Russia on brink of ... NOPE! Russia INVADES Ukraine!

[Michael]

The news the last several weeks is that on limited fronts, where they can concentrate firepower and achieve local superiority, the Russians are taking territory.

In the South along the coast, they have not lost anything they previously took.

I call that slowly winning the war.

The question ultimately will be the cost of that slow progress as it is using a lot of ammunition and a lot of men and equipment.

They lose each individual engagement but win ground.

Will be a matter of if the Ukrainians break at a crucial point or if they hold on long enough for the Russian losses to be too large. Russia (and Ukraine) has a long history of absorbing terrible losses as part of their military history.

 

[Brovane]

The news the last several weeks is that on limited fronts, where they can concentrate firepower and achieve local superiority, the Russians are taking territory.

In the South along the coast, they have not lost anything they previously took.

I call that slowly winning the war.

The question ultimately will be the cost of that slow progress as it is using a lot of ammunition and a lot of men and equipment.

They lose each individual engagement but win ground.

Will be a matter of if the Ukrainians break at a crucial point or if they hold on long enough for the Russian losses to be too large. Russia (and Ukraine) has a long history of absorbing terrible losses as part of their military history.

Russia hasn't fully mobilized, Ukraine has. Until Russia fully mobilizes they will run out of Troops sooner than Ukraine. Also Russia has a habit of treating its troops as disposable. The high casualties the Russian's are taking will start to impact military operations.

 

[Brovane]

Sorry off topic but I think relevant

Meanwhile Trump thinks US funds meant for UA are frivolous and would be beter spent to protect school children in the US. Armed guards and armored entry points at every schools. Next armed and armored school busses.
Discusting.

As usual Trump still doesn't understand Putin.

 

[Number1]

I would rather money not be going there.

Keeping evil at bay is money well spent. Left unchecked who knows how far Putin will go. Most of the world agrees he must be stopped. Democracies are worth fighting for.

 

[Jaskalas]

I would rather money not be going there.

This war is being waged with our money, so it need not be waged with our lives.
But make no mistake, we are at war with anyone who invades and attacks Europe.

Hell, if it were up to me we would have taken Crimea ourselves.

 

[DisarmedDespot]

Russia hasn't fully mobilized, Ukraine has. Until Russia fully mobilizes they will run out of Troops sooner than Ukraine. Also Russia has a habit of treating its troops as disposable. The high casualties the Russian's are taking will start to impact military operations.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Ukraine had ~200k active service personnel across all branches when the war started. Russia had ~900k, and has been lowering requirements more and more. Will Russia run out of men eventually? Yes, and is losing them at a higher rate than Ukraine, but it might not be enough. Ukraine's fighting hard, but they're still taking losses as well and slowly losing ground as Russia turns it into a grind. I don't even think the Russian military has actually gotten its shit together and remembered how to do combined arms, I just think the terrain in the east is more suitable to their 'bombard with artillery, infantry assault, repeat if the assault doesn't work' style. I'm not convinced Russia will reach the breaking point before they end up 'winning' enough territory to claim victory, unless something on the ground changes.

Which, therefore (in my view) leads to two conclusions:

• From an optimist perspective, the west needs to up their game on support for Ukraine if they want Ukraine to emerge without vast chunks carved out of it. This would take something drastic beyond the current shipment of howitzers, like shipping large amounts of modern western tanks like the M1s that the US has in storage to beef up Ukraine's armored and mechanized units.
• From a cynic's perspective, unless you're in Putin's pocket, there is genuinely no reason to stop supporting Ukraine until the end. There's some question of cost/benefit (or I guess cost/Russian losses) and if you want to risk the loss and capture of advanced weapons, but as far as strategic decisions go, continuing support at current levels is the deal of the century.

 

[Leeea]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Ukraine had ~200k active service personnel across all branches when the war started. Russia had ~900k, and has been lowering requirements more and more. Will Russia run out of men eventually? Yes, and is losing them at a higher rate than Ukraine, but it might not be enough. Ukraine's fighting hard, but they're still taking losses as well and slowly losing ground as Russia turns it into a grind. I don't even think the Russian military has actually gotten its shit together and remembered how to do combined arms, I just think the terrain in the east is more suitable to their 'bombard with artillery, infantry assault, repeat if the assault doesn't work' style. I'm not convinced Russia will reach the breaking point before they end up 'winning' enough territory to claim victory, unless something on the ground changes.

I think Russia will just burn itself out.

Yes, Ukraine started at a sever disadvantage, and remains with one. However, Ukraine is training up a new force, and if Putin is unable to knock out Ukraine before fall Russia may end up out manned.

Ukraine started with shortage of material. But the railroads are being upgraded, and allied direct support is starting to transition from emergency air flights to heavier weapons.


For example, there are more reports Ukraine is getting GMLRS soon:

US preparing to approve advanced long-range rocket system for Ukraine as Russian TV host warns of crossing a 'red line'

The Biden administration is preparing to step up the kind of weaponry it is offering Ukraine by sending advanced, long-range rocket systems that are now the top request from Ukrainian officials, multiple officials say.

www.cnn.com

Given enough time, even a small number of GMLRS will erode the Russian artillery advantage. It will not happen over night, but counter battery on Russia launchers, ammo dumps, and command will erode away at the Russian material advantage.


Which is the most direct way Ukraine can win. Erode the Russian military until it is a hollow shell, and then punch it in the nose. It is brutal. It means Russia will win for months to come. But Russia simply cannot replace its equipment or ammo. Yes, Russia has stockpiles. But Russia no longer has the production. Modern war burns through ammo, and as long as Ukraine holds contact with Russia, Ukraine can simply burn the Russians out.

At some point, Russia will be out of ammo, out of guns, and out numbered. The way Russia is fighting, the moment their offensive loses steam, they collapse.

 

[Jaskalas]

At some point, Russia will be out of ammo, out of guns, and out numbered. The way Russia is fighting, the moment their offensive loses steam, they collapse.

I like that idea. I just fear some of us in the West will betray Ukraine out of either fear or greed.

 

[Brovane]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Ukraine had ~200k active service personnel across all branches when the war started. Russia had ~900k, and has been lowering requirements more and more. Will Russia run out of men eventually? Yes, and is losing them at a higher rate than Ukraine, but it might not be enough. Ukraine's fighting hard, but they're still taking losses as well and slowly losing ground as Russia turns it into a grind. I don't even think the Russian military has actually gotten its shit together and remembered how to do combined arms, I just think the terrain in the east is more suitable to their 'bombard with artillery, infantry assault, repeat if the assault doesn't work' style. I'm not convinced Russia will reach the breaking point before they end up 'winning' enough territory to claim victory, unless something on the ground changes.

Which, therefore (in my view) leads to two conclusions:

• From an optimist perspective, the west needs to up their game on support for Ukraine if they want Ukraine to emerge without vast chunks carved out of it. This would take something drastic beyond the current shipment of howitzers, like shipping large amounts of modern western tanks like the M1s that the US has in storage to beef up Ukraine's armored and mechanized units.
• From a cynic's perspective, unless you're in Putin's pocket, there is genuinely no reason to stop supporting Ukraine until the end. There's some question of cost/benefit (or I guess cost/Russian losses) and if you want to risk the loss and capture of advanced weapons, but as far as strategic decisions go, continuing support at current levels is the deal of the century.

Russia already has 25k to 30k dead and twice that are wounded. Unless Russia completely mobilizes like Ukraine they are going to run out of troops to throw into the grinder in Ukraine. Before the war started they could only push about 250k troops to attack Ukraine. Russia cannot deploy all those 900k troops to Ukraine and all those 900k troops are not combat capable. Russian Officer corps is being grinded down. They essentially have a worthless NCO contingent. Russia is pulling T-62 tanks out of the warehouses to go fight. Over the last several decades Russia has made it's military production dependent on western parts. Those parts are essentially cutoff. They cannot build new equipment and will have to continue pulling older and older equipment from the reserves. Ukraine is getting a lot of new western kit.

FYI - You cannot just give Ukraine M1 Abrams. A Abrams tank requires months of training to properly use. It requires a lot more training than the Artillery pieces we gave them. We need to give Ukraine kit that only requires 1-2 weeks of training and Ukraine can be effective with. A Abrams tank isn't a good fit. Which is why the US has been backfilling Abrams into former Eastern Block countries to get them to empty out the Soviet Era warehouses.

Is the war in Ukraine a frozen conflict? — Attrition and stalemates

 

[Uhtrinity]

Russia already has 25k to 30k dead and twice that are wounded. Unless Russia completely mobilizes like Ukraine they are going to run out of troops to throw into the grinder in Ukraine. Before the war started they could only push about 250k troops to attack Ukraine. Russia cannot deploy all those 900k troops to Ukraine and all those 900k troops are not combat capable. Russian Officer corps is being grinded down. They essentially have a worthless NCO contingent. Russia is pulling T-62 tanks out of the warehouses to go fight. Over the last several decades Russia has made it's military production dependent on western parts. Those parts are essentially cutoff. They cannot build new equipment and will have to continue pulling older and older equipment from the reserves. Ukraine is getting a lot of new western kit.

FYI - You cannot just give Ukraine M1 Abrams. A Abrams tank requires months of training to properly use. It requires a lot more training than the Artillery pieces we gave them. We need to give Ukraine kit that only requires 1-2 weeks of training and Ukraine can be effective with. A Abrams tank isn't a good fit. Which is why the US has been backfilling Abrams into former Eastern Block countries to get them to empty out the Soviet Era warehouses.

Is the war in Ukraine a frozen conflict? — Attrition and stalemates

As well as many months in for maintenance and support training and infrastructure. There are a lot of people who keep those systems running. I was a 45G in the Army in the early to mid 90's, Fire control system repair for the M1A1. My AIT was over 7 months. We also had people who worked on the optics systems, mechanicals, turbine engine, main gun, etc. That's a lot of people just to keep those tanks performing.

 

[Leeea]

Russia already has 25k to 30k dead and twice that are wounded.

Odds are Ukraine is also hurting.

see:

Up to 100 people killed each day fighting in eastern Ukraine, Zelensky says

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced a "historic" joint customs control with Poland that he described as "the beginning of our integration into the common customs space of the European Union." Follow live news updates here.

www.cnn.com

Up to 100 people killed each day fighting in eastern Ukraine, Zelensky says

Lets do some math:
100 KIA per day
since the start of this round of violence 91 days ago
100 x 91 = 9,100 kia Ukrainian soldiers
3x wounded for every KIA:
9100 x 3 = 27,300

that gives us 36,400 Ukrainian soldiers out of commission. Yes, Ukraine is hurting.


But, can they win this?
Well, it appears the Russian's are losing 4 soldiers for every Ukrainian lost.


In the brutal math of war, yes, Ukraine can win this.

It looks bad now, but as the war grinds on Ukraine gets stronger, and Russia weakens. Russia is shooting off its best stuff now, the further it digs into storage, the more inferior things will get. Ukraine on the other hand is getting better equipment every day, NATO standard systems that exceed anything it had prior to the war.


Russia needs to either win now, or Russia will die slow. Tidbits and nibs are just Ukraine exchanging territory to extract Russian blood. Time and attrition are on Ukraine's side.

 

[pmv]

At some point, Russia will be out of ammo, out of guns, and out numbered. The way Russia is fighting, the moment their offensive loses steam, they collapse.

Is there not a danger that that moment is when Putin will unleash WMDs? If not nuclear (for which MAD might still be an effective deterrent) then chemical? Out of sheer vindictiveness if nothing else.

 

[RnR_au]

Is there not a danger that that moment is when Putin will unleash WMDs? If not nuclear (for which MAD might still be an effective deterrent) then chemical? Out of sheer vindictiveness if nothing else.

I believe the line has been drawn by NATO. Chemical and nuclear usage could draw in NATO forces. Certainly nuclear.

 

[cytg111]

The news the last several weeks is that on limited fronts, where they can concentrate firepower and achieve local superiority, the Russians are taking territory.

In the South along the coast, they have not lost anything they previously took.

I call that slowly winning the war.

The question ultimately will be the cost of that slow progress as it is using a lot of ammunition and a lot of men and equipment.

They lose each individual engagement but win ground.

Will be a matter of if the Ukrainians break at a crucial point or if they hold on long enough for the Russian losses to be too large. Russia (and Ukraine) has a long history of absorbing terrible losses as part of their military history.

Putin is using scorched earth tactics, Ukraine is not taking heavy losses per se but their positions is getting shelled to the point of reducing trenches and covers to ruble so they have to back up.
Knowing next to nothing about traditional kinetic warfare strategics the logical move IMO opinion would to break the border ANYWHERE on the northern side and set fire to a couple of Russian cities. Asymmetric guerrilla ops behind enemy lines. The faulty line of reasoning is that the line is only drawn within UKR borders.
But I am sure this is not done per request from alliances as to not “provoke” Putin too much as to resort to tacticals. What kind of fucked game is that.
If Putin is putting his everything into Donbas, withdraw half from the front and raze hell with the other on the north… Force him to thin out his lines again AND let the Russian people get a taste of what the fuck is going on.

 

[RnR_au]

... let the Russian people get a taste of what the fuck is going on.

The Europeans would cut their losses and withhold support. Defence of ones homeland is one thing, razing cities and slaughtering innocents with European donated weapons is another.

 

[Atari2600]

I call that slowly winning the war.

Completely and utterly incorrect.

Russia has already lost the war. They lost the war in the first week when it became clear the depth of the resolve of the Ukrainian people and the willingness of the West at large to ensure a continuous supply of weaponry.

The only thing left to resolve is the timescale of their defeat. Is it death by a thousand cuts over a decade of insurrection? Or is it death by a hundred cuts in open warfare this year?

 

[cytg111]

The Europeans would cut their losses and withhold support. Defence of ones homeland is one thing, razing cities and slaughtering innocents with European donated weapons is another.

They wouldnt be slaughtering innocents.. Russia probably would though when they attempt to take their city back... wonder if they'd level it like they've done to Ukrainian cities. Maybe thats the ticket, take hold in one of the many cities that's juuuust up towards the border... just roll in and set up shop, let civilians evacuate.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Completely and utterly incorrect.

Russia has already lost the war. They lost the war in the first week when it became clear the depth of the resolve of the Ukrainian people and the willingness of the West at large to ensure a continuous supply of weaponry.

The only thing left to resolve is the timescale of their defeat. Is it death by a thousand cuts over a decade of insurrection? Or is it death by a hundred cuts in open warfare this year?

Shut the fuck up with this type of nonsense either way. There are no absolutes. Some of you are ignoring history where Russia repeatedly churned through their own at levels unimaginable. You also forget that the US abandoned the Afghanis against the USSR then again and we had skin in the game the second time (plus the Vietnamese, and others) after awhile. It is very likely this drags out into a near permanent situation (which is very common, it happens the world over, and we've seen it even in spite of either of yours' claims about how the West is helping or one side is willing to spite themselves to win).

 

[K1052]

Ukraine says the US has delivered M109s

https://twitter.com/x/status/1530475289393897472

 

[K1052]

I guess Putin was on the phone for an hour and a half with Macron/Scholz trying to cut a deal to remove sanctions. So those are actually working.

He also apparently warned them not to keep supplying weapons to Ukraine. Seems like he’s talking to the wrong people though since the US is now sending M109s, MLRS, and (I suspect) MQ-1s or MQ-9s. Russians are staring down the barrels of ever more capable and numerous US systems.

 

[Leeea]

Is there not a danger that that moment is when Putin will unleash WMDs? If not nuclear (for which MAD might still be an effective deterrent) then chemical? Out of sheer vindictiveness if nothing else.

Step back back a moment and think about that from the perspective of Putin's potential post war partners.

China, India, etc, nobody wants to see nukes used. It will scare them off, nobody wants to live in a bunker. Nukes will permentantly isolate Russia and end Russian influence everywhere.


If Russia uses a nuke in Ukraine, Russia loses everything they ever hoped to gain. This war was about showing the world Russia was still relevant. Instead they will just show the world Russia is insane. Everyone everywhere will quietly set out to undercut and degrade the madman capabilities. It does not matter if your a Chinese party member or a Russian oligarch. A pile of ashes is not the future you aspire to.

Knowing next to nothing about traditional kinetic warfare strategics the logical move IMO opinion would to break the border ANYWHERE on the northern side and set fire to a couple of Russian cities. Asymmetric guerrilla ops behind enemy lines. The faulty line of reasoning is that the line is only drawn within UKR borders.

This would be a mistake. This would boost moral across the Russian military, and show they are actually fighting for something. It would unite a state that is rotting from within. It would show everything Putin has claimed to his own people about Ukraine was true.

If Putin is putting his everything into Donbas, withdraw half from the front and raze hell with the other on the north… Force him to thin out his lines again AND let the Russian people get a taste of what the fuck is going on.

Ukraine has spent six years fortifying and preparing for war in the Donbas. Russia is charging into Ukraine's best defenses. Layers upon layers of fortifications. The majority of Ukraine's prewar military personnel were located in the Donbas. This is where Ukraine planned to fight the war, and it is where Ukraine has its best chances.

 

[Atari2600]

Some of you are ignoring history where Russia repeatedly churned through their own at levels unimaginable.

We had no players on those particular fields to support.

You also forget that the US abandoned the Afghanis against the USSR then again and we had skin in the game the second time (plus the Vietnamese, and others) after awhile.

Common denominator there - the Afghanis and South Vietnamese had very little resolve to do the fighting.

That is very, very clearly not the case in Ukraine. Hence why my first point was the "resolve of the Ukranian people"

It is very likely this drags out into a near permanent situation

I don't think you grasp the annual casualty list the Russian army would be accruing if they "occupied" all of Ukraine tomorrow and there was an active insurgency of circa 1 million people continually receiving advanced light armaments from several surrounding countries.

They'd likely lose the guts of a division every year.

Who do you think is going to enrole into the Russian army in 2024 if they knew its next stop Ukraine and a sizeable chance of coming back in a body bag... if there is even a body to bag.

I'll stand by the claim, Russia have already lost. The only thing unresolved is when they acknowledge it (I strongly suspect the Kremlin already realises it, but they don't know how to deal with it).


Additionally, since its happening "the world over" - could you point out a few comparable examples please?

 

[Michael]

Completely and utterly incorrect.

Russia has already lost the war. They lost the war in the first week when it became clear the depth of the resolve of the Ukrainian people and the willingness of the West at large to ensure a continuous supply of weaponry.

The only thing left to resolve is the timescale of their defeat. Is it death by a thousand cuts over a decade of insurrection? Or is it death by a hundred cuts in open warfare this year?

They lost the initial battles up north.

In the South, they captured all the coastline but one small section.

They are now concentrating on the Donbas region in the East and are grinding away the defenses.

Since 2014, they have pretty much kept any territory they seized.

Other than weapons, Ukraine is not getting significant help in manpower and airpower.

The war is not going as the Russians planned, but since Putin does not answer to his citizens in any real way, as long as they are willing to take the losses they are now, the Ukraine cannot stand the pressure forever.

Yes, the Russians have not fully mobilized, but they are rotating existing troops in. China is not likely to take advantage of their weaker border forces. I have seen no sign that their satellites or other forced areas like Georgia taking advantage of their force weaknesses.

So as long as Russia keeps their current attack plan, I think they are slowly winning the war.

I do mot think the victory is worth the cost, but again the government system insulates their leaders from that.

 

[pmv]

Step back back a moment and think about that from the perspective of Putin's potential post war partners.

China, India, etc, nobody wants to see nukes used. It will scare them off, nobody wants to live in a bunker. Nukes will permentantly isolate Russia and end Russian influence everywhere.

Well, that's why I conceded an actual nuclear strike was probably unlikely, because deterrent still applies in that case. But I could see Putin using chemical weapons, out of sheer desperation, or plain viciousness, if it becomes clear to him that he's losing a conventional conflict (his forces being ground to dust in the way you outline).

And it would be about Putin's personal motivations, not the geo-strategic interests of Russia as a nation. A military defeat in Ukraine for Putin could mean the end of his regime, maybe of his life.

Not really sure that anything follows from this, i.e that there's anything we can do about it or do differently to avert it. Just expressing a worry, is all.

 

[cytg111]

What is the Russians using for shelling? The scorched earth tactic meter by meter, what hardware are they using?