for the southern pincer in the eastern front, it stands to reason that the Russians likely won't be able to carry out another major assault until late April. Once that assault begins, I expect the Russians will be able to take Severodonetsk, Lysychansk, Kramatorsk, and Slovyansk by the end of June. They will complete the conquest of both Donetsk and Luhansk, and they'll be able to hold on in Kherson as well. However, I doubt the Russians will ever take Dnipro and Zaporizhzhia, simply because they still don't have enough troops. I don't even expect them to reach Pavlohrad, or if they reach it they won't take it. I also think the Ukrainians will successfully defend Mykolaiv, which means the Russians aren't capturing Odessa either. This is my prediction by the end of June. Of course, the war could go on beyond that point, but I doubt it will continue with the current level of intensity. Once Putin chops off 20% of Ukraine, I think he'll call it quits and declare victory. The problem is that he simply cannot afford to continue this massive conflict unless he transitions Russia to a full-blown war economy, with widespread nationalization, price and wage controls, rationing, etc. I sincerely doubt he wants to go down that path, which means he's going to push to end the war by early summer. Discuss.

If Russians don't capture Zaporizhzhia and Dnipro it will be an unsustainable peace. Ukrainians won't let them quit. They won't be at a natural boundary which means infiltration and low level attacks can continue indefinitely. There isn't a natural boundary south of the Samara River until the Sea of Azov which means their entire gains in the land bridge will be at risk. This would be the exact same situation as Donbass but worse.

They can consolidate everything east of the Donets as predicted, but that doesn't change the overall strategic picture for Russia. the real prize is the land bridge and controlling the mouth of the Dnieper which cripples Ukraine. Ukraine, knowing this, would throw everything they have and more into denying it, sending insurgents to attack no matter what.

The only way around it is to demolish the bridges on the Dnieper in Dnipro, take only the east bank (the smaller side) and then cut off electricity to Zaporizhzhia to force them to surrender. Then Russian conquests are at a natural boundary: Donets n the north, Samara in the south, and then build a DMZ wall from the head of the Samara to the Donets. The rest is bound by the Dnieper, and Kherson controls the delta.

Richard Santos · Apr 7, 2022

There are many challenges russia must overcome to improve the quality of her army. her battle experience will have much less impact than one might think given the current organization of her army.
1. She has no long serving NCO corp. So there is not a means to preserve battlefield skill and and experience commonly taken as a a given in a NCO based army.
2. the average term of enlistment needs to be much longer. There is only so much than can be done to elevate conscripts above the status of cannon fodder inn1-2 years
3. the deployable unit has to become much larger for the russian army to retain credibility to conduct deep offensives.
4. communication abs coordination must greatly improve.

Jingle Bells · Apr 7, 2022

Richard Santos said:
There are many challenges russia must overcome to improve the quality of her army. her battle experience will have much less impact than one might think given the current organization of her army.
1. She has no long serving NCO corp. So there is not a means to preserve battlefield skill and and experience commonly taken as a a given in a NCO based army.
2. the average term of enlistment needs to be much longer. There is only so much than can be done to elevate conscripts above the status of cannon fodder inn1-2 years
3. the deployable unit has to become much larger for the russian army to retain credibility to conduct deep offensives.
4. communication abs coordination must greatly improve.

There is actually only one challenge: money.

Maikeru · Apr 7, 2022

Richard Santos said:
There are many challenges russia must overcome to improve the quality of her army. her battle experience will have much less impact than one might think given the current organization of her army.
1. She has no long serving NCO corp. So there is not a means to preserve battlefield skill and and experience commonly taken as a a given in a NCO based army.
2. the average term of enlistment needs to be much longer. There is only so much than can be done to elevate conscripts above the status of cannon fodder inn1-2 years
3. the deployable unit has to become much larger for the russian army to retain credibility to conduct deep offensives.
4. communication abs coordination must greatly improve.

They also appear to have lost an absurdly high proportion of field-grade officers and above in this war. Rumours that they are stripping academies of instructors to fill the gaps.

gelgoog · Apr 7, 2022

meckhardt98 said:
Tu22M3 loading FAB-3000(s) in preparation for strategic bombing operations in Mariupol; reportedly targeting the Azovstal iron and steel production plant, one of the largest production plants in Europe.

FAB-3000 is a 6000lb dumb bomb with a 3000lb explosive warhead; yielding a 50ft destruction radius and potential 850ft fragmentation radius; one of the largest dumb-bombs in the Russian Air-Force’s arsenal.

I guess it is cheaper to just use these than to decommission them. Remains to be seen if Mariupol will be the target however.

Maikeru said:
That was the might of the USSR against Finland alone. Now it would be the pathetic rump of Russia with its much=attrited forces fighting against the entirety of NATO. That's only going to end one way.

No. During the Continuation War the Soviets were basically fighting the entirety of Western Europe. Not just the Nazi controlled areas but also the resources of all the "neutral" countries which were de facto economically supporting Nazi Germany. Like Sweden selling iron ore to the Germans. Guess who lost. Anyway it is only a matter of political will.

Richard Santos said:
much of Finland is rugged, mountainous, riven with lakes and streams, where mechanized attackers are easily channeled and flanks hard to secure. to operate effectively in finland requires sizeable forces consisting of very well trained small units that can operate with great initiative, channelizing nature or finnish topography also means effective close air support can be devastating.

Welcome to the XXIst century where we have helicopters. And cruise missiles, and nukes, etc.

Richard Santos said:
So no, russian forces as we have seen will be out matched in troop quality and small to medium unit leadership by what is needed from them to a much higher degree than is the case with ukraine.

The problem with Finland is their huge conscripted army. But most of it is people with rifles and ATGMs anyway.

Richard Santos said:
Compare to the likely challenges of dealing with finnish opposition, the current russian army is no doubt not much better prepared than the soviet army if 1939. Except unlike in 1940, Russia is unlikely to have 400,000 troops to throw at finlsnd, and the rest of the europe os not distracted by 5 million french and germans staring ar eachother across the Maginot line.

Like I said before. You are ignoring the Continuation War. And the huge material disparity in modern hardware available today.

Richard Santos said:
There are many challenges russia must overcome to improve the quality of her army. her battle experience will have much less impact than one might think given the current organization of her army.
1. She has no long serving NCO corp. So there is not a means to preserve battlefield skill and and experience commonly taken as a a given in a NCO based army.
2. the average term of enlistment needs to be much longer. There is only so much than can be done to elevate conscripts above the status of cannon fodder inn1-2 years
3. the deployable unit has to become much larger for the russian army to retain credibility to conduct deep offensives.
4. communication abs coordination must greatly improve.

These are the typical retarded comments US analysts make of the Russian Army. As an Army which was traditionally made to fight a real war with huge amounts of conscripts the Russians put more emphasis on officer training. They have a much larger officer pool to be able to command all those conscripts in case of major conflict compared to an US army which is made to be used as an expeditionary force. In the US army the least officers the better because you a) aren't supposed to use such a large army b) NCOs earn less than officers.

Maikeru said:
They also appear to have lost an absurdly high proportion of field-grade officers and above in this war. Rumours that they are stripping academies of instructors to fill the gaps.

If you believe Ukraine's accounts that they killed all those people anyway. And like I said the large amount of officers is a feature not a bug.

I think I did not see this video here before.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1511832410756816897

Ukrainian War Developments

Richard Santos

Captain

MortyandRick

Senior Member

Maikeru

Major

meckhardt98

Junior Member

Richard Santos

Captain

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier

Richard Santos

Captain

Jingle Bells

Junior Member

Maikeru

Major

gelgoog

Lieutenant General