Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[villa89]

4 minutes ago, sidcow said:

You think Putin will just sit there as his army are systematically destroyed and pushed back?

Not a chance I'm willing to take a gamble on thanks.  I think you'll be a very lone voice being thankful for a UK or USA war ship to be destroyed by Russia.

He won't have a choice, he doesn't have anything to fight back with. Plus people don't pick fights they know they will lose. The reason he invaded in the first place was because he knew NATO would be too scared/unorganised to send in troops/warplanes. If NATO entered the war Russia would retreat or be defeated in a very short timeframe and Putin would portray it as a staged withdrawal after having gained a victory over the "nazi's" in Ukraine. Anything other than that would mean complete disaster for Russia. Putin isn't stupid like Gaddaffi or Hussein.  

Edited January 9 by villa89

[sidcow]

10 minutes ago, villa89 said:

He won't have a choice, he doesn't have anything to fight back with. Plus people don't pick fights they know they will lose. The reason he invaded in the first place was because he knew NATO would be too scared/unorganised to send in troops/warplanes. If NATO entered the war Russia would retreat or be defeated in a very short timeframe and Putin would portray it as a staged withdrawal after having gained a victory over the "nazi's" in Ukraine. Anything other than that would mean complete disaster for Russia. Putin isn't stupid like Gaddaffi or Hussein.  

OK. It seems however that the Western leaders disagree with you otherwise I'm sure they would have been a lot more forceful than they have been already.

[chrisp65]

24 minutes ago, villa89 said:

He won't have a choice, he doesn't have anything to fight back with. Plus people don't pick fights they know they will lose. The reason he invaded in the first place was because he knew NATO would be too scared/unorganised to send in troops/warplanes. If NATO entered the war Russia would retreat or be defeated in a very short timeframe and Putin would portray it as a staged withdrawal after having gained a victory over the "nazi's" in Ukraine. Anything other than that would mean complete disaster for Russia. Putin isn't stupid like Gaddaffi or Hussein.  

Ah, I see you’re a fan of the Russia is exhausted theory.

When do you think they will fire their last bullet? Summer ‘22? Christmas ‘22? Spring ‘23? Summer ‘23? Christmas ‘23?

 

 

[villa89]

21 minutes ago, sidcow said:

OK. It seems however that the Western leaders disagree with you otherwise I'm sure they would have been a lot more forceful than they have been already.

Nah, they just don't care about Ukraine. If Russia had invaded somewhere else, with oil or money then there would have been much more of a reaction. Take for example if Russia went over the Finnish border instead of Ukraine. Eventhough Finland wasn't in NATO at the time there would have been an immediate reaction. Fair enough Finland is in the EU but it's not just that, they are a modern progressive democracy. Ukraine and most other Russian bordering countries aren't seen with the same priority by western countries and you could say they are looked down on as lesser states with rampant corruption, etc. Look at Georgia, doesn't even make the news that Russia is stealing their land. 

Edited January 9 by villa89

[villa89]

3 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Ah, I see you’re a fan of the Russia is exhausted theory.

When do you think they will fire their last bullet? Summer ‘22? Christmas ‘22? Spring ‘23? Summer ‘23? Christmas ‘23?

That's not what I said at all. 

[chrisp65]

3 minutes ago, villa89 said:

That's not what I said at all. 

Sorry no, your exact quote was ‘he doesn’t have anything to fight back with’.

When do you think his munitions stocks and cannon fodder soldiers will be exhausted, as in all used up?

[villa89]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

When do you think his munitions stocks and cannon fodder soldiers will be exhausted, as in all used up?

If NATO entered the war, around 1 month (or less). The point was that Russia's army is dwarfed by NATO firepower, it would be like US invading Iraq. Russia couldn't fight back against a NATO army. That's pretty much the reason NATO was setup in the first place.  

Edited January 9 by villa89

[chrisp65]

4 minutes ago, villa89 said:

If NATO entered the war, around 1 month (or less). The point was that Russia's army is dwarfed by NATO firepower, it would be like US invading Iraq. Russia couldn't fight back against a NATO army. That's pretty much the reason NATO was setup in the first place.  

I think that’s possibly a gross miscalculation that ignores previous evidence of grand armies that have presumed Russia can’t defend Russia.

This isn’t me suggesting Russia couldn’t have been run back out of Ukraine had we acted quicker, this is me disputing that NATO could join the war and either keep the war limited to Ukraine, or move it to Russian soil and win a decisive war there.

[Genie]

7 minutes ago, villa89 said:

If NATO entered the war, around 1 month (or less). The point was that Russia's army is dwarfed by NATO firepower, it would be like US invading Iraq. Russia couldn't fight back against a NATO army. That's pretty much the reason NATO was setup in the first place.  

I doubt Russia would win in the long term, but they could do an enormous amount of damage, especially if their no-limits partner got involved.

It should be avoided at all costs.

[Mandy Lifeboats]

Russia had Ukraine surrounded on 3 sides.  Russia had the bigger army with more modern equipment.  Russia had a large navy and a large airforce.  Ukraine had virtually no navy or airforce.  Nearly 2 years later Russia has managed to take some of Ukraine, lose 40% of the Black Sea fleet and still hasn't got air supremacy, lost maybe 200,000 troops and crashed its economy.  That's clearly a military lacking something and/or running short of things. 

 

 

[Genie]

7 minutes ago, Mandy Lifeboats said:

Russia had Ukraine surrounded on 3 sides.  Russia had the bigger army with more modern equipment.  Russia had a large navy and a large airforce.  Ukraine had virtually no navy or airforce.  Nearly 2 years later Russia has managed to take some of Ukraine, lose 40% of the Black Sea fleet and still hasn't got air supremacy, lost maybe 200,000 troops and crashed its economy.  That's clearly a military lacking something and/or running short of things. 

 

 

Another way of looking at it, Russia stormed into its neighbour and within days claimed a huge part of the country (the bit it wanted). It created a new border that has barely been penetrated in 2 years despite billions of dollars of donations of Western military hardware and intelligence being thrown at it.

It’s been expensive in terms of money and personnel, buts that’s the same for both sides.

Russia has damaged its own economy and population to a level which it will take generations to repair. I think it would be similar if say France invaded Spain, it would incur enormous losses to its arsenal as is the nature of the game.

 

[bickster]

9 minutes ago, Genie said:

Another way of looking at it, Russia stormed into its neighbour and within days claimed a huge part of the country (the bit it wanted). It created a new border that has barely been penetrated in 2 years despite billions of dollars of donations of Western military hardware and intelligence being thrown at it.

 

This isn't true though is it, in fact the bit it wanted isn't either, they wanted the whole country and got as far as Hostomel on the borders of Kyiv, they were in Kherson on the right bank of the Dnipro both of those have been more than penetrated, they've been regained in their entirety. Then there was the push on the Eastern Front that pushed Russia all the way back from Kharkiv. So the barely penetrated line is just demonstrably untrue

[Mandy Lifeboats]

7 minutes ago, Genie said:

Another way of looking at it, Russia stormed into its neighbour and within days claimed a huge part of the country (the bit it wanted). It created a new border that has barely been penetrated in 2 years despite billions of dollars of donations of Western military hardware and intelligence being thrown at it

 

Err....

Russia seized Kherson, held a rigged vote and adopted it as part of Russia.  

Putin proudly boasted that Kherson was now part ot Russia "forever".  Six weeks later Russia ran away. 

The Western Military hardware and intelligence might have contributed a tiny bit. 

[Genie]

38 minutes ago, bickster said:

This isn't true though is it, in fact the bit it wanted isn't either, they wanted the whole country and got as far as Hostomel on the borders of Kyiv, they were in Kherson on the right bank of the Dnipro both of those have been more than penetrated, they've been regained in their entirety. Then there was the push on the Eastern Front that pushed Russia all the way back from Kharkiv. So the barely penetrated line is just demonstrably untrue

They still hold the entire eastern flank of the country, including the Donbas region. 

They never set out to take the entire country or suggested they wanted it all. There was a short lived attempt at taking Kyiv before they realised they were spread too thin and instead focused on taking and holding the east. Pockets have been reclaimed by Ukraine granted.

[chrisp65]

I’m no military tactician, I’d presumed the attack on Kyiv always felt more ‘speculative’. It helped create additional chaos and uncertainty, it tested the defences. I’m sure the Russians probably felt there was a chance of some local support or uprising, and they probably presumed that Zelensky would run. I didn’t see a failed attempt at taking the whole country. He’s got about 90% of what he wanted geographically. In a year’s time western support for Ukraine will be winding down. Time to rest up, restock, and go again another time. 

[Genie]

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

I’m no military tactician, I’d presumed the attack on Kyiv always felt more ‘speculative’. It helped create additional chaos and uncertainty, it tested the defences. I’m sure the Russians probably felt there was a chance of some local support or uprising, and they probably presumed that Zelensky would run. I didn’t see a failed attempt at taking the whole country. He’s got about 90% of what he wanted geographically. In a year’s time western support for Ukraine will be winding down. Time to rest up, restock, and go again another time. 

Yep, the move on Kyiv wasn’t to take the land, it was an attempt overthrow the leadership and put a puppet government in place.

It was half hearted as you say, and probably hoping they’d be in chaos, or shit themselves into running away (a bit like Putin did when Wagner was heading his way).

Putin has most of what he came for. It’s probably been harder work than he imagined, but again that’s probably the case with almost all major military operations. Look at the US involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[sidcow]

26 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I’m no military tactician, I’d presumed the attack on Kyiv always felt more ‘speculative’. It helped create additional chaos and uncertainty, it tested the defences. I’m sure the Russians probably felt there was a chance of some local support or uprising, and they probably presumed that Zelensky would run. I didn’t see a failed attempt at taking the whole country. He’s got about 90% of what he wanted geographically. In a year’s time western support for Ukraine will be winding down. Time to rest up, restock, and go again another time. 

I think he'd been given assurances by senior staff that they would be welcomed with open arms.

Anyone who thinks this war has gone exactly how Putin wanted is living in serious cloud cuckoo land.

He sacked General after General in the first 6 months of the war.  why did he do that if he was happy with what happened?  They were falling like ninepins at one time.

He's utterly trashed his economy, pushed The west far quicker on renewable energy than he ever would have liked to,  lost masses of military and showed its modern equipment to be utterly second class - they can't cope with last generation western stuff and he's lost half a generation of young men.  The population of Russia is likely to collapse.  I wouldn't' be surprised if he is looking at forced human breeding amongst the remaining population.

it's been a complete disaster.  This is not what he wanted at all.  He thought he's steamroll the nation and the fuss would all die down before The West got it's ass into gear.  

[VillaJ100]

22 minutes ago, sidcow said:

I think he'd been given assurances by senior staff that they would be welcomed with open arms.

Anyone who thinks this war has gone exactly how Putin wanted is living in serious cloud cuckoo land.

He sacked General after General in the first 6 months of the war.  why did he do that if he was happy with what happened?  They were falling like ninepins at one time.

He's utterly trashed his economy, pushed The west far quicker on renewable energy than he ever would have liked to,  lost masses of military and showed its modern equipment to be utterly second class - they can't cope with last generation western stuff and he's lost half a generation of young men.  The population of Russia is likely to collapse.  I wouldn't' be surprised if he is looking at forced human breeding amongst the remaining population.

it's been a complete disaster.  This is not what he wanted at all.  He thought he's steamroll the nation and the fuss would all die down before The West got it's ass into gear.  

rather thank the forced breeding he's just kidnapping Ukrainian children en masse. The smartest person in Russia is Elvira Nabiullina, the chair of the central bank how she's managed to avoid the economy completely imploding. It will happen one day though, they are burning through their reserves.

With regard to materiel, they will always be able to build more because of the worldwide alliance of absolute cockroaches enabling them the circumvent sanctions. However the key is it won't be quick enough for a replacement. That's why you see a big missile attack, then a month later another one.

[sidcow]

14 minutes ago, VillaJ100 said:

rather thank the forced breeding he's just kidnapping Ukrainian children en masse.

That's not going to replace a lost generation.  It will be a mere blip 

[chrisp65]

13 hours ago, sidcow said:

 

Anyone who thinks this war has gone exactly how Putin wanted is living in serious cloud cuckoo land.

I don’t think anyone thinks this has gone exactly how Putin wanted, I’ve not seen that anywhere, not even in the Russian media clips we get to see.

13 hours ago, sidcow said:

 

it's been a complete disaster.    

There are lots of metrics that can show us whatever we want. I’d suggest the lines on the map would be the main metric. Where were they in 2013, 2020, and 2024? I’m not sure that can be called a complete disaster? Has he lost power in Russia? 

Don’t get me wrong, he’s got massive problems to sort out, they’re just not the problems he needs to give much of a shit about, because he decides what his vote share will be in the next election.

There appears to be a lack of understanding on what hurts the Russian leadership, and forcing up the price of oil or adding 4% to mortgage costs ain’t it. Unfortunately, losing 200,000 young men probably ain’t it either. It’s a massive obscene number, but how many males between the ages of 18 and 30 are there in Russia? Something like 7 million according to the demographics charts that can be wiki’d up?  They are nowhere near the bottom of that barrel. We are using the wrong metrics, we have presumed that financial hardship and deaths will deter a country historically hardened to death and hardship with a leader that has an iron grip on power.

Can he be beaten? Absolutely, yes. But not with a cautious, holding, defensive strategy.