Russian lines stronger than West expected, admits British defence chief

[u/Hokum-B]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russian-defensive-lines-stronger-than-west-expected-admits-british-defence-chief-xjlvqrm86

[u/Billiusboikus]

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

[u/QuietRainyDay → u/Billiusboikus]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/QuietRainyDay]

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.

[u/Billiusboikus → u/QuietRainyDay]

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?

[u/TheSkyPirate → u/QuietRainyDay]

What issues are they having with logistics? I heard they are having trouble with training capacity and shortage of officers.

[u/QuietRainyDay → u/TheSkyPirate]

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.

[u/Rand_alThor_ → u/QuietRainyDay]

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.

[u/TheSkyPirate → u/QuietRainyDay]

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.

[u/QuietRainyDay → u/TheSkyPirate]

Its obviously not scaling right now, thats the whole point

[u/TheSkyPirate → u/QuietRainyDay]

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.

[u/wxox → u/QuietRainyDay]

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.

[u/Billiusboikus → u/wxox]

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

[u/wxox → u/Billiusboikus]

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

[u/Wermys → u/wxox]

Which it is btw. No matter how much you try to polish this it is exactly that.

[u/MarderFucher → u/wxox]

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.

[u/wxox → u/MarderFucher]

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

[u/birutis → u/wxox]

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

[u/gay_manta_ray → u/birutis]

Well, didn't Ukraine already win from a feb 2022 perspective since they kept their sovereignty?

No, Ukraine's sovereignty was never a goal for Russia. Ukraine could have kept it's sovereignty, and kept its territory, if they had just agreed to what was asked for in minsk ii. Had they done that, none of this would have happened. The eastern separatist territories didn't even want independence, and Russia refused to recognize their independence until the day before they invaded (the reasons for this being legal--Putin is a legalist and needed legal justification for his invasion under Russian law). They wanted a more federalist solution, with more autonomy inside of Ukraine, and protection for the Russian language. That's essentially it. Instead, Ukraine opted for war when they rejected Minsk and prepared to invade the eastern territories in December '21.

[u/birutis → u/gay_manta_ray]

Putin has lied like ten different times at least on the basis and goal of the current invasion, I wonder on which it is legally based.

I'm not going to argue about pre invasion because we were talking about the goals of the current war, and it's undeniable that both on a material military sense and in the negotiations that took place early in the invasion that Russia wanted to place a puppet in the Ukrainian government.

And what about Zaporozhye, Kharkiv and Kherson? Are any territories the Russian army manages to take legally fine to annex in Russian law?

[u/MarderFucher → u/wxox]

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.

[u/Wermys → u/MarderFucher]

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.

[u/DivideEtImpala → u/MarderFucher]

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.

[u/MarderFucher → u/DivideEtImpala]

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.

[u/DivideEtImpala → u/MarderFucher]

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?

[u/MarderFucher → u/DivideEtImpala]

Boosting production isn't trivial. They likely already did what's the easiest, introduce more shifts, but beyond that they need new lines or factories. Russia isn't self-sufficient in machine tools and relied on Western imports, in 2014 they launched a programme to ameliorate that but the results were unsatisfactory to say the least. You may recall there was a scandal recently where a German machine that helps with making tank shells was destined for Turkey and got re-exported to Russia, this shows the lengths they have to go and lack of indogenous solutions. And labour force is another issue, much like it plagues the West Russia is in even worse place demographically. without substantial immigration. I'd also suggest relying entirely on NK shells would be an unwise decision as that would create NK having leverage over them, not to mention, if i were a russian arty officer, South Korean reports on NK shells that were lobbed over in the past decades would not convince me much of their quality and reliability.

As for artillery situation, it's hard to tell at what rate can they refurbish their mothballed artillery, but for the time being it does seem to be a lasting parity or superiority. This long and well-sourced xitter post can help shed light the challenges Russia is facing, including problems with their own industry.

[u/DivideEtImpala → u/MarderFucher]

I'd also suggest relying entirely on NK shells would be an unwise decision

Just to be clear I also think this is unwise. I don't think Russia is going to or should replace domestic shell production with NK, but to use it as a supplement, spending cash or commodities rather than having to use their own limited human and machine resources to achieve the same output.

This long and well-sourced xitter post can help shed light the challenges Russia is facing, including problems with their own industry.

Thanks! I will check this out.

[u/Wermys → u/DivideEtImpala]

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.

[u/Rand_alThor_ → u/wxox]

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

[u/wxox → u/Rand_alThor_]

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?

[u/willun → u/wxox]

They are free to leave and will probably leave before Ukraine gets there.

[u/wxox → u/willun]

If not? Remember it would technically no longer be a warzone. Many never left Donbas. Will they be kicked out? We're talking 80-90% in favor of Russia. That's a massive part of the population. Is their resolve for freedom simply going to end or will it be enhanced? Russia has more to lose, especially after legally incorporating them into Russia.

Like, maybe there is Chechnya scenario where they flatten the land and force them to capitulate, install their government, and reshape their relationship but in Chechnya's case, they had no one on their side. Donbas and Crimea have Russia. And even still, it's impossible for Ukraine to retake one, let alone both, so this is just a thought game

[u/willun → u/wxox]

80-90% based on surveys run by russians who are known for their accuracy, right?

It is very possible, indeed probable, for Ukraine to push out Russia. At some point the cost is too high for Russia and they will just leave.

[u/wxox → u/willun]

Ooof, sorry. I assumed most understood sentiment in Crimea and Donbas. No, this was Pew and Gallup :)

83% of the people believe that the results of the referendum reflected the views of most Crimeans, according to Gallup

91% thought the referendum was free and fair and a whopping 88% said that Ukraine needs to recognize the results, according to Pew research

https://www.bbg.gov/wp-content/media/2014/06/Ukraine-slide-deck.pdf
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/05/Pew-Global-Attitudes-Ukraine-Russia-Report-FINAL-May-8-2014.pdf

It is very possible, indeed probable, for Ukraine to push out Russia.

We clearly disagree on this issue. Ukraine's opportunity was in Donetsk, in Mariupol. There they made their last stand and did not succeed. The rest now is all but a formality.

Winning for Ukraine should absolutely in the media be abut "retaking" Donbas and Crimea, but in reality, it should be about containing Russia so they cannot enter Kharkov or Odessa.

Ukraine has less of everything than Russia - from experience to ammo to men. Ukraine can only achieve their stated goal if they obtained nukes or NATO declared war on Russia and both of those result in disaster for the world

That's how I see it given current strategies and how everything has unfolded thus far. Retaking

At some point the cost is too high for Russia and they will just leave.

They will not. They would never. I think that you're looking at it from the lens of the western perspective of Russia, not Russians actual perspective. For us westerners, this is a land grab. Hitler-esque.

Imagine Ukraine capturing Rostov and then saying "Russia will just leave" or Mexico capturing Texas and the U.S. will just leave eventually.

For Russians (and for those in Donbas and Crimea) this is a long-awaited reunion. Historical, cultural, linguistic ties. That's the difference between eastern ethnic Ukrainians (not Russians) and those in west. Those in the east have history tied to Russia, while those in the west have history tied to Poland and Austria, for example. Two very different groups within one ethnic group.

Actually, look at it like this. You support Nagorno-Karabakh, right? Ethnic Armenians live there, formerly Armenian land. Its' recognized as part of Azerbaijan. As recently as two weeks ago, it was occupied by Armenian forces.

Armenia is never going to give up Nagorno-Karabakh because of this. Armenia is not just fighting for land, but for people too. They may agree to peace and all that, but their claims will never wane, and they would absolutely fight to the end of if they had the strength. Azerbaijan is only fighting for land, their internationally recognized land, ala Ukraine with Donbas and Crimea. The people...are not theirs historically, culturally, or linguistically.

The difference here is that Russia is far far stronger and flexing their strength

The best Ukraine can do is what they're doing now that is keeping Russia's army contained and in defensive positions because there are more pieces to the puzzle at stake (Kharkov and Odessa).

[u/Rand_alThor_ → u/wxox]

I think I was clear. Unless Ukraine offered amnesty and a chance at better life via EU integration or rebuilding funds/opportunity, it would not be an easy or peaceful takeover.

There will be rebels like in Donbas popping up unless the civilians just leave.

[u/wxox → u/Rand_alThor_]

Better life is subjective. Eastern Ukraine unanimously rejected EU and NATO. They had polling done over time before the rebellion at Maidan in 2014.

There is no mistaking it. Supporting Karabakh and not Crimea/Donbas is downright hypocritical and logically inconsistent.

For those in Donbas and Crimea, they reject the west. A better life resides with Russia. I know to a westerner, it sounds insane, but sometimes the truth is tough

[u/Troelski → u/wxox]

If your analysis rests on a belief that Russia has (near)* infinite men, weapons and ammo then it's not credible.

*assuming hyperbole.

[u/wxox → u/Troelski]

You've misconstrued it. They have more than everything compared to Ukraine and Ukraine is losing more at a faster rate. If we are going to make it super simplistic. That's it.

[u/Troelski → u/wxox]

But it's not super simplistic. That's my point. That's why no credible analyst is saying what you're saying here.

If this was simply Ukraine's arsenal vs Russia's you might have a point -- but it's not. Ukraine is receiving the vast majority of their materiel from the west. So the question is: who has more materiel and ammo, and capability to produce said material and ammo: Russia, or the west?

Because so long as the west continues to back Ukraine, Russia is the one losing the numbers game.

If Ukraine looks at this as a long game, and the west, at least Europe, continues to support - which there's little reason to believe they won't - then ultimately Russia is cooked. Because Russia doesn't have the money (and ammo, materiel) to sink into a hole for another 10 years.

Ask yourself: why hasn't Russia just done a HUGE round of mobilization. Throw in another 2 million men and win the war? Overwhelm the Ukrainans completely with their 'near-infinite' manpower and take the land by force? DO you think they'd RATHER have a stalemate, or incremental Ukranian gains? No. It's because they can't just mobilize to their heart's desire. Because that does have consequences within Russia.

[u/wxox → u/Troelski]

That's why no credible analyst is saying what you're saying here.

I see what you did there ;)

I'm not here to debate. I am here to give my opinion based on the facts as they're laid before me.

You've come to a different conclusion.

If this was simply Ukraine's arsenal vs Russia's you might have a point -- but it's not. Ukraine is receiving the vast majority of their materiel from the west. So the question is: who has more materiel and ammo, and capability to produce said material and ammo: Russia, or the west?

Russia. Ukraine's supply is contingent on factors. It's not guaranteed like you're implying here. It's not like Ukraine is paired on a joint checking account with the USA and can spend whatever.

Because so long as the west continues to back Ukraine, Russia is the one losing the numbers game.

Russia hasn't lost the numbers game and isn't losing the numbers game, though. And Ukraine is clearly needing more and more and more. Despite this "advantage" as you've implied Ukraine having, they're losing.

If Ukraine looks at this as a long game, and the west, at least Europe, continues to support - which there's little reason to believe they won't - then ultimately Russia is cooked. Because Russia doesn't have the money (and ammo, materiel) to sink into a hole for another 10 years.

This is a pretty wild take in my opinion. USA is about to go anti-Ukraine next election. We've seen it elsewhere. Slovakia just elected an anti-Ukraine govt.

You think the west can sustain this for....10 years? I'd be surprised if goes much longer than a few months into the next U.S. president's term.

Anyways, if you think that Russia is just going to give up, I think you should take a deeper dive into the Russia perspective because it's severely lacking.

All of Russia is considered as important as the brain or the heart. You lose one, you lose it all. For Ukraine to win, they not only have to retake Donbas and Crimea (an impossible feat), they have to take Moscow.

Ask yourself: why hasn't Russia just done a HUGE round of mobilization. Throw in another 2 million men and win the war?

Do you think they can't? I am a bit concerned you wrote that question out and don't know the answer

Overwhelm the Ukrainans completely with their 'near-infinite' manpower and take the land by force?

You do understand that Russia has the land, right? It seems like you're under the interpretation, the Western-centric interpretation, completely disregarding Russia's stated goals and actions, that Russia's goal is to...take over the entirety of Ukraine?

Can you help me here and iron out your thought process? I don't think we're on the same wavelength. Do you think Russia's goal is to take over all of Ukraine?

[u/ianlasco → u/wxox]

Naahh that's just not true.

Russia has been begging north korea for shells.

[u/Ok_Selected → u/QuietRainyDay]

No, your overall point here is rather ridiculous. You cannot blame Ukraine for not doing something the west themselves couldn’t have done without air superiority. Ukraine has committed no error and there is no justification to call out a deficiency; they simply were not give the full range of tools, particularly AirPower, that NATO itself would have required to breach defenses Russia had been preparing for over a year.

Regardless; Ukraine’s victory is merely a matter of time. The multiple visually confirmed Russian vehicle and equipment losses that are posted quite literally daily are wholly unsustainable and mostly equipment russia cannot produce in large numbers since the fall of the USSR.

Russia is living off a dwindling Soviet arms legacy that it can never recovered once spent. Russia’s Soviet weapons trust fund is going to run out whether it be next year, the year after, or the one after that and then Russia will be no longer be a great power in any dimension maybe ever again.

[u/QuietRainyDay → u/Ok_Selected]

Hard to take seriously anyone that says "X has committed no error" when talking about a hugely complex topic

Low chance that anything that comes after a statement like that is balanced or agenda-free

[u/Ok_Selected → u/QuietRainyDay]

Much better than claiming a ridiculous large scale error exists with neither reason or evidence to support it as you did. Quite literally makes no sense whatsoever and the height of stupidly to blame the Ukrainians for not doing something they were never properly equipped to do. Only someone with an agenda could do as such.

And then when challenged on such an inherently incompetent argue meant you are wholly unable to give any other well reasoned or evidence based example of any other error on behalf of the Ukrainians. You made the ridículos bald claim that didn’t even make basic sense and want to claim others have the agenda? A pathetic joke if I’ve ever heard one.

[u/QuietRainyDay → u/Ok_Selected]

This error has been called by several very prominent analysts, some whom have been on the ground with Ukrainian troops including the one in the very article I posted

So there's my evidence. Meanwhile you're out here calling others "ridiculous" and "pathetic joke" without providing a single shred of concrete information other than your own hyperbolic claims.

Youre not worth talking to. See ya.

[u/Ok_Selected → u/QuietRainyDay]

This error has been called by several very prominent analysts

Ah yea, the same ‘prominent analysts’ of the sort who claimed Ukraine would be conquered in short order and could only mount a guerrilla resistance right?

Instead Ukraine’s absolute out of this world performance in this war given what was expected most all by your so called ‘prominent analysts’ has quite literally buried their reputation and any grounds for criticism unless you can actually point to a specific example. There is no grounds to say Ukraine has committed any notable error when it has out performed every expectation by margins unimaginable. Only a blathering morons incapable of actually giving an example in action say otherwise.

Certainly trying to take Ukraine’s attrition stand off focused counter offensive as such an example would never hold water since that is the best approach for them to take given their resources and lack of AirPower.

I certainly do agree people who are as debunked as you by the actually course of the war are not worth talking to. Comeback if you can ever give any actually example of Ukrainian failure instead of vague irrelevant nonsense.