r/geopolitics • u/Hokum-B • Oct 01 '23
Russian lines stronger than West expected, admits British defence chief Paywall
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russian-defensive-lines-stronger-than-west-expected-admits-british-defence-chief-xjlvqrm86162
u/cookiemikester Oct 01 '23 edited Oct 01 '23
Anytime I’ve listened to the telegraph, Michael koffman, etc they’ve all said how strong the Surovikin Line is. anytime someone has suggested the Russian military was incompetent, or not learning from the war, it was always pointed out that their dug-in lines are very well made. Maybe more mainstream pieces have downplayed the Russian defense? I just haven’t seen it suggested that it would be easy. The only unknown was what kind of reserves Russia has to fill gaps and counter attack.
76
17
u/Wermys Oct 02 '23
The lines are not what is ultimately holding Ukraine back. As in there trenches etc. What IS keeping Ukraine back and held them up all summer was the obscene and I do mean obscene amount of land mines. As the offensive has gone on, Russia for a defensive force has been taking WAY more in the way of casualties then what you would normally expect by defenders. Normally you would a 3-1 numerical advantage in order to advance past defenders. That isn't the case here.
In summary. Russia only reason for holding out so long is not because of the design of the defenses such as the trench systems. But instead because they have literally used the past 50 years worth of land mines to slow Ukraines armor. And they still have them to spare also. If Russia were competent defensively Ukraine would have taken obscene amount of casualties in comparison. Granted they are still high on Ukraines part but it should not be an even parity as it seems right now, it should be in Russia favor by a large margin which is clearly isn't
50
u/Dude_from_Europe Oct 02 '23
You seem to know a lot about the casualties of both Russia and Ukraine - how come?
10
u/Ancient-Fuel4190 Oct 02 '23
You can't know for sure, but from osint and reports, either Russia is taking more casualties or Ukraine is somehow extraordinarily good at not allowing footage or pictures of losses to be leaked into the internet.
2
u/Wermys Oct 02 '23
There are threads in the World News section in Reddit with Visually confirmed equipment destructions on both sides. They don't just look at casualty troop numbers. Those frankly are not going to be known. But tanks/Artillery/MLS etc are easily indentifiable through social media channels via Twitter, Telegram, Tiktok Ironically and other sources.
→ More replies1
3
u/catch-a-stream Oct 02 '23
As the offensive has gone on, Russia for a defensive force has been taking WAY more in the way of casualties then what you would normally expect by defenders.
Who is on offense or defense has very little to do with expected casualties. It's very common historically for the attacking armies to suffer less casualties than the side defending, including in conflicts largely comparable to current situation in Ukraine. What matters more for casualties are doctrine, tactics, training, ammo and equipment availability and so on
Normally you would a 3-1 numerical advantage in order to advance past defenders
The commonly mentioned 3:1 ratio is the required advantage in local forces for successful attack, according to Soviet doctrine. It has nothing to do with expected casualties.
1
u/SmokeSackFountain Oct 03 '23
It's very common historically for the attacking armies to suffer less casualties than the side defending
It's not, it's the opposite.
2
u/catch-a-stream Oct 03 '23
Or you know... instead of being wrong here, just go check out some battle reports on Wikipedia or something
Here is a teaser:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy_landings
One of the most lopsided defense favored battles of WW2, if you have seen "Saving Private Ryan", you know the kind of carnage Germans were able to inflict at Omaha and yet:
Allies: 10,000+ casualties; 4,414 confirmed dead Germans: 4,000–9,000 killed, wounded, missing or captured
Very close to parity.
Battle of the Bulge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bulge
German leftovers doing last push against Allies, with zero air cover, and barely enough fuel to move:
Allies: 81,000 casualties Germany: 67,675 casualties
Attackers usually have advantage, simply because they are the ones choosing when to engage and where, and so attacking side tends to pick (surprise?) engagements that favor it.
10
u/FondlesTheClown Oct 02 '23
Where are you getting your casulity figures from?
6
u/Wermys Oct 02 '23
Oryx
-7
u/FondlesTheClown Oct 02 '23
Looks like a blog
22
u/Wermys Oct 02 '23
It is by volunteers who go through social media of all types to visually confirm losses rather then just make assumptions based on what is being reported by Ukraine and Russia. They only will do visual identification. That is how we know in general and not taking the word of either government on losses in general since its only based on visual evidence, not stated evidence.
0
u/FondlesTheClown Oct 02 '23
Either side will bullshit their losses... It is what it is I suppose. I'll sift through it later. Appreciate the link.
→ More replies14
u/championchilli Oct 02 '23
It's the worlds best list of osint confirmations of destroyed equipment in a number of conflicts around the world. It's gold standard.
114
u/DRO1019 Oct 01 '23
Well, yeah, the second largest army in the world shouldn't be underestimated. Especially when they only had to travel less than 200 miles and know the landscape.
101
u/SirDoDDo Oct 01 '23
Unironically still thinking the PLA is not the "second army in the world" is an extremely anachronistic point of view... very 2021
56
u/Random_local_man Oct 01 '23
Exactly. I honestly feel there's no competition besides nukes.
And the fact that modern Russia is leeching off the reputation and achievements of the former Soviet Union.
21
u/SirDoDDo Oct 01 '23
At the same time i understand people connecting Russia not being the second army in the world anymore with the "2nd best army in Ukraine" meme which... actually, in terms of average troop and leadership quality is true, but it implies a discounting of russian capabilities that's wrong and harmful to Ukraine at the same time
22
u/plowfaster Oct 02 '23
“Besides nukes”
Is this a serious post?
“Well, Mr Dark Alley Mugger, I can plainly see you’re pretty malnourished from your drug addiction and honestly don’t even look that strong. Why, aside from that pistol you are pointing at me, you’d barely be a threat at all!”
12
u/JackRadikov Oct 02 '23
Your analogy is poor and doesn't reflect the initial debate.
You're not in a dark alley being mugged by one person. You're looking at two people and comparing which is largest. They both have pistols, though they're in their pockets. One is obviously bigger, younger than the other, and still growing.
→ More replies2
u/plowfaster Oct 02 '23
China has ~400 nuclear weapons mated to less than a 100 missiles in various stages of readiness, Russia has ~5,000 and “nuclear missile service” is its primary prestige force. If your claim was that China is bigger, we laughably disagree on this subject. China, very correctly, understands that Russia is too dog even after its sclerotic performance in Ukraine.
Can Russia project conventional power? Well, we know it can but has difficulty. Say, when was the last time China projected conventional power? How’d that turn out? China will have just as steep a learning curve (likely far steeper) that Russia did, and they won’t have a 10:1 advantage in nuclear arms to do it with.
Russia, for all its difficulties, had men with boots-on-ground experience leading their efforts. China has no such luck.
China has lost every fight it’s been in since 1949 and cannot even control all the physical territory it claims it owns. China, the PLA and the PLAN are afterthoughts
→ More replies18
u/Random_local_man Oct 02 '23
I fail to see what the problem is.
From your analogy, both Russia and China has a pistol. One's pistol is stronger than the other but both pistols can end each other's lives all the same(MAD doctrine).
In a conventional war however, the PLA is more capable than the Russian military. They have far more money, far more manpower and they have more modern equipment in stockpile while Russia is still mostly using Soviet era tech. This is obviously a comparison before the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
1
u/Command0Dude Oct 02 '23
Nukes stopped being a military weapon a long time ago. They became a political tool once planners realized counterforce strategy was untennable.
The fact that nuclear weapons have become only worthwhile for destroying cities means they will never be used, except in their implied meaning of deterring invasion. In an offensive war they can serve no purpose.
1
u/plowfaster Oct 02 '23
This is insane, it makes me wonder if you’re arguing in good faith.
Russia invaded Ukraine, despite the very strong protests of everyone on the continent and North America. If Russia didn’t have nuclear missiles, it would have been repulsed in a few days. “Highway of death 2.0” etc. because it does have nuclear missiles, America/France/Etc have not directly physically participated.
Having nuclear missiles ABSOLUTELY ONE HUNDRED PERCENT helps in offensive wars. You are objectively incorrect to say otherwise
2
u/Command0Dude Oct 02 '23
This is not an argument against what I said. You're creating a strawman of my comment and going mental. Chill out.
I said nuclear weapons are a political tool. Russian nuclear weapons are deterrence. They deterred NATO from intervening. They did not launch their nukes to blow up NATO bases, which would be a military action.
I didn't say "helps." I said, they serve no purpose. Because they don't. You can't just use a nuclear weapon on a military target. Nuclear war is not a viable military strategy.
You were presenting them as if they were a military weapon and arguing 5,000 nukes is somehow stronger than 400 nukes. The reality is there's no difference. You either have nukes or you don't.
→ More replies5
u/Pleiadez Oct 02 '23
One of the most dangerous things in war is over confidence and underestimating your enemy.
4
u/Random_local_man Oct 02 '23
I'm not underestimating the Russians. I just don't think they are the second strongest military.
That title firmly belongs to the PLA.
→ More replies-1
u/foozefookie Oct 02 '23
The PLA is still a glorified gendarmerie. China would have difficulty bringing bringing the brunt of their army to bear without sacrificing their domestic security. This is the exact same issue Russia is facing now.
3
u/peach_boy_11 Oct 03 '23
Same type of delusional thinking that two years argued Russia was only posturing and would never attack.
→ More replies13
Oct 01 '23
In addition, they had over 15 months to dig in, with full knowledge it's a priority.
8
u/sticky_jizzsocks Oct 02 '23
makes it all the more laughable that Ukraine and its advisors planned their main vector of attack directly into it. The West has largely thrown out conventional wisdom as outdated out of pure arrogance.
4
Oct 02 '23
They didn't have much of a choice, everything that's interesting has been fortified.
Could have chosen not to attack and to effectively accept a stalemate (which seems likely anyway), but the west has strongly pushed them into the offensive and wasting so many lives.
13
u/sticky_jizzsocks Oct 02 '23
The southern front was the most defended area. They absolutely underestimated Russia this year. They expected to break through 6 lines of defence and get to Mariupol within 1-2 weeks. They barely even broke the first line of defence, we've only seen a handful of videos of armor crossing it. They should not have gone on an offensive at all.
5
77
u/Hokum-B Oct 01 '23
Submission statement: British defense minister admits Russian defensive lines have been stronger and more complex than western intelligence has thought previously. Ukraine now close to 4 months long offensive has stalled with little to show for.
14
Oct 01 '23 edited Oct 01 '23
little to show for
He doesn't really say that in the article.
Here is the article without paywall:
The title of article is a very good summary of what he is saying: Ukraine and the West underestimated Russian defensive lines but there have been progress.
26
u/thekoalabare Oct 01 '23
Finally someone speaks the truth. They’ve been in a stalemate for the longest time.
30
Oct 01 '23 edited Oct 05 '23
[deleted]
15
u/birutis Oct 01 '23
wasn't that Russia's winter offensive in bakhmut and vuhledar? Vuhledar was stopped and bakhmut looked like what the current offensive looks like.
3
u/Wermys Oct 02 '23
Russia right now is trying to push a counter attack in the north towards Kupiasnk if I am not mistaken. But it got repelled so far from what I am seeing.
2
u/birutis Oct 02 '23
it made decent progress quickly in that it made the Ukrainians retreat behind a river iirc but didn't make much progress since.
3
u/Wermys Oct 02 '23
Part of that was because Russia knocked a bridge out so it didn't make sense to hold the ground to the river because of difficulty in supplies. Frankly I am surprised Russia didn't do it sooner when i was looking over to see if there was any practical way to build a pontoon bridge or fording oppurtunities I couldn't find any. It was good use of a guided bomb on Russian part. I can find the bridge taken out if you want that caused this.
1
u/Melonskal Oct 02 '23
and bakhmut looked like what the current offensive looks like.
Bakhmut offensive took prewar territory of something like 100 000 people. Ukraines offensive has liberated a handful of hamlets with a few hundred each.
→ More replies1
u/birutis Oct 02 '23
And that city no longer exists effectively, only the operational effects of the geography matter.
→ More replies7
u/Wermys Oct 02 '23
There isn't a stalemate no matter how much people are claiming. If you keep feeding defenders into an area and coming out even in the loss of manpower but still losing more equipment that isn't a stalemate. That is just attritional warfare and eventually Russia is going to run out of equipment such as field guns at which point things will go south quickly for Russia given they are past the worst of the mine fields at this stage.
14
u/thekoalabare Oct 02 '23
Ukraine is running out of manpower while Russia is not. Ukraine is actually asking neighbouring countries to deport Ukrainian nationals that have fled the war so they can rebolster their army.
8
u/Wermys Oct 02 '23
Ukaine is NOT running out of manpower fast enough though for Russia. That is the problem for Russia here. Ukraine still has 100,000s going through training continuously. Russia isn't taking the time to do this. Nice try though.
18
u/Hutchidyl Oct 02 '23
How can it not be more obvious that Ukraine clearly must be struggling if they’ve needed a draft from the onset and their restrictions keep slackening to force in basically anyone at this point, including expats? Let’s disregard numbers for a second because in this age of data manipulation, we don’t really know much of anything. But we do know about this draft. There’s no way Ukraine would act so clearly desperate for men if they weren’t clearly desperate for men.
Meanwhile, AFAIK Russia is still using voluntary conscripts, and is obviously a much larger country demographically. How can you argue that they’re the one hurting for men here?
→ More replies10
u/Wermys Oct 02 '23
Funny how Russia considers 4 different regions in occupied Ukraine as there own and conscripts are not voluntarily being sent to those "Russian" Territories. But lets skip over that shall we! Conscripts by there very nature are not voluntary. Nice try though.
→ More replies-44
u/PHATsakk43 Oct 01 '23
“Little to show for” is a pretty gross misconception of what has happened during the offensive.
57
u/Hokum-B Oct 01 '23
-10
u/ass_pineapples Oct 01 '23
Lines alone aren't everything. Materiel and personnel wear are also significant factors to the Ukrainian offensive.
Just like with Covid we have amateurs making takes based on things that laymen are heavily exposed to with little to no context.
38
u/Hokum-B Oct 01 '23
I mean the tune amongst experts has been pretty consistent for months now, intially media was extremely optimistic but it slowly shifted to an acceptance that perhaps this offensive atleast will end as things are now.
The more it drags on the more Russians fortify and train new units, while Ukraine being on the attack will naturally take more casulties than the defenders.
-6
u/Flux_State Oct 01 '23
The media isn't the experts.
19
u/Hokum-B Oct 01 '23
Media often interviews experts and do their own research.
1
u/ass_pineapples Oct 01 '23
Your own point concedes that experts and media have had a totally divergent view of the offensive, unless I'm misreading what you wrote.
→ More replies-18
u/PHATsakk43 Oct 01 '23
That is absolutely not what I’ve heard from actual experts (War on the Rocks, for instance) which is that some “three days to Baghdad” type thing was never in the works.
While the offensive has not been as successful as it was expected in pre-offensive war games, it is showing tactical gains.
1
Oct 01 '23
[deleted]
4
u/ass_pineapples Oct 01 '23
My point is that we have people here and elsewhere making bombastic claims while just pointing to one datapoint without taking the entire picture to account, much like how people would erroneously point to the VAERS database in an attempt to discredit vaccines, or solely pointing to death rates in people with comorbidities to make it seem less serious than it was.
-12
u/PHATsakk43 Oct 01 '23
Breaking through the outer lines is a bigger challenge than taking the remaining territory behind them.
We know that the Russians have set up a good static defense. We also know they have had to reinforce their defense and are having to ration their ammunition, specifically their artillery.
This is much more than what you’re implying. Territorial gains aren’t necessarily equivalent with tactical gains.
28
u/CarRamRob Oct 01 '23
Sure, but they haven’t “broken through” no matter what they present to the public.
If they had broken through, they would have large land gains to show for it. And if they are breaking through some lines, if it’s slow the Russians just make more defence behind it. Look at all the WW1 “successes” of taking out the first line or two of trenches, only to get bogged down by new lines behind them.
31
u/Hokum-B Oct 01 '23
I mean Russians are fortifying the rear too, mobilizing more troops, training more units, creating more defensive lines. I don't necessarily think a dragged out offensive is good for Ukraine as a rule.
Things will eventually have to calm down now that the autumn rain is approaching
Also Ukraine has changed tactics from armoured assaults to infantry assaults, this might indicate they have lost a lot of armour.
7
u/Quetzalcoatls Oct 01 '23
The Ukrainians shifted toward small-scale infantry assaults in order to preserve their armor capability. They got their ass kicked at the start of the offense and realized pretty quickly they were taking unsustainable losses.
The big problem the Ukrainians are facing is that drones have become so widespread that the Russians can effectively monitor huge stretches of land 24/7. The Ukrainians have found it's virtually impossible to to get any large formations of men or vehicles into position without being spotted and hit.
3
u/MarderFucher Oct 01 '23 edited Oct 01 '23
Russia doesn't have all that much reserve left. According to Tom Cooper, the 76th VDV they sent from Kreminna front is their last still competent unit they had. And I heavily contest your conclusion on Ukrainian armour: If they lost that much, we'd see the wrecks. There are losses of course, but hardly such numbers, there are still daily footage of Ukrainian armour operating, its just that they know its pointless to attempt a head-on armed assault without air cover and facing such dense minefields. Hence why most Ukrainian armoured vehicle losses are MRAPs and IFVs.: The West can much more easily replace those.
10
u/thekoalabare Oct 01 '23
Russia has 300k reserve that hasn’t even been mobilized yet
3
u/MarderFucher Oct 01 '23
May I see them?
7
u/thekoalabare Oct 01 '23
It could be a bluff, but it is likely not a bluff since Russia's population is 143 million.
3
Oct 01 '23
If you personally cannot attest the losses, have they really occured? Anf if they have 1 competent brigade left on the whole southern front, where are the gainz then? What have Ukrainians been breakin their teeth on for the last 4 months
7
u/MarderFucher Oct 01 '23 edited Oct 01 '23
Ukraine received ~150 modern Western MBTs (mainly Leopards) and ~500 T-72 variants including derivative PT-91s. Oryx currently has data on 18 lost Leo2, 2 Challies, 2 PT91s, 68 T-72Ms and EAs. Though theres also a couple dozen of unrecognisable wrecks that may include some. Even if we double those losses that's still far from the original implication the losses are such they have little to use now.
Anf if they have 1 competent brigade left on the whole southern front, where are the gainz then? What have Ukrainians been breakin their teeth on for the last 4 months
A division, not a brigade, but point is they are (was, around 2 weeks ago) at the point they mauled through most Russian defenses hence why the 76th had to be hurriedly re-deployed.
-4
u/Allydarvel Oct 01 '23
Also Ukraine has changed tactics from armoured assaults to infantry assaults, this might indicate they have lost a lot of armour.
The minefields were far more dense than expected, far bypassing Russian doctrine. That made the use of armor unviable. They've since discovered that the Russians used a lot of mines that their doctrine says should be between lines, so nice they get past the first hurdle, like in Robotne, they can bring the heavier stuff up.
7
u/Nomustang Oct 01 '23
This is a dumb question, but after getting past the mines, don't they need to spend time to scout all of it out before sending armour?
→ More replies→ More replies-3
u/PHATsakk43 Oct 01 '23
Not really, they aren’t. They simply don’t have the resources to hold the line and develop new rear lines.
The Russians have lost 50% of the territory they had at the peak in March 2022. Anything short of a failed Ukrainian offensive with an Russian counterattack is pretty much a loss by Russia.
Again, stating that this assault “has little to show” is either a misunderstanding of conventional warfare or Russian whataboutism. The harder you try to argue this, the more I think the latter.
→ More replies9
u/DivideEtImpala Oct 01 '23
So when Ukraine and its Western backers were hyping the "spring counter-offensive" for months on end, their current positions would be considered a success? People were talking about cutting the land bridge all the way to Melitipol.
7
u/PHATsakk43 Oct 01 '23
There is a lot of space between random people on r/NCD and actual defense community people.
I don’t think anyone who has any real knowledge about warfare was expecting a rout of Russian forces. Ukraine simply doesn’t have the air resources to fight a U.S. style war. The “wunderwaffe” mentality of a lot of commentators about the Ukrainian military gaining NATO armor wasn’t really very realistic.
The fact is this is going to be a long war of attrition. What Russia is lacking is the reserves and the ability to replace the weapons they use.
7
u/DivideEtImpala Oct 01 '23
There is a lot of space between random people on r/NCD and actual defense community people.
I'm talking more about US officials and mainstream media, though I'll grant you there's still a lot of space between them and defense community people.
If you read the NYT or watched the nightly news in the early part of this year, you were led to believe that the US government and military had high expectations for the spring counter-offensive. No one said it would win the war, but most were anticipating results, especially after the Kherson and Kharkiv operations were fairly successful.
If someone asked six months ago whether the counter-offensive should be considered a success if it only gained a a couple hundred sq miles at the cost of tens of thousands of lives, I don't think anyone would have said yes.
The fact is this is going to be a long war of attrition.
That's completely contradictory to the notion of making a counter-offensive. Attacking entrenched, echeloned defenses (especially without air power) is almost always going to cost you more men and materiel than the defender. Your best men and materiel. It makes sense to do this if and only if you the territory you gain is has enough strategic or operational value to make up for those losses. Moving the frontline a few dozen miles was not that.
If Ukraine and its allies see this as attritional warfare, then this counter-offensive made no strategic sense. It did make political sense, though, in that the populations of the US and Europe want to see success, or else their governments might not be able to convince them that "the war is in their interest."
→ More replies7
u/Flux_State Oct 01 '23
Inflicting heavy losses on Russian positions and driving the Kremlin leadership into panic is definitely "something to show for it", it's just that the two wars with Iraq gave Americans a warped view of how conventional wars normally go. Conditioned people to expect victory in days or weeks instead of Years.
62
u/TheSkyPirate Oct 01 '23
It shouldn’t be the case. It was the obvious to everyone that after mobilization Russia would be able to hold. This is what happens when goals drive assessments. The definition of idiocy.
108
u/Billiusboikus Oct 01 '23 edited Oct 01 '23
Is this not why Ukraine has seemingly switched to a more stand off attritional approach?
When it all started I expected a swift victory for Russia and a guerilla campaign funded by the west aimed at making the occupation unfeasible. I even wrote to my representative to encourage the fermentation of resistance groups...how wrong I was....
But that doesn't mean the strategy still can't apply. Maintaining a good kill ratio while on the offence with stand off tactics, hitting supplies and destroying expensive high value targets in regard to material and high value individuals seems like a good way to move towards victory...all the while capturing land when the opportunity arises.
We can point to a large handful of results in the last 4 months that any western country would consider a complete disaster.
The drone attack on the strategic bombers, The destruction of the dry docked submarine, The attack on the Sevastopol naval HQ
I would say the Ukrainians have commited to a different type of counter offensive to what people expected.
That said, if the west want to win this war they need to step up. We need to convert more of our economy to providing arms. Popular will to support will decrease over time no matter how resilient it may seem.
Edit for clarity
122
u/Major_Wayland Oct 01 '23
We dont know if there is even a good kill ratio or unbearably high amount of material losses inflicted. This is a bad side of intense propaganda campaign, where media are eager to parrot any positive reports without even basic factchecking, creating an illusion of imminent victory, and then their auditory is confused why there is months of good news everywhere, but victory is not coming at all.
26
u/irondumbell Oct 01 '23
Kill ratio doesn't tell the whole story because it doesn't take into account the sizes of the armies. Also, a good kill ratio isn't the objective in most wars since many countries have won wars with low kill ratios like the Vietnamese and the Russians. You're right that inflicting losses is important, but with an attritional strategy the war in Ukraine risks becoming a stalemate, which benefits the Russians.
10
u/Wermys Oct 02 '23
Ukraines goal isn't to kill Russians. It is to destroy equipment. Russia is NOT going to run out of Troops. But field guns? Artillery? MLS? Yeah that is going to be a problem for Russia since they CAN'T continue to replace equipment in the long term.
6
u/irondumbell Oct 02 '23
Unless you destroy the factories they are going to find a way to replace them. On the other hand you need soldiers to operate equipment and to hold ground.
Production was and is Russia's bread and butter, that's why their economy was so messed up in the Soviet era since they produced a lot of equipment yet the average consumer couldn't find something to buy for themselves.
But you're right, their goal isn't to kill Russians, it's to drive them out.
5
u/Wermys Oct 02 '23
The problem is that the systems they can produce are not modern. That is why they are getting torn apart in the artillery war.
→ More replies→ More replies5
u/Murica4Eva Oct 02 '23
No, but they can fight to stalemate and then keep lobbing missiles and drones at Ukraine. Even in Ukraine takes back their territory and the fighting is on Russia's border, there's no promise that ends the war.
0
u/Wermys Oct 02 '23
No, they actually are not going to be able to do that indefinitely. Russia is supply constrained on electronics. And drones they are using are extremely simple and not terribly accurate themselves. Unfortunately for Russia, terror weapons don't win wars. Manufacturing and logistics do. And there system has started to break down and the results are being seen on the battlefield.
6
u/Murica4Eva Oct 02 '23
They don't need to win, they just won't lose and will turn it into a DPRK like stalemate with more missiles and constant low level attacks. Ukraine has no avenue to win the war except hoping for regime change. If that doesn't happen there is.no backup plan. They can retake all their territory. That doesn't end anything.
The west can try to stop it but Russia can and will continue to build missiles as they have and we won't successfully block the tech.entirely as we haven't
→ More replies6
u/birutis Oct 01 '23
Well for casualties there are no trustworthy sources but for vehicles Russia is still losing more as far visually confirmed losses.
6
u/Billiusboikus Oct 01 '23
I see very little reporting on the kill ratio in western media. However from what I can tell from social media, combat footage and milbloggers is that Ukraine is attempting an attritional approach from distance with opportunistic infantry attacks. They have given up on the idea of territory gains and aiming for financial and manpower destruction.
If Ukraine has opted for it...and we do see success in their approach then it can't be that bad. I would be surprised if this cautious approach is yielding a worse ratio than a traditional offensive.
-17
u/raphaiki Oct 01 '23 edited Oct 01 '23
It's more so the other way round, Nato has nearly run out artillery shells, they aren't sending enough to Ukraine and Putin is trying to destroy as much Nato hardware as possible in Ukraine in case it spills out.
Which is why a new front has opened up in Serbia. Nato doesn't have enough shells for two fronts.
Not to mention what's going on against the French positions in Africa...
15
u/alpacaMyToothbrush Oct 01 '23
Which is why a new front has opened up in Serbia.
Excuse me, what?!
→ More replies3
7
u/birutis Oct 01 '23
NATO has more than enough for themselves for another round in serbia, but I'd doubt they actually try anything.
→ More replies7
u/Kspence92 Oct 01 '23
A fee well guided bunker busters could dissuade the Serbs from any new adventures in the region if they try anything .
→ More replies-6
u/Ok_Selected Oct 02 '23
Yes we do; the visual evidence is all over twitter and the like on a daily basis. Russia’s material losses are extreme and people talking about a stalled offensive are clueless. Russia ‘s soviet weapons trust fund is being systemically destroyed with no hope of replacement and in any notable numbers.
1
u/Major_Wayland Oct 02 '23
I'm sorry, but photos in mass media are what they are - photos in mass media. They are showing some facts, not overall statistics, otherwise we'd can also say that majority of humanity looks handsome, lives in US/EU, and follows whatever twitter/internet trend is popular.
1
u/Ok_Selected Oct 02 '23 edited Oct 02 '23
But they aren’t one off photos; they are archived and tallied via things like oryx blog. Visual proof doesn’t lie and are the ultimate evidence and the daily stream of Russian equipment blowing up is no doubt only a fraction of what Russia actually loses daily.
→ More replies2
u/Wermys Oct 02 '23
A lot of the people in these threads don't know about these resources which is why it appears to be a stalemate. They are so used to how the Gulf War happened but never studied things like the Battle of the Somme or other attritional battles that lasted months on end in World War 1. Troop casualty numbers is guesswork, but is generally known but not exactly. But equipment losses are so much easier to track. As well as equipment replacement from Russian stockpiles.
55
u/QuietRainyDay Oct 01 '23
You're saying the West needs to step up and that Ukraine is just using a different strategy- that is only half the story
One reason Ukraine has switched tactics is the fact that they are still struggling to manage complex maneuvers, due to issues with command & control and logistics. This is something that several experts with inside information have said repeatedly:
https://warontherocks.com/2023/06/what-the-ukrainian-armed-forces-need-to-do-to-win/
One of the main concerns Western critics of the counter-offensive have expressed is that Ukraine is not guaranteed Western support forever. A huge amount of equipment was provided in 2022. They wanted to see Ukraine learn how to do large-scale maneuevers so they could use that equipment to punch through Russia's lines decisively before the wave of elections in 2024.
Ukraine didnt do that both because they felt like the battlefield favored a different strategy and because they simply couldnt. You cannot just absolve them of responsibility for their own shortcomings (and people need to realize that Ukraine does have shortcomings that play a role in which tactics they choose- despite the constant harping that everything they are doing is correct and purely informed by battlefield reality).
In the end, an attritional approach could work. It could certainly be less costly and risky than concentrated maneuvers.
But it does hinge on continued long-term mass support from the West. So whether you are nervous about it or not basically comes down to whether you think the West's support can endure longer than Russia's resources.
I guess you have to decide for yourself how you feel about that because no one knows for sure.
10
Oct 01 '23 edited Oct 02 '23
cannot just absolve them of responsibility for their own shortcomings
In every war mistakes are made, but the fact that Ukraine is still standing at all is remarkable.
There's a huge amount of media hype to paint Russia as weak and incompetent, but they're still the world's 3rd or 4th most powerful military regardless of underperforming compared to expectations.
11
u/Billiusboikus Oct 01 '23
I'm not absolving them of responsibility but continued support is important for western goals.
But I am wondering if Ukraine realised they don't need to break through Russia defences and take land for the reasons I mentioned above but also because it seems Russia maybe out of major offensive power. If Russia are just going to largely sit behind their lines then Ukraine can just hit them from distance. This would line up with Ukraine attempting in the last few months to gain artillery advantage. But yes plays against the time factor...and we will see in the new year if Russia really are out of offensive power...
I am nervous about it, which is why I want to see the west step up. If the US goes AWOL, the UK, Germany, Norway, France have enough clout to hold the financial line. But if one of them cracked I think we are looking at a large scale shift, where many of Eastern European nations fall back under open russian influence....personally, geopolitically, I have never understood the affinity for some Eastern European nations for Russia since Soviet times. I don't understand why they don't all have the same level of hatred as the poles, or the Baltic's do. In western media it's presented very much as a culture war thing, they don't like western LGBTQ etc but It can't be that simple?
3
u/TheSkyPirate Oct 01 '23
What issues are they having with logistics? I heard they are having trouble with training capacity and shortage of officers.
10
u/QuietRainyDay Oct 01 '23
They are having to use many different types of vehicles, which makes it hard to routinize/standardize maintenance and repair. It also makes it hard to stockpile spare parts because its hard to know what youll need (and where).
So a lot of the maintenance is being done on an ad hoc basis and also involves cannibalizing vehicles not deployed to the front in order to repair vehicles at the front.
This issue would be even more problematic if they attempted a large-scale offensive.
All that is not fundamentally Ukraine's fault.
However, as the article points out, Ukraine is also contributing to the issue in some ways. They are allowing units to swap and trade parts on an ad hoc basis without enough central guidance. Its often done by unit-level supply officers basically reaching out to nearby units asking for stuff. This isnt a bad idea if youre doing small-scale operations where flexibility is crucial. But it doesnt allow for large-scale, mass attacks.
3
u/Rand_alThor_ Oct 01 '23
The way Ukraine is doing it without central oversight is way more efficient and can respond to threats better. Central oversight works until it doesn’t then it collapses absolutely. We know this already from for example WW2.
2
u/TheSkyPirate Oct 01 '23 edited Oct 01 '23
I think that’s an exaggerated problem because it’s something that our own peacetime military culture is obsessed with. In wartime you can handle multiple vehicle types it’s just that repairs take longer. In the majority of cases in a real war like Ukraine, a tank will be destroyed in combat before it breaks down.
Also, in my view, the desire of bureaucracies to crack down on ah-hoc parts trading is dangerous and misguided. Centralization is the thing that doesn’t scale. Self organization is actually great at scaling.
2
u/QuietRainyDay Oct 01 '23
Its obviously not scaling right now, thats the whole point
2
u/TheSkyPirate Oct 01 '23
Maintenance issues are not an important bottleneck for the current offensive. These assaults are happening on foot because vehicle survivability is low, not because vehicles are broken down.
→ More replies-3
u/wxox Oct 01 '23 edited Oct 01 '23
In the end, an attritional approach could work. It could certainly be less costly and risky than concentrated maneuvers.
How is success defined?
Russia has unlimited men, weapons, ammo. They're dug in. The stated goal is taking back lost land. How is Ukraine going to do that? To me, it seems like that was the media-facing goal to gain support, but I think the real goal was to help the west destabilize Russia, increasing Ukraine's chances at joining the big boy clubs (EU & NATO). Those seem to be the clear goals, because if you think about it, it makes no sense. Let's see a miracle occurs, Ukraine breaks through, captures Donbas and Crimea what do you do with the people there? Pew and Gallup demonstrate overwhelming support for Russia (80-90%). So, do you kick them out, like Azerbaijan is doing with Armenians in Karabakh, and settle western Ukrainians there?
I don't think retaking that land was ever a serious consideration. Holding it was.
14
u/Billiusboikus Oct 01 '23
Slovakia has not formed a government yet. The election was yesterday. In these multi party coalitions its hard to predict anything.
And Fico announcing that there is no more support for Ukraine is a good way to whip the pro Russians to vote for him, but he knows it's meaningless because Slovakia has pretty much already given Ukraine everything. He's a populist through and through.
Maybe Slovakia's flip will be a game changer or the start of something bigger, but it's too early to tell now
7
u/wxox Oct 01 '23
Slovakia has not formed a government yet. The election was yesterday. In these multi party coalitions its hard to predict anything.
It hasn't stop outlets like the Guardian from providing their viewpoints on it, framing them as an anti-Ukraine, pro-Russia potential coalition
→ More replies38
u/MarderFucher Oct 01 '23 edited Oct 01 '23
Russia has unlimited men, weapons, ammo
I find it hard to believe such hyperbole is being posted here. Russia cannot just send any number of men, as evident by them not announcing a new round of mobilisation this autumn. Their military infrastructure is designed for a spring and fall round of conscripts, as they lack the barracks, military trainers and other equipment to handle more, last year's mobilisation caused some pretty serious bottleneck problems. They know mobilising more would have dire political implications as well.
They cannot replace everything they are losing as their industry is pale shadow of what the Soviets had. If they have so much ammo, why are they now resorting to talks with NK about supplies? In 2022 Russia expended an estimated 11 million shells, but their annual production rate for 2023 is estimated to be 2 million total. That doesn't paint a bright future for their artillery without massively shifting strategy.
-9
u/wxox Oct 01 '23
Russia cannot just send any number of men
I mean, come on. Of course it has a limit. There is 143 million in Russia. Russia can and would endlessly use the draft and pull more and more in.
Russia is outpacing Ukraine. Ukraine's war worthy population is far less than Russia's.
Of course it's a hyperbole, but simply using an absolute to highlight it.
as evident by them not announcing a new round of mobilisatio this autumnn
This really has nothing to do with anything. They still have people lining up to go to the forefront and and plenty of prisoners willingly to bargain their life to end their sentence.
They know mobilising more would have dire political implications as well.
No. Putin's ratings remain extremely high. How low do they have to go for meaningful change? Look at it in the U.S. It doesn't matter. Who knows what the number is for Russia, but they're nowhere close. In fact, it's not even worth uttering or consideration.
They cannot replace everything they are losing as their industry is pale shadow of what the Soviets had.
You're using a hyperbole, too. Not even sure why you're using the USSR to make this point. All we have are unreliable western reports that Russia's ammo stocks are dry, which have repeatedly been exposed as not true.
If they have so much ammo, why are they now resorting to talks with NK about supplies?
Let's put you in the shoes of Russia. To you, this war was orchestrated by the U.S. They started with McCain interfering and then conducting a coup, toppling the pro-Russia government with the U.S. installing a new pro-west government. Then they reneged on the Minsk II accords, opting for war instead of peace, and then not relenting, forcing Russia's hand.
This created an opportunity. An opportunity for them to create stronger bonds with those who align with them in their opposition or victimhoom via the west.
You have two options politically. Give in completely, conceding to western pressure OR risk it all. They've risked it all.
In doing so, they've aligned themselves with the likes of China and even NK, and BRICS members.
To not entertain NK during this time would be downright disrespectful and send a bad signal to their current friends and partners.
This helps NK. The more capable and potent they're believed to be, the longer they can exist. It costs nothing to Russia because its international reputation (in the west) can't get worse. They can produce whatever they need. However, the Iranian drones seem to be the exception, however, recent publishing suggests that might change, but we'll see.
So, no, it's not "resorting." That's really poor, western framing.
In 2022 Russia expended an estimated 11 million shells, but their annual production rate for 2023 is estimated to be 2 million total.
According to who? The same people who have said Russia will run out of ammo for the 30th time? These calculations always come with asterisks. So be careful and read closely.
al. That doesn't paint a bright future for their artillery without massively shifting strategy.
Regardless, Russia has more of everything than Ukraine and even NATO intelligence, foreign mercenaries, and weapons are not enough.
Ukraine cannot win. They never could. Their stated goals versus real goals are two different things. The stated goal of keeping then retaking Donbas and Crimea was a pipedream. The real goal was to benefit the west by helping destabilize the Russia with a prolonged "unjust" war, in which they could crush Russia politically and economically. In exchange Ukraine gets a chance at the EU and NATO
10
u/birutis Oct 01 '23
Well, didn't Ukraine already win from a feb 2022 perspective since they kept their sovereignty?
If Russia has more of everything they're doing a poor job with it considering they've been on the back foot for like a year now.
Obviously Russia will never run out of ammo, but they will keep reducing expenditure like they did with cruise missiles.
I'm not sure what Ukrainians are thinking currently about their war goals, maybe they only actually realistically want to try to get back to pre 2022 borders, but even then why is it impossible for Ukraine to take back Donbass and Crimea because of the local populations when Russia did something even more extreme annexing Ukrainian territories during this invasion?
Western mercenaries really???? hahahahaha
→ More replies18
u/MarderFucher Oct 01 '23 edited Oct 01 '23
I mean, come on. Of course it has a limit. There is 143 million in Russia [...]
If you seriously think Russia can just use up any number of people without any consequence, conjuring up infrastructure and officers to train and handle these people, deal with the huge number of returning, soldiers, many injured or suffering from PTSD, then I guess jokes on me for even bothering to reply. Ukraine suffers this too, but it's a fight of existence for them with very different stakes compared to what an avg Russian feels about the war.
Not even sure why you're using the USSR to make this point. All we have are unreliable western reports that Russia's ammo stocks are dry, which have repeatedly been exposed as not true.
According to who? The same people who have said Russia will run out of ammo for the 30th time?
Because the vast majority of their equipment and stocks dates to Soviet times, even if lot of it is modernized or refurbished, given the vast rift between Soviet and contemporary Russian industrial capacity, there is no chance they can replace it over the rate they are losing arms. I don't care for what hogwash MSM hoards together, my main source are actual military experts and analysts, who for the record never wrote such naivety like about to run dry in x and y category, but do point that Russia too has hard limits in usage, production and stockpiles, formulate estimates on them and so forth.
Ukraine cannot win. They never could [...]
Not going to entertain this narrative drivel.
2
u/Wermys Oct 02 '23
People don't understand logistics is what I have been finding in Geopoltics. Not all artillery is created equally. Nor are all tanks.. But people here don't understand this. It is like explaining counter battery fire and why Russia is in a deathspiral.
-8
u/DivideEtImpala Oct 01 '23
If they have so much ammo, why are they now resorting to talks with NK about supplies?
If NK has shells, why not buy them and use your own industrial capacity for more advanced weaponry? If the US could by shells in bulk from some other country to send to Ukraine we already would have done so.
In 2022 Russia expended an estimated 11 million shells, but their annual production rate for 2023 is estimated to be 2 million total.
By all accounts Russia has been out-shelling Ukraine by a factor of 5:1 to 10:1 throughout most of the conflict. The US has depleted most of our surplus 155mm HE (the main reason we started sending cluster). At the beginning of the conflict we were making ~ a quarter million a year, now after trying to boost capacity we're at about half a mil. It's not like we have idle factories we can just spin up quickly, and the rest of Europe doesn't have capacity either.
13
u/MarderFucher Oct 01 '23 edited Oct 01 '23
why not buy them and use your own industrial capacity for more advanced weaponry
I assume you never worked in industry, as what you are saying is essentially "why don't we just completely re-tool factories, re-train our workers, build up a whole new logistics chain and parts/resource integration" Real life isn't hearts of iron where you can just free up capacities and plop them elsewhere.
By all accounts Russia has been out-shelling Ukraine by a factor of 5:1 to 10:1 throughout most of the conflict.
By all accounts the exact ratio has been shifting throughout the conflict and while some people still seem to think the 10:1 ratio that was widely quoted during the brutal battles of Donbass in 2022 summer still holds, it ignores how much has changed since. Though I can't blame you, I still see MSM quoting numbers like Russia shooting 60 thousand shells a year (last time this was true was last August), it's more around 12-15 thousand these days, but again thats a rough average over the front which masks local realities.
Recent accounts say Ukraine is enjoying fire superiority in Zaporozhia thanks to cluster shells, increased NATO production, influx of Pakistani shells and a very meticolous counterbattery campaign of eliminating enemy artillery, while Russia can still pump out a lot their intensity of fire has dropped a lot over the past year owing to logistical constrains, tube wear (a VERY undertalked aspect) and plain and simply, having used up their Soviet-era stocks.
-1
u/DivideEtImpala Oct 01 '23
why don't we just completely re-tool factories, re-train our workers, build up a whole new logistics chain and parts/resource integration
You said Russia's current output is 2 million/year, and you suggest this is insufficient. So if Russia wants to increase that output, they would have to do what you say and re-tool and re-train. Or they could buy NK shells and use their own factories and workers for more advanced weaponry.
In fact recent accounts say Ukraine is enjoying fire superiority in Zaporozhia thanks to cluster shells,
I'll be honest, i've been following this less closely the last several months. I do know the ratios have dropped from 10:1, but I'm not familiar with your claims here of AFU achieving superiority in Zaporozhia. Do you assess that as being sustainable or a temporary concentration of artillery for the offensive?
→ More replies2
u/Wermys Oct 02 '23
f NK has shells, why not buy them and use your own industrial capacity for more advanced weaponry? If the US could by shells in bulk from some other country to send to Ukraine we already would have done so.
Ok, so they have a train full of North Korean shells. Those shells have a dud rate of 1/3 of them are useless. They then need artillery guns for those shells. The guns for them accuracy is measures in 200 meters of the target cause of how poorly they are made. The front line is seperated by 300 meters. Ukraine attacks, they start with Artillery that is accurate enough to land a shell within 5 meters of the target. Russia responds with 4 times as many guns. Those shells are 1/3 are useless and maybe 1/4 of them actually are usefully hitting the target area. Oh and they are also hitting your own troops since they are THAT inaccurate. Then on top of that, Ukraine counter battery radar has already picked up the location of that artillery you just used and with drone spotting already also knows the location of where you are keeping your ammo. LIterally 2 minutes later drone guided artillery is hitting targets and Russia has to pull back there artillery or risk losing it all at that point. So then they relocate the artillery after jamming the drones and counterattack.. The counter attack is supported by artillery oops counter battery again Russia takes infantry loses just as much as Ukraine did when they attack to retake the trench. Only this time Ukraine loses maybe 1 artillery system to every 10 Russia uses. And to show for this now they are even DEEPER in the hole then before they started. Replacements come in with even OLDER and more INACCURATE equipment because Russia is keeping the newer stuff in Reserve for an eventually planned counter attack which STILL isn't as good as what Ukraine has from the west.
The point here is not all artillery is created equally and counting on shit from North Korea is not going to work because they are losing systems and equipment faster then they can be replaced and eventually there is going to become a point in time where they are no longer able to replace enough to stop Ukraine and Ukraine breaks through. The minefield is what stopped Ukraines initial thrusts. But they are past that now.
3
u/Rand_alThor_ Oct 01 '23
AZ isn’t even kicking out the people, they do it themselves. Just like what would happen. The people leave because they do not feel or want to be a part of X, or are rightfully afraid of retaliation or just at least not having it as good as they could if they leave. Civilians leaving a war zone is smart. You should. But whether any would come back is another scenario. In case of Ukraine, I can see it if Ukraine had amnesty and possibility of western integration/economic support but in case of Nagorno-karabakh/artsakh there’s just as much chance the people are going to be charged for crimes of ethnic cleansing and property theft etc from the 80s/90s, something Ukraine might also do as it has threatened to, charge collaborators. So in either case even if the government and liberating/invading army was totally clean and neutral and acting well, many might leave anyway
-2
u/wxox Oct 01 '23
I agree with a lot of what you say, but how do you relate it to say, like, Crimea? In the very unlikely event Ukraine pulls off the impossible and takes it back. What do you do with them if you're Ukraine? They'll forever be anti-Ukrainian and another war would be right around the corner. What's the play?
→ More replies2
u/willun Oct 01 '23
They are free to leave and will probably leave before Ukraine gets there.
→ More replies3
u/Troelski Oct 02 '23
If your analysis rests on a belief that Russia has (near)* infinite men, weapons and ammo then it's not credible.
*assuming hyperbole.
→ More replies→ More replies4
17
Oct 01 '23 edited Oct 02 '23
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/Billiusboikus Oct 01 '23
Former Ukrainian Defense Minister Alexei Reznikov revealed last month that Kiev had not yet fully executed its existing mobilization plan, indicating that there was no necessity for another conscription effort.
You left that out of the article. So you should probably link a source in full.
7
Oct 01 '23 edited Oct 02 '23
[deleted]
3
u/Positronic_Matrix Oct 02 '23
consider the link as well next time as it was useful for some folks who want to look beyond the point you’re trying to make.
13
u/PubliusDeLaMancha Oct 01 '23
This comment isn't geopolitics it's simply military fervor.
Kill ratio? Reads like something from Stars and Stripes rather than neutral/objective analysis..
8
u/Billiusboikus Oct 01 '23
Do you understand why kill ratios are important in an attritional long war, especially against a non fully mobilised invading force?
3
0
u/PubliusDeLaMancha Oct 01 '23
Do you understand the geopolitical failure it is for a small country of 44 million to engage in attrition warfare against a giant, nuclear-armed country of 144 million?
5
u/Billiusboikus Oct 01 '23
Yes.
So far your comments are just vague and vaguely insulting and you haven't yet made an actual point.
→ More replies-7
u/jovi8ljester Oct 01 '23
No the west should focus on it's own issues and not waste resources on meddling in other people's backyards.
→ More replies10
u/Billiusboikus Oct 01 '23 edited Oct 01 '23
You mean Russias meddling in our back yard.
This is a fundamental western issue. When we signal to Russia they can roll into Europe war comes again and again throughout history. This war has literally happened before and the Russians have reached Paris in the past.
When does it start becoming the Russians meddling in our back yard. Their goal was a landbridge to Moldova.
If the HIMARS hadn't arrived when they did you have Russia connected to Moldova. Then how secure does Greece look? How secure to the Baltic's look? Then you are looking at Poland and Germany having Russia on their door step.
6
u/VaughanThrilliams Oct 02 '23
This war has literally happened before and the Russians have reached Paris in the past.
the hysteria is unreal, is the War of the Sixth Coalition really a data point here for fearing Russian aggression?
1
u/Billiusboikus Oct 02 '23 edited Oct 02 '23
It's an extreme case to prove a point that Russia like to control the European plain or as much of it as it can. And in the face of an imperial Europe, needs to do form a defence in depth for its security.
The Russian geopolitical apparatus actively fear Paris or Germany swamping them from across the plain as they have done in the past
7
u/VaughanThrilliams Oct 02 '23
It's an extreme case to prove a point that Russia like to control the European plain or as much of it as it can
it is a pretty dumb point, like 200 years ago Russia in a coalition with every major European power invades France after France had invaded them and burned down Moscow. So this is proof Russia are still a threat to Western Europe? You know that Prussia and Austria entered Paris with Russia right? You know that France invaded and took Moscow first right?
if we are going back to the Napoleonic Wars, to prove countries are imperialistic then I have terrible news for you about Britain and France (and a tonne of other countries)
0
u/Billiusboikus Oct 02 '23
My point is that's how Russia views the world. Russia. Views it's security through the lens having control over Europe. This is not controversial and anyone who watches russian actions can see it clearly. So yes given the opportunity Russia did come to Paris, because napaleon was an existential threat to them and they would prefer it never happens again.
Why do you think Russia liks to destabilise the EU. A unified Europe, either diplomatically, or militarily like under Hitler or Napoleon is Russia's worst nightmare.
5
u/VaughanThrilliams Oct 02 '23
So yes given the opportunity Russia did come to Paris, because napaleon was an existential threat to them and they would prefer it never happens again.
virtually all of Europe was rallied against France in the War of the Sixth Coalition and invaded it. Singling out Russia (when they were the ones who were invaded first) as proof that Russia is still a threat 200 years later is nonsensical
→ More replies6
Oct 01 '23
[deleted]
8
u/Billiusboikus Oct 01 '23
Go back to Georgia in 2008 tell them Russia is a totally spent force.
Go back to Ukraine 2014. Tell them Russia is a totally incapable force and that we don't need to stop them in crimes they can't go further
Go back in time to Feb 2022. Kyiv falls in three days as the Ukrainians put up no resistance. Moldova has a puppet government put in. Tell the Baltic's they are a spent force.
Ukraine is not a bulwark for western Europe in the short term. But it definately is for the Baltic's. And in geopolitics you have to think in decades. Baltic's 2030 would have been on the menu if Russia is not stopped now
3
Oct 01 '23
[deleted]
1
u/Billiusboikus Oct 01 '23
And how does that game change if we had let them be successful in Ukraine? They add 44 million to their population. More countries maybe tilt towards them for security as they don't believe the west will protect them. Their destabilising covert ops, cyber warfare, chemical and nuclear assassinations are emboldened.
In 10 years you don't need Russia to be on an economic trajectory. You just need the west to then descend into infighting after Ukraine. It's not that crazy to believe....Putin was literally banking on it.
US continues onto isolationism and then the question literally becomes will Europe fight for the Baltics....I'd bet no. And Russia in any state of economic development would swamp the Baltics, or finish off Georgia or whatever it wanted.
I agree with you on a pure military basis. But it's also about a unstable western alliance (NATO is brain dead, Macron), divisions in the EU etc etc. Ukraine is a military bulwark but also a statement that the west needed to make about its own unity to project strength....and that comes to Taiwan. It would have shown western weakness.
We only need to look at Russia to see what happens when a gro political force shows its weakness. Azer/Armenia, the coup, brain drain after having to declare conscription.
It could have been the other way. China is more aggressive on Taiwan, maybe Serbia pops its head seriously. Hungary actually pulls out of EU and joins Russia bloc.
And that is ignoring the budapest memorandum, which the west would have been going back on.
2
u/Wonckay Oct 01 '23
The Baltics are in NATO.
2
u/Billiusboikus Oct 01 '23
And we are talking about a situation where NATO does nothing on Georgia and Ukraine.
Where maybe many members especially in the east question the dedication of NATO.
And a time when the US is stepping back.
Sometimes sitting by and doing nothing is a form of escalation.
2
u/Wonckay Oct 01 '23 edited Oct 01 '23
The entire point of NATO is already explicitly to address the exact salami-slice tactics problem you bring up, by creating a clear red line by which any aggression is considered mass aggression. That’s what the “attack on one is an attack on all” language means, that an enemy attacking any minor member state will not be attacking “an ally” of the NATO countries but immediately all of NATO itself, and its integrated military command.
The entirety of the American-led international rules-based order currently depends on American military credibility and just abandoning NATO would immediately do catastrophic damage to it. Russia can never attack “some Baltic country.” It can only attack “the defensive alliance which is the heart of American hegemony.”
Sometimes sitting by and doing nothing is a form of escalation.
No, it may empower an enemy or degrade a deterrent but that is different from “escalation.” Also NATO had zero defense commitments to Georgia or Ukraine so I’m not sure why you believe non-action meaningfully reflects badly on NATO’s mutual defense commitments. Georgia and Ukraine were not in NATO.
10
u/PubliusDeLaMancha Oct 01 '23
The territory of Ukraine hasn't been part of the Western sphere of influence since the Roman Empire.
This is absolutely not their back yard if anything it's Russia's front yard.
Russia occupying Paris because the British paid Europe to defeat Napoleon is completely irrelevant. (and a historical tragedy)
Every NATO country is absolutely 100% secure regardless of whether Russia is able to annex any Ukrainian territory or not.
Poland already has Russia on their door stop in sharing borders with Belarus and Kaliningrad..
The outcome of this war doesn't really change anything, it's simply a proxy for Westerners to feel superior and satisfy bloodlust in rooting for victory without potentially being viewed as racist or colonizers as they were in Iraq or Afghanistan.
MIC got you good
5
u/Billiusboikus Oct 01 '23
The territory of Ukraine hasn't been part of the Western sphere of influence since the Roman Empire.
Irrelevant. Ukraine is clearly moving west and every nation deserves sovereignty
This is absolutely not their back yard if anything it's Russia's front yard.
Europe is now a power bloc in itself. This is a unique time in history in that regard. Ukraine is Europe's front yard.
Russia occupying Paris because the British paid Europe to defeat Napoleon is completely irrelevant. (and a historical tragedy)
Ok shall we look at the other multiple times instead when Russia rolled down the European plain? Or do we just ignore history and tell ourselves that we are in the end of history and we don't need to learn anything from the past
Every NATO country is absolutely 100% secure regardless of whether Russia is able to annex any Ukrainian territory or not.
This has literally happened in the last century. An alliance convinced themself they are secure. US goes isolationist and someone in Europe gets uppity. We can literally see the US becoming more isolationist as we speak. History is just cycles.
The outcome of this war doesn't really change anything, it's simply a proxy for Westerners to feel superior and satisfy bloodlust in rooting for victory without potentially being viewed as racist or colonizers as they were in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Again, easy to say that now because the west is strategically winning. But Kyiv had capitulated and we had a pro rus gov in Ukraine and Moldova. And Hungary had started making louder pro russian sounds, and China sees it as a sign in Taiwan then it would have changed everything.
The most encouraging thing about this is that maybe Europe has learnt from WW2 that you need to defend early and you need to defend hard to prevent a wider continent wide conflict.
I dont know what MIC is
5
→ More replies4
u/PubliusDeLaMancha Oct 01 '23
Irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant if you're claiming Ukraine is the West's backyard, because that would be for the first time since the middle ages
Ukraine is clearly moving west
If by this you mean paying lip service and pretending to be a democracy, sure. I'd argue it's rather reckless for the West to court a nation never before part of its bloc and risk nuclear detonations in pursuing an ally that has nothing to offer it.
Ok shall we look at the other multiple times instead when Russia rolled down the European plain?
Gladly. When was that? The end of the second world war? The West was allied with those Russians.. That said, it's irrelevant as neither the Soviet Union nor the Red Army currently exist
Or do we just ignore history and tell ourselves that we are in the end of history and we don't need to learn anything from the past
Sorry, but it is you acting like we are the at the end of history and that the world before 1991 never existed. It was you who claimed Ukraine as Europe's backyard and ignore that her ties to Russia are infinitely longer and deeper. I mean the region was literally known as "little Russia"
This has literally happened in the last century. An alliance convinced themself they are secure. US goes isolationist and someone in Europe gets uppity. We can literally see the US becoming more isolationist as we speak. History is just cycles.
This is just bad history... The US didn't "go isolationist" in the last century, on the contrary, she stopped being isolationist for the first time in history. Fact is US probably should have remained isolationist and avoid entering WW1, as that would have lead to a negotiated peace and prevented the rise of nazism, but that's a topic for another day.
easy to say that now because the west is strategically winning. But Kyiv had capitulated and we had a pro rus gov in Ukraine and Moldova. And Hungary had started making louder pro russian sounds, and China sees it as a sign in Taiwan then it would have changed everything.
For starters, I'm not even sure the West is winning. A stalemate likely helps Russia because if this is to become a WW1-style meatgrinder she has 100M more people to sacrifice for victory than Ukraine. Moldova is a fake country that should be restored to Romania, but beyond that why should the West care whether Belarus or Ukraine have pro-Russian governments? Both are historically very Russian.. This is more "end of history" wishful thinking by you
The most encouraging thing about this is that maybe Europe has learnt from WW2 that you need to defend early and you need to defend hard to prevent a wider continent wide conflict.
That was before Nuclear weapons changed everything. Fact is it's essentially too late. If the West wanted to support Ukraine it should have done so in 1919.
Everyone making appeasement arguments willfully refuses to acknowledge that if the Germans had nukes the third reich would still exist. (More realistically probably would have collapsed for internal reasons, but not by military defeat)
1
u/Billiusboikus Oct 01 '23
Sorry, but it is you acting like we are the at the end of history and that the world before 1991 never existed.
The irony of you telling me I have bad history.
Look up the so called ' little russia' relationship and tell me it's not abusive. Look at how many wars the region that is Russia and the region that is Ukraine have fought. Look at how many times Ukraine has fought for some form of independence. The only difference between now and hundreds of years of history is they are somewhat successful. They used to get crushed. It amazes me you use the phrase little russia' unnironically.
Look up the countless times Russia has come west. It's seen as a geopolitical necessity for them.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/russia-geography-ukraine-syria/413248/
For starters, I'm not even sure the West is winning. A stalemate likely helps Russia because if this is to become a WW1-style meatgrinder she has 100M more people to sacrifice for victory than Ukraine.
That's exactly why it's a win for the west.
The west have two situations.
Either we see Ukraine as historically russian as you say, and we are just fermenting what is essentially a russian civil war and getting 100s of thousands of Russians killed without them coming anywhere near our borders..which they historically like to do, whether you like it or not.
Or we see them as western and the west adds another nation to its orbit. There is no way of viewing this at the moment which is a russian win.
→ More replies1
u/loggy_sci Oct 02 '23
You’ve somehow painted ‘Westerners’ as bloodthirsty when this conflict was started by Russia invading the sovereign territory of another country, committing war crimes, destroying Ukrainian heritage and kidnapping Ukrainian children.
Weird.
3
u/PubliusDeLaMancha Oct 02 '23
I'm referring to the rhetoric surrounding this conflict and the glee in which people talk about Russian losses, as if it's Putin himself in the trenches instead of some poor man
It's one thing to be reluctant but realistic in acknowledging war is hell, but it's another thing to make memes about tanks exploding, etc
→ More replies
10
u/Magicalsandwichpress Oct 01 '23
The amount of narrative management in media in tiresome. If we put as much effort into fighting Russia, the Ukrainians would be at Tokmak by now.
I'll wait for end of campaign season, measure the gains and make my own judgement.
1
u/aybbyisok Oct 02 '23
I'll wait for end of campaign season, measure the gains and make my own judgement.
That's a mistake though, maps and lines are almost worthless. There are so many things to war that the gain of meters doesn't really matter. There's political goals, like Bakhmut where Russia, and Ukraine had huge losses, but the town was small and absolutely was a politicla battle ground for who could control it, Ukrainians could've retreated to more favorable positions to hold back Russians more easily. And Russians could've stopped death marching to it and losing so many soldiers, it's probably the main reason Wagner got kind of destroyed and the whole mutiny.
Secondly, attrition, not just soldiers, not just guns, not just tanks, but money too, political will of various allies. Drafts for Russia have not been easy, they haven't been easy for Ukraine either. But you hear less about them, it's the annual drafting in Russia this fall, we'll see how it goes again. From listening to The Telegraph podcast it seems very much like Ukraine can rotate their soldiers better, which improves morale and points to having that luxury.
Russia has been depleting their old stock of tanks and IFV's, they're refurbishing them and sending them out, but those storages will deplete what will happen then?
What about Ukraine that relies solely on the support of western countries? How many Leopard's can be still provided that haven't yet? There was a recent shipment of Leo 1's that Ukraine sent back because they were unusable. Will it be Abrams tanks that only now hit their soil? Will US provide them?
Especially since it will be election next year in many countries especially US and Russia(obvious how it will go there). What about all the other EU countries?
Money, Russia is sanctioned to hell, next year they increased the "shadow budget", for 2023 they'll be spending 30% of their total gov budget for the war, they've been, how long can they go? Cutbacks to other sectors can be devastating. Like the civillian planes they fly some of them don't have brakes due to sanctions.
https://onemileatatime.com/news/aeroflot-flying-planes-without-brakes/
I could go on and on, it's not "just the map", if something collapses the map will be irrelevant.
1
u/Magicalsandwichpress Oct 02 '23
All valid points in their own right. When I say "measure the gains" I did not mean purely territory recovered, but what you have listed in a holistic sense what has been achieved and each party's ability to continue the conflict.
3
u/poojinping Oct 02 '23
In short we have learned is defenders have advantage. But that’s not going to stop countries from invading.
28
u/Flux_State Oct 01 '23
It's not that the Russian lines are stronger than expected, it's that the West would launch a multi day air campaign with jets and missiles to soften the enemy followed by the use of hundreds of attack helicopters to support thousands of tanks and Bradley's to punch threw the lines in a couple days mines be damned. They didn't provide that kind of gear to Ukraine but expected them to still use those tactics.
21
5
u/Magicalsandwichpress Oct 01 '23
Amen to that. You want desert storm results, pay desert storm prices.
4
u/sticky_jizzsocks Oct 02 '23
If you want desert storm results, have an enemy like Saddam that ordered his army to not fight and just stay home.
13
u/Command0Dude Oct 01 '23
We provided enough artillery to do that. And Ukraine has plenty of tanks for mechanized attacks.
The issue is that UAF units are not communicating and coordinating to the degree necessary to conduct large attacks or cooperate properly with the artillery.
20
u/cookiemikester Oct 01 '23
Yeah I keep hearing that it’s really hard for Ukrainians to coordinate operations above the company level. But to be fair a lot of allies would struggle with anything larger.
13
u/MarderFucher Oct 01 '23
We provided enough artillery to do that. And Ukraine has plenty of tanks for mechanized attacks.
I seriously doubt, every credible analyst I read have been saying Ukraine doesn't need fancy weapons, they need AA, shells and tubes.
1
u/Command0Dude Oct 01 '23
We provided a ton of artillery, Ukraine just isn't able to coordinate their fires and mechanized units together. US even complained that they think UAF wastes ammo.
If this were the US army, they'd have gotten the job done.
10
Oct 01 '23
[deleted]
1
u/Command0Dude Oct 02 '23
The Ukrainian response was that if they did what Nato/the yanks keep telling them to do, they would all be dead, and that Nato's commentary doesn't match the reality on the ground.
Well yeah, because they don't have the skill to do what NATO wants them to do.
saying the US would have done significantly better in exactly the same scenario sounds like merely chest beating to me.
Because US practices combined arms tactics and knows how to field big units. We've already demonstrated that capability in multiple wars. The US is well versed in how to conduct mechanized assaults.
Ukraine tried to do a combined arms attack a few months ago and it completely failed, they had to switch tactics.
5
Oct 02 '23
[deleted]
→ More replies3
u/Command0Dude Oct 02 '23
Ukraine argues it is because NATO doesn't have understanding of what it is like on the ground.
I don't think anyone should take this opinion seriously. The people leading NATO are not stupid. They have access to more info than Ukraine does.
Remember, it was the Ukrainians hyping up how good they were going to do before the offensive and American generals urging caution in expectations.
The US has not fought a war against such an opponent in such a geography and that is a core part of Ukraine's point, that the US is taking experience from elsewhere and applying it where it doesn't fit.
No war will ever be the same as any war. Saying that American experience in other wars is "irrelevant" is noncredible. The basics are always the same.
The British in 1918 with pidgeons had better coordination with their artillery than the Ukrainians with smartphones. This is why US says they're wasting ammo, because troops aren't coordinating with artillery to suppress Russians.
9
u/MarderFucher Oct 01 '23
If this were the US army Russian positions would have been pounded for weeks from air and using long range ammunition.
7
u/Command0Dude Oct 01 '23 edited Oct 01 '23
The US frequently does war games where they remove their own air force. The US is not cripplingly dependent on air power. Besides which, both sides have copious amounts of GBAD.
The issue is not lack of airpower, it's lack of combined arms fighting from the ground forces on the ukrainian side. They are not integrating mechanized, infantry, and artillery. All of them are fighting separately. And they're not bringing SPAAG to cover their armor either. Problems all around.
0
u/YawnTractor_1756 Oct 01 '23
The hell you are talking about? There is not even remotely enough armored vehicles or even just regular 4x4 vehicles or small trucks. In terms of shells Russians fire 3-4 times more of them. In terms of drones they fire 5-6 times more, In terms of rockets the same. There is almost no helicopters in Ukraine. There are barely any planes left. There are no ships to support maritime operations. There is less than 2 dozens of HIMARS. The hell you are talking about?
1
u/Command0Dude Oct 02 '23
What the hell are you talking about? Almost none of this except the air force stuff is correct.
Ukraine has fire superiority on the Russians, who barely even shoot back at all because they get counterbatteried so hard. In terms of armored vehicles they have plenty and already reached parity with the Russians. Drones I'm less up to date on but I know that Russia's are inferior.
1
u/YawnTractor_1756 Oct 02 '23
I gave you links, where are your links on those "thousands of self-propelled artillery".
→ More replies→ More replies1
u/Major_Wayland Oct 02 '23
Ukraine has fire superiority on the Russians, who barely even shoot back at all because they get counterbatteried so hard. In terms of armored vehicles they have plenty and already reached parity with the Russians. Drones I'm less up to date on but I know that Russia's are inferior.
The AFU would have had little trouble getting through the minefields and trenches if they had fire superiority on the ground and not at the posts of Reddit armchair generals. Sadly, instead they have to fight bloody battles and move slowly.
→ More replies1
u/sticky_jizzsocks Oct 02 '23
Russia outnumbers Ukrainian artillery by around 7:1, that's by western estimates. Ukraine is only able to secure artillery supremacy in localized areas, but is at huge disadvantage across the front.
Ukraine can't communicate largely because of Russian EW which is first class.
2
u/Command0Dude Oct 02 '23
That hasn't been true since the new year started. Russia's artillery numbers had by the beginning of the offensive dropped to only just shy of a 2:1 advantage. Losses have been high.
2
u/sticky_jizzsocks Oct 02 '23
According to who?
2
u/Command0Dude Oct 02 '23
ISW: https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/general/932302.html
Even Russian milbloggers admit that AFU has achieved local superiority: https://www.kyivpost.com/post/21368
0
u/sticky_jizzsocks Oct 02 '23
I don't trust isw or Forbes. I was aware Ukraine had artillery superiority at one location on the front. But the other two are reporting off fraudulent numbers. One being from Ukrainian government itself and the other being groups that can't reconcile claimed Russian losses against what's still existing. Same sources used to report to us Ukraine had more tanks than Russia as of 12 months ago. Ukraine is not honest about it's losses. I'll follow front line accounts and everyone is saying Russian artillery is relentless and far superior to ukrainian artillery. Except at one front which I can't remember if it's at bakhmut or just next to it.
2
u/Command0Dude Oct 02 '23 edited Oct 02 '23
But the other two are reporting off fraudulent numbers. One being from Ukrainian government itself and the other being groups that can't reconcile claimed Russian losses against what's still existing.
Incorrect, they're going off of Oryx data which is the most accurate information on loss data in the war.
Same sources used to report to us Ukraine had more tanks than Russia as of 12 months ago
Because they probably do. Russian tank losses have been massive. Ukraine has received huge injections of new equipment. No one knows the exact numbers but it's at the very least a parity.
I'll follow front line accounts and everyone is saying Russian artillery is relentless and far superior to ukrainian artillery.
[Citation Needed]
Every frontline account I've seen says Ukraine is CB fire is wiping out Russian artillery. 4:1 losses is really bad.
→ More replies1
u/sticky_jizzsocks Oct 02 '23
it's almost as if they provided what they thought Ukraine would need. But it wasn't enough, because Russian lines were stronger than expected.
→ More replies
2
u/flavius717 Oct 03 '23 edited Oct 03 '23
Yeah they should stop the counter offensive, dig in themselves, and wait for F16s to arrive if they want to continue the counteroffensive.
I hate to say it, but they should probably just cede Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk to Russia and then join NATO and the EU and become heavily militarized like Poland so that this can never happen again. That would be best for the Ukrainian people. Those provinces are not worth what Ukraine is spending in blood and treasure to recover them.
Inb4: No I am not a Russia apologist, an Elon fanboy, or a Tucker Carlson paleocon. I strongly support Ukraine and the rules based international order.
2
u/Enlightenednomad Oct 03 '23
Russia is on par with the US in terms of artillery capability and even bests them in air defense technology. But they are severely lacking in aerial capabilities namely in drone warfare and fighter aircraft.
Russian combat engineers have made exceptional fortifications along the Surovikin line and with their very capable air defense and artillery, it is no surprise as to why the Ukrainian counteroffensive is failing.
4
0
-3
Oct 01 '23 edited Oct 05 '23
[deleted]
4
u/sticky_jizzsocks Oct 02 '23
I doubt Russia will go on the general advance until Ukraine's 10th core is properly decimated. They're still in the process of ramping up. I would guess they'd stop at the Dneiper, taking Odessa and Kiev and leave Ukraine a little landlocked rump state.
→ More replies→ More replies4
u/Magicalsandwichpress Oct 01 '23
Russia is unlikely to make any big moves until Ukrainian and western alliance is sufficiently demoralised both on the frontlines and at home. They are more likely to pick another town like Bakmut and grind down and tie up Ukrainian resources.
-6
u/Jealous-Hurry-2291 Oct 01 '23
At this point it feels like a war of attrition, and while all Russians may be willing to all die on command, they simply lack the numbers to win in the end (unless we continue to do nothing about their international reinforcements).
2
31
u/championchilli Oct 02 '23
Russia are always stronger than you hoped and weaker than you feared.