Thoughts on the Russo-Ukranian War?

[lljadw]

so they know fully well what happens next should Ukraine fail.

This is wrong :the fall of Ukraine ( which is impossible,even without Western help ) will not endanger Poland :Russia is now fighting since 14 months and is still failing to defeat Ukraine .
The reason is not the Western help,but the fact that Russia is too weak:with 200000 men it is impossible to defeat Ukraine, to occupy Ukraine, to pacify Ukraine and an invasion of Poland is totally out of the question .
If Russia can not defeat Ukraine, it can not endanger Poland .

 

[lljadw]

While Poland has given a lot, I thought it was the Baltic states that had given the most for their size.

The Baltic States also are safe,as they are members of NATO,with Poland and Russia can not afford a war with NATO.
And even if Poland and Russia were not NATO members, the risk of a Russian attack is meaningless :the USSR was much more stronger than Russia, but did not attack Finland, Sweden, Yugoslavia which were not members of NATO .
And between 1920 and 1939 the USSR did not attack Poland,although Poland had no allies ,the reason was that there was no need for the Soviets to attack Poland .The need existed only in September 1939,when Hitler attacked Poland .
The Soviets knew very well, as the Russians are knowing very well,that Poland was/is a poisoned gift for them as would be Ukraine if it could be defeated, occupied and pacified .

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

While Poland has given a lot, I thought it was the Baltic states that had given the most for their size.

The Baltic states have provided with Javelin missiles and Stinger missiles. But they can't give a lot without disarming themselves. The Baltic states have provided with financial support and other non lethal support. But the Balts I have met are really angry about the war (and hate the Russians)

 

[MontyB]

This is wrong :the fall of Ukraine ( which is impossible,even without Western help ) will not endanger Poland :Russia is now fighting since 14 months and is still failing to defeat Ukraine .
The reason is not the Western help,but the fact that Russia is too weak:with 200000 men it is impossible to defeat Ukraine, to occupy Ukraine, to pacify Ukraine and an invasion of Poland is totally out of the question .
If Russia can not defeat Ukraine, it can not endanger Poland .

What it turns out Russia has the capability of doing is not the same as what it planned or intended to do.

After 14 months of war we can now say the that the Russian military is largely incompetent most likely caused by rampant corruption, we didn't know that on day one and by the looks of it neither did they.

 

[lljadw]

What it turns out Russia has the capability of doing is not the same as what it planned or intended to do.

After 14 months of war we can now say the that the Russian military is largely incompetent most likely caused by rampant corruption, we didn't know that on day one and by the looks of it neither did they.

The Russian failure is not caused by incompetence or corruption, but by the fact that Russia is to weak .

And, what Russia is planning or intending to do ,is determined by
A what it can do .
B why it would do it ,in other words : the need to do it .Between 1957 and 1977 the USSR could easily have defeated NATO and could advance to the Rhine, but did nothing . The reason was that there was no benefit for the Soviets to do it and to capture West Germany with its 60 million inhabitants :the USSR was already losing its grip on the satellite states .
If Russia could defeat,occupy, pacify Ukraine (600000 square km and 40 million people ) they could never transform the 40 million Ukrainians in docile Russian allies and this alone would already prevent them to do the same in Poland .
The Red Army intervened in East Germany, in Hungary, in CZ, but not in Poland : they knew what the results would be if they did it .

 

[ASTRALdragon]

While Poland has given a lot, I thought it was the Baltic states that had given the most for their size.

I could be wrong, but every time I read the news, Poland is always donating military aid and accepting Ukrainian refugees. Putin wants NATO not to send XYZ. Poland sends two shipments of XYZ the week after. Poland just does not care, and they clearly understand that it's one helluva deal for them to give military aid and money while Ukrainians shed their blood to weaken Putin and deter any future Russian aggression. Any myths the West has had about the Russian military machine has been dispelled in the last 14 months.

 

[MontyB]

I could be wrong, but every time I read the news, Poland is always donating military aid and accepting Ukrainian refugees. Putin wants NATO not to send XYZ. Poland sends two shipments of XYZ the week after. Poland just does not care, and they clearly understand that it's one helluva deal for them to give military aid and money while Ukrainians shed their blood to weaken Putin and deter any future Russian aggression. Any myths the West has had about the Russian military machine has been dispelled in the last 14 months.

I think it would be wrong to under estimate the Russians, as bad as they seem to be they are still making slow progress and Ukraine is struggling to regain momentum but they certainly aren't the military power that the west was raised to fear.

I have run into a few that think this war is costing too much but in reality from a per-capita basis it is a very small percentage of western defence budgets and in most cases it is clearing out long replaced equipment with little more than scrap value an example of which would be the M-113s that have been sent as their future was artillery and ATGM targets.

There is no doubt the Poles have given a lot and I think their best role has been to ignore and push Putin's limits allowing the west to follow.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

The war has turned into be attritional war and that doesn't benefit Ukraine. However, I read a few days ago, the Ukrainian forces have crossed the river Dnipro. They did it somewhere in the south.

 

[MontyB]

The war has turned into be attritional war and that doesn't benefit Ukraine. However, I read a few days ago, the Ukrainian forces have crossed the river Dnipro. They did it somewhere in the south.

It is a dubious claim but apparently they are active in the area north-west of Oleshky.
It seems more likely that they have gained control of the islands in the Dnipro but supplying a force large enough to hold the east bank without bridges seems unlikely at this stage.
I wouldn't be surprised if the activity isn't more designed to draw Russian forces away from other areas.

 

[lljadw]

I have run into a few that think this war is costing too much but in reality from a per-capita basis it is a very small percentage of western defence budgets and in most cases it is clearing out long replaced equipment with little more than scrap value an example of which would be the M-113s that have been sent as their future was artillery and ATGM targets.

You forget the costs for our economies and the danger of a new bank crisis .And the monetary value of the financial, humanitarian and military aid to Ukraine is very big : $ 37 billion for the US alone .
There is also the enormous cost of the Ukrainian fugitives .

 

[MontyB]

You forget the costs for our economies and the danger of a new bank crisis .And the monetary value of the financial, humanitarian and military aid to Ukraine is very big : $ 37 billion for the US alone .
There is also the enormous cost of the Ukrainian fugitives .

The 2023 US defence budget is $842 billion, if you showed up a year ago and said for 4% of your defence budget (or $113 per person) we will tie up the bulk of the Russian military, analyse all its weaponry and destroy a good proportion of it while giving you all the information you could want about it I am prepared to bet they would jump at the deal.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

It is a dubious claim but apparently they are active in the area north-west of Oleshky.
It seems more likely that they have gained control of the islands in the Dnipro but supplying a force large enough to hold the east bank without bridges seems unlikely at this stage.
I wouldn't be surprised if the activity isn't more designed to draw Russian forces away from other areas.

I agree, to logistically supporting an offensive across a river without any bridges over it is most likely a diversion. The Ukrainian forces are probably marines or other lighter infantry units.

 

[lljadw]

The 2023 US defence budget is $842 billion, if you showed up a year ago and said for 4% of your defence budget (or $113 per person) we will tie up the bulk of the Russian military, analyse all its weaponry and destroy a good proportion of it while giving you all the information you could want about it I am prepared to bet they would jump at the deal.

Reality is still that the aid to Ukraine means an increase of the defense budget and thus an increase of taxes of 113 USD per person,or 452 USD for an average family, a big inflation and higher energy prices.
And there is no proof that this increase of taxes,thus more power for the state and less freedom for the population,was tying up the bulk of the Russian military,was analysing all its weaponry and destroying a good proportion of it , because : the decisive period in the Ukraine war was March /April 2022,when the Ukrainians ( not :WE ) were stopping the Russians, without US aid .
The Russians had only a few weeks to win .
Our media tell us
1 WE (the military-industrial complex ) won the war,not the Ukrainians .After all Ukrainians are not Americans .
2 We did not win ,nor did the Ukrainians : the Russians are responsible for their own defeat : their army is incompetent and corrupt (such things do not happen in the West ? ) ,something that is to be expected from Slavs : Slavs are not Americans .
2 is a copycat from Dr Goebbels's theory of the Russian Untermenschen .

 

[MontyB]

Reality is still that the aid to Ukraine means an increase of the defense budget and thus an increase of taxes of 113 USD per person,or 452 USD for an average family, a big inflation and higher energy prices.
And there is no proof that this increase of taxes,thus more power for the state and less freedom for the population,was tying up the bulk of the Russian military,was analysing all its weaponry and destroying a good proportion of it , because : the decisive period in the Ukraine war was March /April 2022,when the Ukrainians ( not :WE ) were stopping the Russians, without US aid .
The Russians had only a few weeks to win .
Our media tell us
1 WE (the military-industrial complex ) won the war,not the Ukrainians .After all Ukrainians are not Americans .
2 We did not win ,nor did the Ukrainians : the Russians are responsible for their own defeat : their army is incompetent and corrupt (such things do not happen in the West ? ) ,something that is to be expected from Slavs : Slavs are not Americans .
2 is a copycat from Dr Goebbels's theory of the Russian Untermenschen .

Not sure what your media is on but ours says that:
1. Ukraine stopped the Russians with the support of western supplied weapons (not just western weapons), which seems fair as Ukraine did all the work but without the west providing ammunition and equipment they probably would have had to accept Russian terms by now.

2 No matter what anyone thinks Ukraine can't win, at best all it can achieve is a stalemate.
If Russia is pushed back to its borders Ukraine can't knock Russia out so at best a stalemate occurs.

As far as Russian competence goes, a nation with 5 times the population, more advanced weaponry than its opposition and more weaponry than its opposition barely made it 150km over the border before it was halted.
Even if you accept parity of forces in terms of quality (not shown in the invasion of Crimea or the inability of Ukraine to retake the Donbas region in the last four years) you would have to admit that the planning of this campaign could only be described as incompetent along with the tactics used.

 

[lljadw]

Not sure what your media is on but ours says that:
1. Ukraine stopped the Russians with the support of western supplied weapons (not just western weapons), which seems fair as Ukraine did all the work but without the west providing ammunition and equipment they probably would have had to accept Russian terms by now.

2 No matter what anyone thinks Ukraine can't win, at best all it can achieve is a stalemate.
If Russia is pushed back to its borders Ukraine can't knock Russia out so at best a stalemate occurs.

As far as Russian competence goes, a nation with 5 times the population, more advanced weaponry than its opposition and more weaponry than its opposition barely made it 150km over the border before it was halted.
Even if you accept parity of forces in terms of quality (not shown in the invasion of Crimea or the inability of Ukraine to retake the Donbas region in the last four years) you would have to admit that the planning of this campaign could only be described as incompetent along with the tactics used.

There is no proof for point one and two and there are a lot of proofs against it :the strategy of the Russian attack was based on the knowledge that success could be obtained only in the first few ( very few ) weeks :if the invasion was not successful on 1 April ,it could never be successful .It was not successful on 1 April and on 1 April Western aid had not arrived .
If today 27 April 2023,there was no Western aid, Ukraine would still refuse Russian terms and Russia could do nothing as Russia has not the means to conquer,occupy and pacify Ukraine .
To conquer Ukraine, Russia would need more than 600000 men ,which it does not have .
To occupy and pacify Ukraine Russia would also need 600000 men ( at least ) for several generations .Also totally impossible .
Russia had only 200000 men available and with 200000 men you can't defeat an army of 500000 men and occupy and pacify a country of 600000 km and 40 million people .
And even if this was possible,these 200000 men ( the bulk of the Russian fighting forces )could not remain in Ukraine .
The only possibility was a short war with few Ukrainian losses and the arrival of an Ukrainian Lukaschenko, who would have the support of the Ukrainian population and army ,because the Russians would have to leave Ukraine, very fast,and all would start again .

The planning was not incompetent but realistic .
About advanced weapons : it is a common and dangerous illusion in the US that more and more advanced weapons are decisive .
This has been proved to be wrong in Afghanistan, Irak, Vietnam .
Only manpower can be decisive : the 120000 US soldiers with advanced weapons could not eliminate the Taliban and the 500000 US soldiers with advanced weapons
could not eliminate the VC .
There is corruption in the Russian army, as in the US army, but this corruption did not cause the Russian failures in Afghanistan and Ukraine, or the US failures in Afghanistan and Vietnam .
The Russian strategy in Ukraine was more realistic than the US strategy in Afghanistan .

 

[MontyB]

We share very different views on how these things work and the value of material, logistics and information.

 

[I3BrigPvSk]

Ukraine received training and educational support of their military officers after the annexation of Crimea in 2014. The Ukrainian army also received military equipment prior the Russian "special operation." Especially AT weapons.

 

[lljadw]

Ukraine received training and educational support of their military officers after the annexation of Crimea in 2014. The Ukrainian army also received military equipment prior the Russian "special operation." Especially AT weapons.

I know, but there is no proof of the importance of this training and equipment . The training and educational support was limited to a small number of Ukrainian officers,as most Ukrainian officers were reservists who were called up not after 2014 nut aster February 2022 and these did not worse than those who received training from the US.
There is no reliable information about the number of Russian tanks that was destroyed by these AT weapons .
And there is no information for the importance of the losses of Russian tanks caused by AT weapons :reality is that
A most tank losses were caused because the Russians used a lot of tanks .
B Most tank losses were caused by non combat losses
C without these tank losses the Russians would not have done better .
D with more tanks the Russians would not have done better
E with less tanks the Russians would not have done worse .

 

[lljadw]

We share very different views on how these things work and the value of material, logistics and information.

Better material,logistics and information did not help the Russians and the US in Afghanistan .
It took the US years to eliminate Bin Laden although they had superior material,logistics and information .

 

[lljadw]

From Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty ( CIA Media ) on 13 May 2022
'' Why is Russia losing so much military equipment in Ukraine ? "
'' The invading forces were also expecting Ukrainians to receive them with open arms . ''
Why did they expect this ?
1 Because they knew that they had not the needed forces to defeat,occupy and pacify Ukraine .
2 Because they knew that if they had these forces,it still would be impossible to occupy Ukraine for always or even for a short time. Besides, the longer they remained in Ukraine, the less cooperation they could expect from the Ukrainians .
3 Because they knew that the only way was to obtain the cooperation of the Ukrainian army,administration and population .
4 Because they knew that they could obtain this cooperation only by a short,fast ,small campaign ( something as a Blumenkrieg ) with very few Ukrainian losses :the more Ukrainians were killed,the more Ukrainian houses were destroyed, the less cooperation they could expect .
They had drawn their lessons from their war in Afghanistan ,something I doubt that the White House,the Pentagon and the military-industrial complex have done .