Thoughts on the Russo-Ukranian War?

MontyB said:
The problem for the Russians is that Verdun was as disastrous for the Germans as it was the French, both armies bled themselves white.

Also given the effort Russia has put into Bakhmut essentially its entire winter campaign and has bugger all to show for it, Ukraine could withdraw and still call it a strategic victory.
Click to expand...

There is no other alternative for Russia as to give up is out of the question .
About Verdun :the Germans knew that it would be impossible to defeat a combined French/British army and tried to eliminate France before Britain would be totally ready .
Ukraine,OTOH, is on its own :there is no western army fighting in Ukraine .
It is still very questionable that Ukraine could withdraw,an Ukrainian retreat could have very unpleasant political consequences .
 
MontyB said:
I don't see the point in mobilising more troops if they can't adequately train and equip the last 300k, all they are doing is giving Ukrainian artillerymen plenty of targets, essentially trading lives for metres isn't a winning strategy.
Click to expand...
Traditional Russian strategy though...
 
lljadw said:
There is no other alternative for Russia as to give up is out of the question .
About Verdun :the Germans knew that it would be impossible to defeat a combined French/British army and tried to eliminate France before Britain would be totally ready .
Ukraine,OTOH, is on its own :there is no western army fighting in Ukraine .
It is still very questionable that Ukraine could withdraw,an Ukrainian retreat could have very unpleasant political consequences .
Click to expand...

The problem with the Verdun idea is that it wasn't a win for anyone, in fact it was a disaster for both.
 
Iran,China, France, Germany, Finland,Austria,etc,sold /are selling weapons to Russia and it is possible that some European countries still do it,mostly for economic reasons .
The EU closed a loophole only in April last year .
India buys weapons and oil from Russia ,Turkey (member of NATO ) and India are buying Russian oil and gas and export this to other countries, including the US .
Russian imports to Belgium are increasing .
Poland is giving Ukraine 4 ( not 40 ! ) obsolete Soviet Migs and receives from US and SK modern aircraft in exchange .Thus Ukraine has to do with what Poland wanted to be delivered from .
No Western tanks are yet operating in Ukraine .
All this says a lot about the willingness of the West to help Ukraine .
It is the usual : listen to what I am saying, but don't look at what I am doing .
 
MontyB said:
The problem with the Verdun idea is that it wasn't a win for anyone, in fact it was a disaster for both.
Click to expand...

But still Verdun was a logical decision,as there was no alternative for Germany to win the war in 1916.
Germany had to regain the strategic initiative very quickly,as time was working against Germany, and this could happen only on the western Theater of Operations .
Russia also has to regain the strategic initiative and the Kremlin thinks that this can only happen by killing a lot of Ukrainians and it hopes that this can force Ukraine to give up .
It is doubtful that this will happen, but I see no alternative for Russia to win the war .Mobile warfare will not do it .
 
lljadw said:
But still Verdun was a logical decision,as there was no alternative for Germany to win the war in 1916.
Germany had to regain the strategic initiative very quickly,as time was working against Germany, and this could happen only on the western Theater of Operations .
Russia also has to regain the strategic initiative and the Kremlin thinks that this can only happen by killing a lot of Ukrainians and it hopes that this can force Ukraine to give up .
It is doubtful that this will happen, but I see no alternative for Russia to win the war .Mobile warfare will not do it .
Click to expand...

It was a logical idea poorly thought-out and executed, it relied heavily on German misconceptions about the French and while there are similarities I think Bakhmut is entirely different.

By not giving up Bakhmut the Russians have gradually become fixated on taking it, they have funnelled men and material into a small area and taken massive casualties but in the process they have entirely forgotten the rest of Ukraine so an entire movement period (winter) where Russia still had material and manpower superiority has been focused on a 50km stretch of the frontline and achieved nothing.
Now Ukraine gets 2-3 more months of training through spring and western material while Russia gets to fill the gaps with yet more mobilised dumbarses with even less training and equipment.
 
MontyB said:
It was a logical idea poorly thought-out and executed, it relied heavily on German misconceptions about the French and while there are similarities I think Bakhmut is entirely different.

By not giving up Bakhmut the Russians have gradually become fixated on taking it, they have funnelled men and material into a small area and taken massive casualties but in the process they have entirely forgotten the rest of Ukraine so an entire movement period (winter) where Russia still had material and manpower superiority has been focused on a 50km stretch of the frontline and achieved nothing.
Now Ukraine gets 2-3 more months of training through spring and western material while Russia gets to fill the gaps with yet more mobilised dumbarses with even less training and equipment.
Click to expand...

What should the Russians have done ?
1 Doing nothing was politically impossible and militarily the results would have been negative .
2 A blitzkrieg ?Their attack last year was a failure :it did not result in the surrender of Ukraine .Besides :even if a mobile warfare has results, it can't force Ukraine to surrender .
3 Bakhmut :the Russians suffer big losses but this is not important :if Ukraine gives up,no one will remember these losses, if the war continues,Russia can claim that Ukraine also suffers big losses and that Russia can afford bigger losses than Ukraine .
4 Bakhmut is a new Verdun :Verdun had as aim to break the will to fight of the French population .That it failed,does not mean that the decision to fight a war of attrition was bad,as Germany had no other serious option .
Japan did the same as attrition was the only option to force the US to negotiate.
The Bahkmut battle has the same aim :to break the will to fight of Ukraine .
If there was a better solution, Russia would have chosen this solution ,but choices in wartime are not determined by what is better,but by what is possible .
If Russia has material and manpower superiority ( an almost meaningless conception ) ,what should it do ?How should it use this superiority ?
If the battle of Bahkmut fails to break the Ukrainian will to fight, but makes it impossible for Ukraine to start a big offensive to expel the Russians, was it a'' good or bad '' decision ?
And even if it is a bad decision,a bad choice , is there an alternative ?
It was the same for Verdun : a victory in the east was impossible and even if it was possible, it would not give Germany a total victory .
Reality is that Russia has only one choice : to be able to fight longer than Ukraine .
 
lljadw said:
What should the Russians have done ?
1 Doing nothing was politically impossible and militarily the results would have been negative .
2 A blitzkrieg ?Their attack last year was a failure :it did not result in the surrender of Ukraine .Besides :even if a mobile warfare has results, it can't force Ukraine to surrender .
3 Bakhmut :the Russians suffer big losses but this is not important :if Ukraine gives up,no one will remember these losses, if the war continues,Russia can claim that Ukraine also suffers big losses and that Russia can afford bigger losses than Ukraine .
4 Bakhmut is a new Verdun :Verdun had as aim to break the will to fight of the French population .That it failed,does not mean that the decision to fight a war of attrition was bad,as Germany had no other serious option .
Japan did the same as attrition was the only option to force the US to negotiate.
The Bahkmut battle has the same aim :to break the will to fight of Ukraine .
If there was a better solution, Russia would have chosen this solution ,but choices in wartime are not determined by what is better,but by what is possible .
If Russia has material and manpower superiority ( an almost meaningless conception ) ,what should it do ?How should it use this superiority ?
If the battle of Bahkmut fails to break the Ukrainian will to fight, but makes it impossible for Ukraine to start a big offensive to expel the Russians, was it a'' good or bad '' decision ?
And even if it is a bad decision,a bad choice , is there an alternative ?
It was the same for Verdun : a victory in the east was impossible and even if it was possible, it would not give Germany a total victory .
Reality is that Russia has only one choice : to be able to fight longer than Ukraine .
Click to expand...

What should the Russians have done?
Well the first thing that comes to mind is stay on their side of the border, as for Russian choices during war time let's not forget it was their choice to go to war, Ukraine was never going to invade Russia in a million years.

Russia has an entire military infrastructure devoted to planning, training and logistics perhaps some one should have figured out whether any of these systems were working before Vlad the Invader went nuts and pressed the go button.

Hell at the very least I would have though the Russians of all people would have known how the rasputitsa affected military operations and avoided trying to invade during that period.

Let me fire back a question... What have the Russians done right in this conflict?
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
What should the Russians have done?
Well the first thing that comes to mind is stay on their side of the border, as for Russian choices during war time let's not forget it was their choice to go to war, Ukraine was never going to invade Russia in a million years.

Russia has an entire military infrastructure devoted to planning, training and logistics perhaps some one should have figured out whether any of these systems were working before Vlad the Invader went nuts and pressed the go button.

Hell at the very least I would have though the Russians of all people would have known how the rasputitsa affected military operations and avoided trying to invade during that period.

Let me fire back a question... What have the Russians done right in this conflict?
Click to expand...
''What have the Russians have done right in this conflict ''is something meaningless, as it is not a question of doing right (you can fail if you do things right and succeed if you do things wrong ) ,but to succeed .
About the rasputitsa ( which was not the cause of the Russian failure,as the Russians also failed when there was no rasputitsa ) :there is no proof that they underestimated the influence of the rasputitsa .
Why did they attack during the rasputitsa ?
Possibilities
1 They were not ready to attack before the rasputitza
2 They could not afford to wait til after the rasputitza
3 The attack was conceived as a short,quick and cheap operation on which the rasputitza would have no influence .
The rasputitza would have it made very difficult to advance to the Ukrainian borders with Poland and Romania, but the Russians were not planning to do this as this was not needed, not possible even in the summer,and would not help Russia .
 
lljadw said:
''What have the Russians have done right in this conflict ''is something meaningless, as it is not a question of doing right (you can fail if you do things right and succeed if you do things wrong ) ,but to succeed .
About the rasputitsa ( which was not the cause of the Russian failure,as the Russians also failed when there was no rasputitsa ) :there is no proof that they underestimated the influence of the rasputitsa .
Why did they attack during the rasputitsa ?
Possibilities
1 They were not ready to attack before the rasputitza
2 They could not afford to wait til after the rasputitza
3 The attack was conceived as a short,quick and cheap operation on which the rasputitza would have no influence .
The rasputitza would have it made very difficult to advance to the Ukrainian borders with Poland and Romania, but the Russians were not planning to do this as this was not needed, not possible even in the summer,and would not help Russia .
Click to expand...

1. Correct and they still aren't ready.

2. Why? Was Kiev planning to attack Russia, I can't see evidence of that given the size of Ukraine's military a year ago.

3. Putin says it is going to plan, apparently blowing billions of dollars in hardware and killing tens of thousands of his own people was the plan and it is going swimmingly.
 
MontyB said:
I found this rather interesting...

A year of war
Click to expand...


In a nutshell, this war is waged by a single minded, military visionary of Russia’s modern day autocrat who doesn’t care about his people, but greed and power. In essence, it is a war of psychology and economics. Time has come for reintroducing Putin to a new Butter versus Guns model, America’s Cold War Economic Diplomacy. Because the war is unsustainable for the people of Russia.
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
1. Correct and they still aren't ready.

2. Why? Was Kiev planning to attack Russia, I can't see evidence of that given the size of Ukraine's military a year ago.

3. Putin says it is going to plan, apparently blowing billions of dollars in hardware and killing tens of thousands of his own people was the plan and it is going swimmingly.
Click to expand...

2 If their buildup lasted longer,this would give Ukraine the opportunity to take the needed measures ,.as mobilisation, and the benefit of surprise would be lost,and surprise was essential .The number of men that could be committed was limited ( some 200000 ) and a delay of the attack would not increase this number .
Time was running against Russia and was Russia's greatest enemy .
3 What Putin is saying today has nothing to do with the planning for the attack in February last year .The war was conceived a something as a Blumenkrieg as in 1938 in Austria and big Ukrainian losses (especially of civilians ) had to be prevented as the invasion could succeed only by the collaboration of the Ukrainians ,as Russia could not conquer, occupy and pacify Ukraine . Very soon the Russians would have to go and Ukraine would have to be ruled by a Quisling, as in Belarus, but this Quisling would need the collaboration and support of the Ukrainians and this was only possible if as few as possible Ukrainians were killed and houses destroyed .
Thus a fast,short and cheap war was the only solution .
Now the situation is totally different .
 
Tuan said:
https://www.iisd.org/articles/insight/invasion-ukraine-sustainable-development


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666683922000591
Click to expand...

These sources do not prove or even indicate that the war is unsustainable for the Russians .
Only a total collaps of the Russian economy due to the war,would make the war unsustainable for the Russians .
There are no proofs that the Russians have now less food,that millions of Russians have lost their job ,that inflation in Russia is out of control .
Sustainable development goals are invented by bureaucrats from the UNO and no one cares about these things in Russia .
 
Ukraine is suffering much more from the war than Russia, but is not giving up ,thus why would the war be unsustainable for the Russians ?Unless there are proofs that the Russians have no balls .
 
If Russians are self sufficient, then why would they rely on China, India and Iran? Despite being ruled by an authoritarian regime, the people of Russia are still demonstrating on the streets against the dictatorship. Why?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top