Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[sidcow]

It maybe the way it goes but I don't then see rinse and repeat in 10 years. 

I think Ukraine NATO membership will be rushed through. 

At that point Russia can't go again as that will mean invading NATO. 

I do think Putin will win but at staggering cost and he will ultimately rule a fading Russia. 

[Genie]

The question is “how realistic is it that Ukraine breach the Russian defences and take back some/all of the land?”

As I see it (far from an expert) it’s unlikely, and as support from Western countries inevitably reduces the likelihood will reduce also.

The other risk is that if the Ukrainian position keeps getting weaker then terms of a ceasefire will favour Putin / Russia. 

[Anthony]

I understand where you're all coming from, but I think you're looking at the wrong things. The war is about territory, so we measure the success or failure of each side by how much territory they control at the end of the war.

The key is 'at the end of the war'.

Right now the aim is to weaken the opponent, so that you can eventually retake lost territory/conquer new territory with greater ease and minimal loss, but it's nigh on impossible to work out how effective either side's efforts are. Right at the top of both militaries huge resource is put into establishing how much the opponent has been weakened, and following on from that, when is the most opportune time to advance. They have the best resources to do it, and they're pretty much in the dark. Us armchair generals, safe in our homes, hundreds and hundreds of miles away from the fighting have no chance whatsoever.

The key indicators are looking at the strengths and weaknesses of either side, and see how they change over time. What are Ukraine's strengths? Morale, organisation, innovation, ability to learn, inexhaustible but slow and limited Western Weapons supply, robust logistics. Weaknesses are maybe manpower, reliance on Western donors that are infiltrated by Russian influence. Russia's strengths are manpower, although not as unlimited as is generally thought, influence tentacles all over the world at almost every level of decision making. Weaknesses are fragile logistics, low morale, inferior equipment, weak economy, limited ability to learn, dysfunctional command (operations conducted due to short term demands of politicians, rather than the needs of the war). And more.

So for example, we know that Ukraine is degrading the Russian military machine, but we don't know by how much. We know that Russia is inflicting casualties on Ukraine, but we don't know how critical these losses are.

So I guess, think of it as like a tug of war. You watch all the huffing and puffing thinking that it's a stalemate. Then one side collapses and the other side win.

[chrisp65]

13 minutes ago, sidcow said:

It maybe the way it goes but I don't then see rinse and repeat in 10 years. 

I think Ukraine NATO membership will be rushed through. 

At that point Russia can't go again as that will mean invading NATO. 

I do think Putin will win but at staggering cost and he will ultimately rule a fading Russia. 

 

Well, we can’t see the future so rinse and repeat in 10 years I guess we’ll have to review in 2033.

But I’m not convinced membership will be rushed through, and what timescale is ‘rushed’ I think a year is the absolute fastest. Balkan countries took between ten to 20 years. One of the criteria is existing disputes have to be resolved and Ukraine is in a dispute with Russia where Russia claim their worry is NATO expanding up to its border. I know it’s a spurious argument, but will that be resolved or will NATO call his bluff? 

What will we do about the fascist elements in the Ukraine military? Or the Russian sympathisers embedded within the military?

I’m absolutely no expert but on a spectator’s punt, I don’t think they’ll be members all that quickly. But that’s not based on any clever inside knowledge. 

My personal choice, sat here in a comfy room, would be to supply what is needed to make significant gains and make it utterly undeniable to the Russian public and the Russian military that they’ve taken a beating and they need to sit down, shut up, and think about a different way of doing business.

 

[chrisp65]

3 minutes ago, Anthony said:

I understand where you're all coming from, but I think you're looking at the wrong things. The war is about territory, so we measure the success or failure of each side by how much territory they control at the end of the war.

The key is 'at the end of the war'.

Right now the aim is to weaken the opponent, so that you can eventually retake lost territory/conquer new territory with greater ease and minimal loss, but it's nigh on impossible to work out how effective either side's efforts are. Right at the top of both militaries huge resource is put into establishing how much the opponent has been weakened, and following on from that, when is the most opportune time to advance. They have the best resources to do it, and they're pretty much in the dark. Us armchair generals, safe in our homes, hundreds and hundreds of miles away from the fighting have no chance whatsoever.

The key indicators are looking at the strengths and weaknesses of either side, and see how they change over time. What are Ukraine's strengths? Morale, organisation, innovation, ability to learn, inexhaustible but slow and limited Western Weapons supply, robust logistics. Weaknesses are maybe manpower, reliance on Western donors that are infiltrated by Russian influence. Russia's strengths are manpower, although not as unlimited as is generally thought, influence tentacles all over the world at almost every level of decision making. Weaknesses are fragile logistics, low morale, inferior equipment, weak economy, limited ability to learn, dysfunctional command (operations conducted due to short term demands of politicians, rather than the needs of the war). And more.

So for example, we know that Ukraine is degrading the Russian military machine, but we don't know by how much. We know that Russia is inflicting casualties on Ukraine, but we don't know how critical these losses are.

So I guess, think of it as like a tug of war. You watch all the huffing and puffing thinking that it's a stalemate. Then one side collapses and the other side win.

 

It’s always been about the lines on the map.

When you buy a globe or an atlas, there won’t be a little asterix that says whilst this bit is Russia, it did cost them 2,000 tanks and 300 mini buses.

[sidcow]

3 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

 

Well, we can’t see the future so rinse and repeat in 10 years I guess we’ll have to review in 2033.

But I’m not convinced membership will be rushed through, and what timescale is ‘rushed’ I think a year is the absolute fastest. Balkan countries took between ten to 20 years. One of the criteria is existing disputes have to be resolved and Ukraine is in a dispute with Russia where Russia claim their worry is NATO expanding up to its border. I know it’s a spurious argument, but will that be resolved or will NATO call his bluff? 

What will we do about the fascist elements in the Ukraine military? Or the Russian sympathisers embedded within the military?

I’m absolutely no expert but on a spectator’s punt, I don’t think they’ll be members all that quickly. But that’s not based on any clever inside knowledge. 

My personal choice, sat here in a comfy room, would be to supply what is needed to make significant gains and make it utterly undeniable to the Russian public and the Russian military that they’ve taken a beating and they need to sit down, shut up, and think about a different way of doing business.

 

I agree there may be a rinse and repeat if there's no membership but NATO know that and can't afford to go through this shit again so membership will be rushed. 

[Genie]

6 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

 

It’s always been about the lines on the map.

When you buy a globe or an atlas, there won’t be a little asterix that says whilst this bit is Russia, it did cost them 2,000 tanks and 300 mini buses.

It is for us as outsiders, for the people of Ukraine I imagine it’s about peace, and moving forward.

As I mentioned, it hinges on Ukraines ability to make gains (which they’ve struggled to do for 18 months).

[chrisp65]

Just now, Genie said:

It is for us as outsiders, for the people of Ukraine I imagine it’s about peace, and moving forward.

As I mentioned, it hinges on Ukraines ability to make gains (which they’ve struggled to do for 18 months).

Well for some Ukrainians it means whether or not they’ve now become Russians. For others, whether or not they’ve lost homes and businesses and farms and graveyards where their relatives are buried. Something people appear to be suggesting should be negotiated away as this has been going on quite a while now.

I think it’s absolutely for Ukraine to decide when enough is enough. I also think the drip feeding of aid will influence that decision and influence the Russian mood to enter in to talks. Why not keeping throwing canon fodder at it until Trump gets in and then see what that brings.

[Anthony]

24 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

 

It’s always been about the lines on the map.

When you buy a globe or an atlas, there won’t be a little asterix that says whilst this bit is Russia, it did cost them 2,000 tanks and 300 mini buses.

True, but only afterwards. Right now, in the thick of it, looking at lines on the map tells you almost nothing.

[bickster]

As well as what @chrisp65 says above, I can't see Hungary with Orban in change ever agreeing to Ukraine membership of NATO and as he was only re-elected last year (very comfortably) its a long time before he's out and it's quite possible he'll be elected again

[magnkarl]

We also need to remember that it's not been very long that Ukraine have had long range capability, and they're due F-16's at the start of next year.  What role long range missiles are proving to have is to take out missile-ships, helicopters and essentially rendering an already really bad Russian logistical system even worse off. Give it another 6 months, with hopeful F-16 CAS and the Ukrainian army won't be so reliant on small grinding infantry attacks. So far I think they've been promised something like 30 F-16's from Netherlands, Norway and Denmark that would arrive early next year and they've sent 32 pilots for training. I'm not all clued up on the F-16 but I presume it could make the skies safer for Ukraine - no?

[Mic09]

17 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

We also need to remember that it's not been very long that Ukraine have had long range capability, and they're due F-16's at the start of next year.  What role long range missiles are proving to have is to take out missile-ships, helicopters and essentially rendering an already really bad Russian logistical system even worse off. Give it another 6 months, with hopeful F-16 CAS and the Ukrainian army won't be so reliant on small grinding infantry attacks. So far I think they've been promised something like 30 F-16's from Netherlands, Norway and Denmark that would arrive early next year and they've sent 32 pilots for training. I'm not all clued up on the F-16 but I presume it could make the skies safer for Ukraine - no?

Safer, yes.

Safe enough to consider some sort of treaty? I am not sure.

At the end of the day, it's a moral math problem for Ukrainians. How many lives and how much money are we going to spend, and is the final aim achievable. 

Brighter people than myself will have to calculate that.

But what has worried me since the start is the rhetoric of comparing Putin to Hitler. Once you go down that discourse (which many were happy to jump on very quickly) any sort of treaty/negotiation becomes a bad act in itself.

Every war ends with some sort of negotiation, unless it's a full scale wipe-out. And I can't tell, or wouldn't want to judge, how many Ukrainian/Russian lives that is worth. 

[Mr_Dogg]

Isn't one of Russia's reasons for war the threat of Ukraine joining NATO? They will want a big say in the future direction of Ukraine before agreeing anything, which is of course bullshit.

[villa89]

 

3 hours ago, Anthony said:

So I guess, think of it as like a tug of war. You watch all the huffing and puffing thinking that it's a stalemate. Then one side collapses and the other side win.

I don't see a total Russian collapse though. They are a big enough country and self sufficient enough to at least hold territory and/or counter attack/engage in more terrorism as long as they want to. 

[Genie]

1 hour ago, Mr_Dogg said:

Isn't one of Russia's reasons for war the threat of Ukraine joining NATO? They will want a big say in the future direction of Ukraine before agreeing anything, which is of course bullshit.

and to clear the area of Nazi’s

[Anthony]

20 minutes ago, villa89 said:

 

I don't see a total Russian collapse though. They are a big enough country and self sufficient enough to at least hold territory and/or counter attack/engage in more terrorism as long as they want to. 

I don't think so either, at least as far as the country/regime is concerned. Russian armed forces occupying parts of Ukraine on the other hand...

[Genie]

3 minutes ago, Anthony said:

I don't think so either, at least as far as the country/regime is concerned. Russian armed forces occupying parts of Ukraine on the other hand...

What will change to cause that to happen?

Would it be the introduction of the F16’s? Or is there some other tactical change on the cards?

[Anthony]

23 hours ago, Genie said:

What will change to cause that to happen?

Would it be the introduction of the F16’s? Or is there some other tactical change on the cards?

Well, it could well be that they're doing all the right things already, and that it will eventually work and the Russians will be ground down to be an ineffective fighting force in Ukraine. 

F16’s make things much easier though. Their  introduction would protect ground forces enabling them to move more quickly maybe?

So I don't think the strategy would change, just the tactics. 

I need to dig up my armchair general sticker. 

EDIT: Found!

Edited November 8, 2023 by Anthony
Found the picture

[magnkarl]

Make of it what you will, but Ukraine seems to have amassed a lot of anti-air assets along the Kherson side of the now much smaller Dniper, and seems to be pushing hard at Krynky, I'm wondering if they're preparing for a bigger crossing using all the delivered pontoon systems that we've yet to see in the war. A quick googling show that Germany in particular have delivered enough sets of different variants to create at least 5 different crossing points, and the other allies have delivered PTS-2 amphibious landing crafts capable of carrying armor up to a MBT-weight.

I wonder if Zalushniy's comments lately have been to give Russia a sense of ease before they're onto something.

Edited November 8, 2023 by magnkarl

[Xann]