Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[magnkarl]

6 minutes ago, Genie said:

My view is that The West is already managing this war. Russia has been pushed out of all non East/South regions due to backing from The West.

Now we have a kind of stalemate with losses on both sides. I think if Russia gets close to fully securing these regions then then intensity and support from Western countries will go up to ensure it doesn’t happen. The US said this week they don’t want this to end soon as they want to ensure Russia is severely weakened when it ends. We aren’t there yet.

All speculation on my part of course but it’s how i’m reading it.

 

I think the wording from the U.S secretaries of defense and foreign affairs have been pretty clear this week that they want Ukraine to win.

Winning means to boot Russia out of everything Ukraine, Crimea, Donbas, Snake Island.. 

To put things into perspective, Russia was 11th on the list over GDP in the world before this conflict. Above them on the list are 7 countries pouring weapons into Ukraine. Russia is an economic dwarf compared to what they're up against.

Edited April 27, 2022 by magnkarl

[bickster]

There is an SBU intercepted phone  call released today where a Russian officer states that 25,900 Russian servicemen are dead. This figure is even higher than Ukrainian estimates

 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

17 minutes ago, bickster said:

This is absolutely not correct

I said that Russia has deployed a small percentage of its resources to the conflict.  That is not the same as deploying military.  I have posted on here before that the Russian Military is at breaking point because so much of it is deployed to repel a perceived potential NATO attack.  NATO surrounds Russia on sides.  

But how much of their resources are being used directly for this conflict?  WW2 showed that the Russian army is pretty poor and easily outclassed by any army not using pikes and flintlock.  But it also showed that Russia is damn hard to defeat when they deploy their full population to a war effort. 

At its simplest, Russia has a huge area of industry that is out of range of anything but insurrection attacks. 

I go back to something else I have posted on here before.  For Ukraine to win they need different weapons to the ones being deployed now.  Since I first said that, NATO has started to provide more offensive kit.  But will we arm them with modern aircraft and long range missiles?  

 

 

[magnkarl]

28 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

I said that Russia has deployed a small percentage of its resources to the conflict.  That is not the same as deploying military.  I have posted on here before that the Russian Military is at breaking point because so much of it is deployed to repel a perceived potential NATO attack.  NATO surrounds Russia on sides.  

But how much of their resources are being used directly for this conflict?  WW2 showed that the Russian army is pretty poor and easily outclassed by any army not using pikes and flintlock.  But it also showed that Russia is damn hard to defeat when they deploy their full population to a war effort. 

At its simplest, Russia has a huge area of industry that is out of range of anything but insurrection attacks. 

I go back to something else I have posted on here before.  For Ukraine to win they need different weapons to the ones being deployed now.  Since I first said that, NATO has started to provide more offensive kit.  But will we arm them with modern aircraft and long range missiles?  

 

 

You can't compare the Soviet Union of 1942 to Russia of 2022. 

a) Soviet Union was attacked, people enlisted to protect their motherland. This war is an attack war.

b) The Soviet Union was largely kept afloat by the work force and ability of its Western republics. It's widely known that Stalin considered Ukrainians and Poles his best builders.

c) The parts of the Soviet Union that took the brunt of the losses to Germany was Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania - not actually Russia. Ukraine's armies were enveloped and not allowed to retreat by Stalin and had horrendous losses.

What resources is it that you think Russia has available for this war, that isn't already in play, bar nukes?

In short, Russia is a corrupt, autocratic mess of a country that is nowhere near what the Soviet Union mustered to fight against the fascists of 1943.

Edited April 27, 2022 by magnkarl

[Tayls]

It feels wrong clicking on this thread title to get updates about the events in Ukraine. 

Edited April 27, 2022 by Tayls
Typo

[avfc1982am]

What are you implying? That the thread should be called Ukraine and that the name Russia be struck from VT? 

[magnkarl]

9 minutes ago, avfc1982am said:

What are you implying? That the thread should be called Ukraine and that the name Russia be struck from VT? 

How about 'Let's all stare at Russia as they lose!'

[Mandy Lifeboats]

"Please Tell Me When To Stop Laughing At Russian Military Incompetence."   

[sidcow]

Zelensky's "Things that cheer you up" 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

26 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

 

What resources is it that you think Russia has available for this war, that isn't already in play, bar nukes?

 

Several million tonnes of concrete, and steel plus 50,000 builders, engineers and countless numbers of JCB equivalents and cranes. 

Its one thing for Ukraine to kill Russians advancing on well built Ukrainian defensive positions.  But what would it take to dislodge a Russian sheltering in a bunker?  To "win" the war Ukraine would need to dislodge Russians from defensive positions that can only be encircled by invading Russian territory. 

But I again go back to my point that it's perfectly possible they can do this.  But they need to be able to control the air and shred supply lines across the Russian border.  

[sidcow]

 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

For Ukraine to win they need different weapons to the ones being deployed now.  Since I first said that, NATO has started to provide more offensive kit.  But will we arm them with modern aircraft and long range missiles?  

Yes, this seems to be how it is. It's one thing to defend prepared positions, it's another to over-run an invading enemy. Further, Russia is, as well as targeting their objective areas, also attacking transport, storage facilities, fuel depots and the like, both with aircraft and long range missiles to weaken Ukraine's ability to re-arm, replenish etc.

As much as we hear from some western leaders about supplying some howitzers, or SAMs etc. the west is not supplying Ukraine with what it has asked for in sufficient numbers to reverse the balance of strength with Russia.

[Tayls]

49 minutes ago, avfc1982am said:

What are you implying? That the thread should be called Ukraine and that the name Russia be struck from VT? 

No. More that the discussion isn’t just about Russia… but about something more specific… 

@bickster - well played. 

Edited April 27, 2022 by Tayls

[magnkarl]

41 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Several million tonnes of concrete, and steel plus 50,000 builders, engineers and countless numbers of JCB equivalents and cranes. 

Its one thing for Ukraine to kill Russians advancing on well built Ukrainian defensive positions.  But what would it take to dislodge a Russian sheltering in a bunker?  To "win" the war Ukraine would need to dislodge Russians from defensive positions that can only be encircled by invading Russian territory. 

But I again go back to my point that it's perfectly possible they can do this.  But they need to be able to control the air and shred supply lines across the Russian border.  

What makes you think that Russia has the ability to fortify this region when they can't drive a convoy straight forward without running out of fuel/food and getting blitzed by counter attacks?

It takes time to fortify an area, Russia seem incapable of understanding basic military strategy. Like for instance not putting supplies in an area they can get attacked for the 112th time (Kherson airport).

The tonnes of concrete, steel and builders are owned by Putin's mates. If the corruption in the military is anything to go by then the tonnes of concrete and steel has likely been flogged to China on the black market, and most of the builders and engineers are expats.

Edited April 27, 2022 by magnkarl

[fightoffyour]

The whole topic isn't about The Special Op though. Going to be a busy day for someone I feel...

[mjmooney]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

You can't compare the Soviet Union of 1942 to Russia of 2022. 

a) Soviet Union was attacked, people enlisted to protect their motherland. This war is an attack war.

b) The Soviet Union was largely kept afloat by the work force and ability of its Western republics. It's widely known that Stalin considered Ukrainians and Poles his best builders.

c) The parts of the Soviet Union that took the brunt of the losses to Germany was Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania - not actually Russia. Ukraine's armies were enveloped and not allowed to retreat by Stalin and had horrendous losses.

Very true. And to add to your list: 

(d) By 1944, Germany's armed forces and industry had been decimated by fighting on multiple fronts, blitzed by round the clock aerial bombing, and were up against the colossal resources of the USA in the west. It's no wonder they got steamrollered in the east by Russian mass attacks. And even then, the Russian tactics were pretty much mindless, based on weight of numbers, and incurring huge losses. They've learned nothing, they've been embarrassed by Ukraine. If they took on NATO they'd be trounced. The only real worry is whether they are foolhardy enough to use nukes. 

[desensitized43]

1 hour ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

I said that Russia has deployed a small percentage of its resources to the conflict.  That is not the same as deploying military.  I have posted on here before that the Russian Military is at breaking point because so much of it is deployed to repel a perceived potential NATO attack.  NATO surrounds Russia on sides.  

But how much of their resources are being used directly for this conflict?  WW2 showed that the Russian army is pretty poor and easily outclassed by any army not using pikes and flintlock.  But it also showed that Russia is damn hard to defeat when they deploy their full population to a war effort. 

At its simplest, Russia has a huge area of industry that is out of range of anything but insurrection attacks. 

I go back to something else I have posted on here before.  For Ukraine to win they need different weapons to the ones being deployed now.  Since I first said that, NATO has started to provide more offensive kit.  But will we arm them with modern aircraft and long range missiles?  

 

 

I'm really not sure how much valid data on the current Russian army we can glean from a conflict that ended nearly 80 years ago but the country you're referring to in that conflict is the Soviet Union, of which Russia was only one part. Their population wasn't just that of Russia, but also the modern day Baltic states, Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan etc etc. The population of Russia, although the largest in Europe, isn't so vast today that it would be able to throw ranks of cannon fodder at an enemy.

Any country that switches to a "Total War" model is able to deploy many more men and materials to the field, but in so doing they pretty much guarantee that their economy is ruined for years, or decades after. As such it's really not something countries do unless there is a real existential threat to their existence - as Ukraine is current doing. Russia won't do this unless it's evident that losing the war means they won't have a country anymore. The stakes aren't that high for them.

[magnkarl]

A good thread about someone within Russia who tried to warn Putin about what would happen. Everything he mentioned came true. 

Quote

1. No one in Ukraine will happily greet Russian troops in case of the invasion. [An obvious one, but okay]

2. Russia has no capability to destroy the Ukrainian military and thus end the war with one missile attack. It just doesn't work that way.

3. The war will not end quickly because of Russia's air supremacy. Russia lost in Afghanistan and Chechnya despite them having zero planes. And Ukraine does have  an air force and air defense.

4. The Ukrainian forces have undergone massive reforms since 2014 and are very capable. The West will supply them with weapons on the scale of a new land-lease program.

5. The resistance to the invasion will be particularly successful in big cities, where smaller defending force has multiple advantages.

6. Even if significant territories are occupied, the guerrilla resistance will be fierce. The Soviet forces have been fighting nationalist guerrillas in Western Ukraine for more than 10 years after the end of the second world war.

7. The bottom line: there will be no blitzkrieg and those who say otherwise will be deeply embarrassed.

So, this is 7 out of 7 for Khodorenok. I'm not a military expert, but most of these points are basic common sense. If only the Kremlin could maintain a minimal connection with reality..

 

[Awol]

2 hours ago, blandy said:

…the west is not supplying Ukraine with what it has asked for in sufficient numbers to reverse the balance of strength with Russia.

Once the Lend-Lease Act is formally passed into law then the US is going to do what the US does best - and we’ll all be reminded why we call it the arsenal of democracy (among other things). 

How that affects Moscow’s calculations remains to be seen, but it doesn’t change the essential fact that Russia is Donald Ducked - unless they can induce a sudden Ukrainian collapse nationwide in the next few weeks. 

[Mandy Lifeboats]

2 hours ago, magnkarl said:

What makes you think that Russia has the ability to fortify this region when they can't drive a convoy straight forward without running out of fuel/food and getting blitzed by counter attacks?

It takes time to fortify an area, Russia seem incapable of understanding basic military strategy. Like for instance not putting supplies in an area they can get attacked for the 112th time (Kherson airport).

The tonnes of concrete, steel and builders are owned by Putin's mates. If the corruption in the military is anything to go by then the tonnes of concrete and steel has likely been flogged to China on the black market, and most of the builders and engineers are expats.

You asked for an example of resources that could be used that isn't already in play.  If you feel that Russia is incapable of fortifying a region then I respect your viewpoint but completely disagree.