Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[avfc1982am]

 

[magnkarl]

5 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

What you've described is just "taking territory" though, no? The Russians made a tactical retreat around Kiev but it still resulted in Ukraine retaking all that territory, which was a victory for Ukraine. The fact of the matter is Ukraine would ideally prefer not to have vacated that territory in the Donbass but has chosen to because they feel like trying to hold it in the face of a Russian advance would cause them unacceptable casualties. That's a victory for Russia.

Sure, it's perfectly valid to suggest that maybe the territory being taken is not particularly large or consequential and that the Russians are paying far more in blood for every mile taken than the Ukrainians are. Personally I'm not as convinced about that as I was a week ago (particularly regarding the Russians taking more casualties than the Ukrainians right now). The counter-narrative is that the Ukrainians are holding towns and villages while they are pounded into rubble by overwhelming Russian artillery, and are pretty much shattered when the Russians move in and are thus forced to retreat to new defensive lines. Then process repeats and the losses continue.

Given that Zelensky is complaining about high casulaties and the Ukrainians are going backwards, the alternate scenario (or some combination of the two) seems equally plausible. It suggests a few cracks have appeared in the Ukrainian war effort and I'm not yet sure how significant they are. It could be a portent of a new phase of the war, or it could signal absolutely nothing and we'll see the Russian attacks burn out and another major Russian disaster unfold. But I'm watching with a bit of concern at the moment and I'm surprised anyone can look at current events and think things are unfolding completely to plan.

Incidentally, in the Donbas it seems like a lot of the assaults are happening at night and the Russians locally actually have better night fighting capabilities than the Ukranians do. It's another example of how the situation is perhaps more complex than initially imagined, whether it be because the Russians are adapting their tactics or because the Ukrainian special forces are busy around Kharkiv and their Donbas troops are less well equipped. 

The new reports suggest that almost all of Russia’s offensive power has been allocated to Severodonetsk, while Ukraine are now attacking successfully around Popasna.

In short, yes Russia is now inching towards Severodonetsk, but they’re conceding elsewhere. I presume Putin wants to grandstand that he’s got the whole of Luhansk no matter the cost. If Ukraine can keep Russia hog tied around Severodonetsk, they can push the available new brigades further north and south and effectively implode the whole front.

Where we don’t agree, is you comparing what Russia did around Kiev to the orderly withdrawals that UA are doing in the East. Russia lost more tanks around Kiev than Ukraine has in total. They’re still not controlling the air. They lost an estimated 10.000 troops before their ‘withdrawal’. By all accounts that isn’t a withdrawal.

It’s also worth noting that many of the old thought brigade that claimed that Russia would steam roll Ukraine are now trying to use every minor Ukrainian withdrawal as their ‘ha! I was right!’-moment.

Edited May 27, 2022 by magnkarl

[Awol]

2 hours ago, avfc1982am said:

I think it's a matter of time before the Russians completely occupy the Donbas. But he lies the issue. Can they hold this region indefinitely. I really don't see it unless Ukraine concede the territory and then if they don't, continually keeping these regions armed defensively is a big ask. 

Heard earlier that the latest intake of Russians conscripts will be graduated in June rather than late August when they were due to finish their initial training. That will be enough guys to equip maybe 30 BTGs with 3rd echelon kit, i.e. BMP 1’s and T62s. They will be under-trained, under-equipped, and green as grass. It’s believed that the training staff will mobilize with those units to provide a leadership cadre, the dictionary definition of desperation.

Why? Russia’s well aware that Ukraine will be bringing many new formations into action in July, and this is all Russia has left in the locker to reinforce the army in Ukraine before that happens.

The operational picture is grim right now for the UAF in the Donbas, and will 100% get worse over the next few weeks. The strategic picture is a horror movie for Russia. The more we in the west can provide to Ukraine, the more Ukrainian lives will ultimately be saved.

[avfc1982am]

11 minutes ago, Awol said:

Heard earlier that the latest intake of Russians conscripts will be graduated in June rather than late August when they were due to finish their initial training. That will be enough guys to equip maybe 30 BTGs with 3rd echelon kit, i.e. BMP 1’s and T62s. They will be under-trained, under-equipped, and green as grass. It’s believed that the training staff will mobilize with those units to provide a leadership cadre, the dictionary definition of desperation.

Why? Russia’s well aware that Ukraine will be bringing many new formations into action in July, and this is all Russia has left in the locker to reinforce the army in Ukraine before that happens.

The operational picture is grim right now for the UAF in the Donbas, and will 100% get worse over the next few weeks. The strategic picture is a horror movie for Russia. The more we in the west can provide to Ukraine, the more Ukrainian lives will ultimately be saved.

I think once the Russians have established the Donbas and then try to maintain it is when it gets tricky. No way will they be able to hold a defensive line as wide as they currently have indefinitely. It's quite ridiculous how difficult they've made this for themselves. And with 800,000 Ukrainians ready to deploy in the next month or so, freshly equipped Russia will imo be in a whirl of shit. If Zelenskky and his government are serious about reclaiming territory. I think what may happen is that Russians that get  pulled/relieved, whatever you want to call it, many won't go back. This is where I think it starts to unravel for Russia.

Holding Crimea which in essence is an island is one thing, but an area that is so accessible is going to cause them more than a few issues. I really hope Ukrainians are up for this because the west are really dependent on a lesson being taught here. I do agree entirely though, it's going to get much grimmer before any turning of the tide can happen. It's all about attrition now and I think it's going to be a long slog. 

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

 

It’s also worth noting that many of the old thought brigade that claimed that Russia would steam roll Ukraine are now trying to use every minor Ukrainian withdrawal as their ‘ha! I was right!’-moment.

I mean, in the interest of condemning all propaganda, there were those insisting Russia would be spent in 10 days.

 

[Awol]

2 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I mean, in the interest of condemning all propaganda, there were those insisting Russia would be spent in 10 days.

 

I’ll happily hold my hands up to his one. When the invasion started (as it was clearly going to) I expected the west to introduce a total economic blockade immediately, but more importantly, thought the Russian public would be appalled by an invasion of Ukraine given the huge familial overlap between them. That was categorically and undeniably wrong, but it was a failure of analysis, not propaganda.

[Genie]

48 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I mean, in the interest of condemning all propaganda, there were those insisting Russia would be spent in 10 days.

 

Yeah, those were the day. Apparently they only had about 7 days worth of missiles but they seem to be making them last quite well.

[bickster]

6 minutes ago, Genie said:

Yeah, those were the day. Apparently they only had about 7 days worth of missiles but they seem to be making them last quite well.

No that was never the claim, modern precision artillery shells was the actual claim, it got mistranslated a few places. What they've been firing a lot is old old dumb missiles. and the failure rate of these old shells is quite high, not high enough to not be effective but they are seemingly out of precision artillery shells

Back to the tank thing, there have been some T-80s spotted on the way to the front in the last few days but they aren't modernised T-80s they are much older without the upgrades. The T-80 also, has a notorious short range and therefore needs is fuel guzzling gas turbine engine heavily re-supplied. They also aren't very easy to service in the field, which is the reason the t-72 became more dominant

Quite soon they might be launching all the toilets and washing machines they liberated from Kyiv via newly made trebuchets

[Panto_Villan]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

The new reports suggest that almost all of Russia’s offensive power has been allocated to Severodonetsk, while Ukraine are now attacking successfully around Popasna.

In short, yes Russia is now inching towards Severodonetsk, but they’re conceding elsewhere. I presume Putin wants to grandstand that he’s got the whole of Luhansk no matter the cost. If Ukraine can keep Russia hog tied around Severodonetsk, they can push the available new brigades further north and south and effectively implode the whole front.

Where we don’t agree, is you comparing what Russia did around Kiev to the orderly withdrawals that UA are doing in the East. Russia lost more tanks around Kiev than Ukraine has in total. They’re still not controlling the air. They lost an estimated 10.000 troops before their ‘withdrawal’. By all accounts that isn’t a withdrawal.

It’s also worth noting that many of the old thought brigade that claimed that Russia would steam roll Ukraine are now trying to use every minor Ukrainian withdrawal as their ‘ha! I was right!’-moment.

You're misunderstanding my point about Kiev. I'm not equating the losses or the scale of the victory; I'm simply pointing out that the phrase "tactical withdrawal" can cover a whole manner of sins. A withdrawal just involves retreating forces while maintaining contact with the enemy. The Russians definitely made a tactical withdrawal from Kiev. They'd suffered extensive losses beforehand but that's irrelevent; the definition of the word "withdrawal" doesn't change if you've taken losses beforehand.

Fundamentally your own position that ceding territory is a good thing rests on the assumption that Ukraine isn't suffering heavy casualties and is retreating in an orderly fashion, whereas the Russians are continuing to suffer massive casualties. Much as I'd love there to be concrete evidence that that's happening at the moment, I can't see any proof of that (unlike during the rest of the war). In fact, several things have happened which suggest the situation may have changed. Not has definitely changed, but may have changed. Which means we need to consider the alternative scenarios that might arise if it has.

It may be scaremongering by people trying to score internet argument points, but that in itself isn't enough for me to dismiss the possibility that recent events aren't going as well as Ukraine wants them to. But hopefully the Russians have just had a few good days and normal service will resume shortly.

[bickster]

For some perspective These are the "large" gains Russia has made in the last two weeks around Severodonetsk

[magnkarl]

8 hours ago, Panto_Villan said:

You're misunderstanding my point about Kiev. I'm not equating the losses or the scale of the victory; I'm simply pointing out that the phrase "tactical withdrawal" can cover a whole manner of sins. A withdrawal just involves retreating forces while maintaining contact with the enemy. The Russians definitely made a tactical withdrawal from Kiev. They'd suffered extensive losses beforehand but that's irrelevent; the definition of the word "withdrawal" doesn't change if you've taken losses beforehand.

Fundamentally your own position that ceding territory is a good thing rests on the assumption that Ukraine isn't suffering heavy casualties and is retreating in an orderly fashion, whereas the Russians are continuing to suffer massive casualties. Much as I'd love there to be concrete evidence that that's happening at the moment, I can't see any proof of that (unlike during the rest of the war). In fact, several things have happened which suggest the situation may have changed. Not has definitely changed, but may have changed. Which means we need to consider the alternative scenarios that might arise if it has.

It may be scaremongering by people trying to score internet argument points, but that in itself isn't enough for me to dismiss the possibility that recent events aren't going as well as Ukraine wants them to. But hopefully the Russians have just had a few good days and normal service will resume shortly.

The whole essential line from the pentagon, isw, mod etc are exactly that, Russia is gaining ‘incremental pieces of land for massive casualties’. The question is how long they can keep losing whole btg’s trying to cross a river, storm a defensive position etc before their remaining btg’s can operate effectively.

[Panto_Villan]

The concern was always the implied encirclement from those gains rather than the gains themselves.

Anyway, sounds like we’re going to find out shortly whether the Ukrainians are able to hold onto territory when they choose to fight for it properly (read the whole linked mini thread).

I do hope you guys are correct.

[Panto_Villan]

28 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

The whole essential line from the pentagon, isw, mod etc are exactly that, Russia is gaining ‘incremental pieces of land for massive casualties’. The question is how long they can keep losing whole btg’s trying to cross a river, storm a defensive position etc before their remaining btg’s can operate effectively.

Can you cite even one press release from the past five days from any of those bodies that says the Ukrainians are not suffering high casualties but the Russians are?

We all know the gains are incremental (though steady). The concern from many people, including a lot of strongly pro-Ukrainian commentators, is that the Russians have changed their tactics and now the Ukrainians are taking very high casualties.

The whole “tactical withdrawal to bleed your enemies” only works if they’re bleeding more than you. Otherwise you’ve just suffered a series of blood-soaked defeats.

[magnkarl]

23 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

Can you cite even one press release from the past five days from any of those bodies that says the Ukrainians are not suffering high casualties but the Russians are?

We all know the gains are incremental (though steady). The concern from many people, including a lot of strongly pro-Ukrainian commentators, is that the Russians have changed their tactics and now the Ukrainians are taking very high casualties.

The whole “tactical withdrawal to bleed your enemies” only works if they’re bleeding more than you. Otherwise you’ve just suffered a series of blood-soaked defeats.

Your whole stance seems to think that Russia has more troops than Ukraine. They don’t. Who do you think wants to fight harder, Russian green conscripts, fighting in a ‘special operation’ with t-62’s or Ukrainian men and women trying to keep what happened in Bucha from their door? 

Russia has committed somewhere along the lines of 2-300k troops. Ukraine has more territorial defence forces than this. If Putin declares full scale war it’s a different picture but as of now Russia can barely push in one area, let alone defend in others. That is before Ukraine’s 600k combat hardened Donbas veterans arrive at the front, NATO equipment in hand.

In short, if Russia and Ukraine are losing the same amount of men Russia will lose this war so long as mass mobilisation isn’t announced in Russia. 

[bickster]

There also seems to have been a concerted effort by the likes of Henry Kissinger / New York Times  and possibly the WSJ to change the narrative to one about Ukraine accepting its losses in the last week or so

[Panto_Villan]

35 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Your whole stance seems to think that Russia has more troops than Ukraine. They don’t. Who do you think wants to fight harder, Russian green conscripts, fighting in a ‘special operation’ with t-62’s or Ukrainian men and women trying to keep what happened in Bucha from their door? 

Russia has committed somewhere along the lines of 2-300k troops. Ukraine has more territorial defence forces than this. If Putin declares full scale war it’s a different picture but as of now Russia can barely push in one area, let alone defend in others. That is before Ukraine’s 600k combat hardened Donbas veterans arrive at the front, NATO equipment in hand.

In short, if Russia and Ukraine are losing the same amount of men Russia will lose this war so long as mass mobilisation isn’t announced in Russia. 

Right. So you can’t quote a source then?

So first you argued that the Russians had culminated and weren’t making any gains at all. Then you argued that the gains didn’t count because the Ukrainians weren’t taking many losses due to their orderly withdrawals from the ceded territories. Now you’re arguing they are taking heavy losses, but that it’s fine because the Ukrainians are better placed to absorb massive losses than Russia is.

Congratulations on arguing yourself around to the position I laid out in my first posts (and also in the debate I had with Blandy earlier this week), which was the Russians have recently changed tactics and enjoyed some minor but steady tactical victories over the past week where the attrition rate may be much higher for Ukrainian forces than it was previously, but the overall strategic picture probably still favours the Ukrainians due to their greater capability and willingness to absorb losses.

Shame it took about twenty posts for you to realise that you actually agreed with me all along.

Edited May 28, 2022 by Panto_Villan

[LondonLax]

According to Zelensky Ukrainian soldiers are being killed at the rate of 100 a day, the injured will be multiples of that.

And presumably that’s the rosy version he’s willing to share with the public. 

 

[blandy]

41 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

…in the debate I had with Blandy earlier this week…

…the overall strategic picture probably still favours the Ukrainians due to their greater capability and willingness to absorb losses.

Debate? From my perspective I just discuss - I’m not trying to “win” a debate. I don’t know enough about it all.

on the second line, I was pondering something. It’s this: If/ when Russia takes the next city or large town, and they will, I don’t see how Ukraine retakes it by force, because they can’t shell and bomb their own civilian people there like the Russians do. So as long as civilians stay, Russia has an inbuilt advantage. Equally I can see no point or purpose in Russia taking these places - I mean they then have a presence in a destroyed, ruined city with a population that now hates them. If they stay there then they have to rebuild it or move the civilians out. And if they move the civilians out, the Russians then become sitting duck targets for Ukraine to retake the place.

So the only purpose of all this from Russia’s perspective has to be to grab the territory they want and then negotiate an end to the war.

[bickster]

Quote

Ukrainian forces have pushed the Russians back to their previous positions during the fighting for Sievierodonetsk.

Source: Serhiy Haidai, head of the Oblast Military Administration, on Telegram.

Quote from Haidai: "The Russians have been pushed back to their previous positions; another bridge between Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk has been damaged. But passage between the cities is maintained.

The Russians have suffered significant losses and have been forced to retreat near Sievierodonetsk, Toshkivka and Oskolonivka. However, they are not abandoning attempts to reach the rear of our troops and disrupt logistical support in the Luhansk region.

Ukrainian Pravda

[Panto_Villan]

49 minutes ago, blandy said:

Debate? From my perspective I just discuss - I’m not trying to “win” a debate. I don’t know enough about it all.

on the second line, I was pondering something. It’s this: If/ when Russia takes the next city or large town, and they will, I don’t see how Ukraine retakes it by force, because they can’t shell and bomb their own civilian people there like the Russians do. So as long as civilians stay, Russia has an inbuilt advantage. Equally I can see no point or purpose in Russia taking these places - I mean they then have a presence in a destroyed, ruined city with a population that now hates them. If they stay there then they have to rebuild it or move the civilians out. And if they move the civilians out, the Russians then become sitting duck targets for Ukraine to retake the place.

So the only purpose of all this from Russia’s perspective has to be to grab the territory they want and then negotiate an end to the war.

Oh, I wasn’t using the word debate in a confrontational way. Just saying you were putting forward your thoughts and reasoning for consideration and I did the same thing.

One thing to bear in mind is that Ukrainian artillery is a lot more accurate and used far less indiscriminately than the Russian kind so I’m not sure there will be many limitations on reclaiming territory in that regard. There seems to be plenty of videos of Ukrainian artillery flattening Ukrainian buildings that Russian forces are using for cover already.

I do wonder how many civilians are actually left in many of these places too. Certainly the big cities have many but I think any situation where the Ukrainians can encircle an occupied city, you’d think it’d probably indicate the Russians are doing so badly they’d want to surrender anyway?

Edited May 28, 2022 by Panto_Villan