Russia and its “Special Operation” in Ukraine

[magnkarl]

4 hours ago, Arj Guy said:

It's Russias advantage in artillery that will determine this war. Ukraine admit they have 1 artillery piece for every 10 to 15 which Russia have. Even the western mainstream media narrative has already started to shift as it is becoming increasingly obvious that Ukraine is completley outgunned and getting battered in the East.  Ukraine will lose Donbas, most and perhaps all of its South Coast and probably Kharkiv and even more eventually. The idea that Ukraine will completely drive the Russians out and will take back all the territory they have already lost and will continue to lose  is a pipe dream. Defending is one thing but taking back territory when you are outgunned and the enemy has air superiority is something completely different. What happened to the great Kherson counter offensive?

Ukraine are by their own admission taking very heavy casualties in Donbas which is where their best troops are. What will the morale of Ukrainian troops be like when Russia has taken Donbas and have wiped out a significant portion of Ukraine's best troops in the process?  This is going to get worse and worse for Ukraine unfortunately. The longer it takes for Ukraine to make concessions the more territory they will lose.

Your whole idea is that you assume that Russia can actually push further than what they have. How long was it since they were going to take Donbas? They’ve pushed a few hundred meters a day at a cost which is frankly unsustainable. They couldn’t take Kyiv, Kharkiv or any other major city with their modern tanks and equipment and you assume that they’ll take i.e Odessa with their t62’s, no flag ship, bmp1’s and a rag tag band of depleted BTGs?

They might take Luhansk, at a push. Unless Putin mobilises.

[HAL]

Noone can predict how this war will end . We all thought Russia would steamroll through ukraine and the war would be over within weeks. Ukraine is still holding on and has so far not fielded its newly trained troops and Western arms. And any europeans that think ukraine should just give up and surrender its territory without  fighting how would you feel if you lost 20% of your country after your family had been butchered and know even if you do give it up you will just be invaded again in 4 years time

[chrisp65]

1 minute ago, HAL said:

Noone can predict how this war will end . We all thought Russia would steamroll through ukraine and the war would be over within weeks. Ukraine is still holding on and has so far not fielded its newly trained troops and Western arms. And any europeans that think ukraine should just give up and surrender its territory without  fighting how would you feel if you lost 20% of your country after your family had been butchered and know even if you do give it up you will just be invaded again in 4 years time

No, we didn’t all think Russia would steamroll it, and we also didn’t think Russia would grind to a halt after a couple of weeks and have another peasant revolt.

It’s war. Most wars grind on with more misery than any experts ever predicts.

Our policy is to give Ukraine just enough to keep them in the fight in the hope Russia will exhaust itself.

Our policy ignores pretty much all of history and actually risks what Putin was relying on, that the soft west will get fed up with petrol at £2.00 a litre and less choice of vegetable oils.

 

[magnkarl]

I didn't realise that they wrote a sequel to snakes on a plane.

Snakes on a train, redux.

[magnkarl]

8 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

No, we didn’t all think Russia would steamroll it, and we also didn’t think Russia would grind to a halt after a couple of weeks and have another peasant revolt.

It’s war. Most wars grind on with more misery than any experts ever predicts.

Our policy is to give Ukraine just enough to keep them in the fight in the hope Russia will exhaust itself.

Our policy ignores pretty much all of history and actually risks what Putin was relying on, that the soft west will get fed up with petrol at £2.00 a litre and less choice of vegetable oils.

 

That is assuming that we actually know what has been delivered to a full extent. The Northern part of NATO (and Sweden-Finland) have been very hush hush about what it has delivered. Norwegian equipment was at the front (artillery pieces) before the news broke that they gave them to Ukraine. In my opinion this is the way to go rather than the bluster in which U.K and others give equipment. It leaves Putin guessing and doesn't give our cards away.

It wouldn't surprise me if we see Swedish and Norwegian NASAM and NSM batteries in Ukraine before it's actually mentioned that they're there. These two countries have technology that could decide the war they just don't like to brag about their deliveries like a certain blonde Eton toff.

[Genie]

19 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

I didn't realise that they wrote a sequel to snakes on a plane.

Snakes on a train, redux.

[desensitized43]

22 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

That is assuming that we actually know what has been delivered to a full extent. The Northern part of NATO (and Sweden-Finland) have been very hush hush about what it has delivered. Norwegian equipment was at the front (artillery pieces) before the news broke that they gave them to Ukraine. In my opinion this is the way to go rather than the bluster in which U.K and others give equipment. It leaves Putin guessing and doesn't give our cards away.

It wouldn't surprise me if we see Swedish and Norwegian NASAM and NSM batteries in Ukraine before it's actually mentioned that they're there. These two countries have technology that could decide the war they just don't like to brag about their deliveries like a certain blonde Eton toff.

I guess it would depend on why you’re giving them the equipment. Finland and Sweden are giving Ukraine weapons because it’s in their national security interest to do so. We’re doing it (primarily) because Johnson needs good headlines and political kudos to save his snakey skin and in that case you’d want everyone to know what you’ve given and when for it to have maximum political effect.

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

That is assuming that we actually know what has been delivered to a full extent. The Northern part of NATO (and Sweden-Finland) have been very hush hush about what it has delivered. Norwegian equipment was at the front (artillery pieces) before the news broke that they gave them to Ukraine. In my opinion this is the way to go rather than the bluster in which U.K and others give equipment. It leaves Putin guessing and doesn't give our cards away.

It wouldn't surprise me if we see Swedish and Norwegian NASAM and NSM batteries in Ukraine before it's actually mentioned that they're there. These two countries have technology that could decide the war they just don't like to brag about their deliveries like a certain blonde Eton toff.

Well no, we don’t know what has actually be sent.

But regardless of what kit they have, and I have no knowledge of what a NASAM is, surely the fact they aren’t rolling back the Russians lends itself to my point.

It’s more or less stalemate. 3 kilometres gained over here, 3 kilometres lost over there. This benefits Putin far more than it benefits us because the line on the map is further in to Ukraine than it used to be, and that’s the only metric for Putin.

[magnkarl]

16 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Well no, we don’t know what has actually be sent.

But regardless of what kit they have, and I have no knowledge of what a NASAM is, surely the fact they aren’t rolling back the Russians lends itself to my point.

It’s more or less stalemate. 3 kilometres gained over here, 3 kilometres lost over there. This benefits Putin far more than it benefits us because the line on the map is further in to Ukraine than it used to be, and that’s the only metric for Putin.

To be honest I think this whole post feels a bit 'appeasy' Chris. Ukraine was never going to 'roll the Russians back' quickly, just like Russia couldn't just steam roll Ukraine even with their superior numbers and equipment. A war on this scale will take years and years, and Ukraine is focusing on keeping as many people alive as possible. Ukraine has bled Russia heavily. US MOD claims today that Russia has lost as much as 30% of their armored capability, with that 30% being their most modern equipment. As soon as this line of 'Putin is winning' starts creeping in to the Western mindset Ukraine has already lost. That means that Macron, Scholz and Draghi's mindset is prevailing, and tbh we can't let that happen.

Russia may not be heading for an open revolt as soon as we'd hoped, but there are clear signs that things aren't going to plan for Putin. I don't think it's a benefit for Putin to lose the amount of personell and equipment that he currently is, just like it wasn't a benefit to Nazi Germany to lose a million soldiers on the Eastern Front. Nazi Germany still fought on for 2 years, albeit being slowly but surely pushed back.

What is happening is that Ukraine is transitioning to NATO weapons while in contact with the enemy. It's a humongous task that most armies wouldn't be able to do. Of course Ukraine can't push Russia back while training more than 2/3's of their army in the West. It's not a good idea to interpret everything but a complete roll back of Russian forces as something that benefits Putin, because frankly it isn't. It's a dangerous line of thought that will lead to a hard man civilian butchering dictator being given areas he has no right to have.

Edited June 16, 2022 by magnkarl

[Genie]

37 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Well no, we don’t know what has actually be sent.

But regardless of what kit they have, and I have no knowledge of what a NASAM is, surely the fact they aren’t rolling back the Russians lends itself to my point.

It’s more or less stalemate. 3 kilometres gained over here, 3 kilometres lost over there. This benefits Putin far more than it benefits us because the line on the map is further in to Ukraine than it used to be, and that’s the only metric for Putin.

I’m a bit of an armchair observer on this subject too and think that what we have is what “the West” wanted and have engineered.

A Russian victory (whatever it looks like) is bad for most outside of Russia. A quick Russian victory is even worse.

Ideal scenario is that Russia spends months and years achieving very little in Ukraine. It’s economy in free-fall and what money it raises is pumped into getting nowhere in Ukraine. Discontent grows amongst the Russian population.

I think the west will feather the throttle maintaining this current situation until Russia comes to the realisation they’ve **** it up.

We/They don’t really want Russia to give up until they have nothing left.

 

[chrisp65]

58 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

To be honest I think this whole post feels a bit 'appeasy' Chris. Ukraine was never going to 'roll the Russians back' quickly, just like Russia couldn't just steam roll Ukraine even with their superior numbers and equipment. A war on this scale will take years and years, and Ukraine is focusing on keeping as many people alive as possible. Ukraine has bled Russia heavily. US MOD claims today that Russia has lost as much as 30% of their armored capability, with that 30% being their most modern equipment. As soon as this line of 'Putin is winning' starts creeping in to the Western mindset Ukraine has already lost. That means that Macron, Scholz and Draghi's mindset is prevailing, and tbh we can't let that happen.

Russia may not be heading for an open revolt as soon as we'd hoped, but there are clear signs that things aren't going to plan for Putin. I don't think it's a benefit for Putin to lose the amount of personell and equipment that he currently is, just like it wasn't a benefit to Nazi Germany to lose a million soldiers on the Eastern Front. Nazi Germany still fought on for 2 years, albeit being slowly but surely pushed back.

What is happening is that Ukraine is transitioning to NATO weapons while in contact with the enemy. It's a humongous task that most armies wouldn't be able to do. Of course Ukraine can't push Russia back while training more than 2/3's of their army in the West. It's not a good idea to interpret everything but a complete roll back of Russian forces as something that benefits Putin, because frankly it isn't. It's a dangerous line of thought that will lead to a hard man civilian butchering dictator being given areas he has no right to have.

I’m curious, what bit of my post looks a bit appeasy?

[Jareth]

The war will eventually peter out, leaving a new border between Russia/Ukraine and a Ukraine thoroughly armed to the teeth to prevent any further incursions. Only time Russia's economy is screwed will be when we stop buying their energy - that'll take at least 18 months, so I'd expect them to go roll into other ex Soviet states in that time, why wouldn't they.

[Arj Guy]

13 hours ago, magnkarl said:

Your whole idea is that you assume that Russia can actually push further than what they have. How long was it since they were going to take Donbas? They’ve pushed a few hundred meters a day at a cost which is frankly unsustainable. They couldn’t take Kyiv, Kharkiv or any other major city with their modern tanks and equipment and you assume that they’ll take i.e Odessa with their t62’s, no flag ship, bmp1’s and a rag tag band of depleted BTGs?

They might take Luhansk, at a push. Unless Putin mobilises.

But Russia are making gains in Donbas. You speak about Russia taking unsustainable losses in the process when it is in fact Ukraine who by their own admission are suffering casualties of a 1000 troops a day in Donbas.

[magnkarl]

1 hour ago, Arj Guy said:

But Russia are making gains in Donbas. You speak about Russia taking unsustainable losses in the process when it is in fact Ukraine who by their own admission are suffering casualties of a 1000 troops a day in Donbas.

I'm just curious, do you know how many active personnel Ukraine has compared to Russia?

The longer this war goes on, the less troops Russia have as they don't want to mobilise as it would be an admittance that it's a war. Ukraine is currently training 700.000 men in the West and there's a two week waiting period to volunteer for the UA army. These men will be trained, supplied and organised by NATO tactics. These things take time. The army fighting Russia in the east is largely still employing a hybrid between Soviet tactics and NATO tactics as they've been in contact since day one.

Also, do please note the 'gains' you're suggesting. Russia hasn't moved past a defensive line since Popasna using force, they've been lured into Severodonetsk only to be pushed out again, and now the front is at a total standstill except for around Kherson where Ukraine is pushing slightly every day, and around Kharkiv where small villages change hands every other day.

[magnkarl]

3 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

I’m curious, what bit of my post looks a bit appeasy?

The idea that if Ukraine isn't 'rolling Russia back' is some sort of win for Putin, it really isn't when you look at what is happening. It's a faltering bit of thought process if Ukraine needs to be rolling Russia back in order for people in the West to think that it is going well, imo. People who are arguing for appeasement use every little meter Russia moves forward (be it by Ukraine withdrawal or otherwise), to say "See! Ukraine needs to give away the Donbas and Crimea so we can have our oil and gas without feeling bad about it!" (see Chomsky, Scholz, Macron, Orban, Draghi).

If you count injured, missing, pow's and deserters Russia is nearing 200.000 troops. That is 1/4 of its total number of soldiers. How you can consider that a benefit for Putin I don't quite understand. Bear in mind that an army culminates at around 80% combat power. It then takes months and months to reequip, train and supply these troops. Russia doesn't have the backfill capability without mobilising.

Edited June 16, 2022 by magnkarl

[tinker]

2 hours ago, Jareth said:

Only time Russia's economy is screwed will be when we stop buying their energy - that'll take at least 18 months, so I'd expect them to go roll into other ex Soviet states in that time, why wouldn't they.

This is it for me , we have to stop using their energy for them to lose the war. Our leaders have led us into a trap by becoming reliant on cheap energy, Putin has used the market economy to damage us. 

[bickster]

Macron appears to be catching up on his emails from March. Also interesting that him and Scholz also both said they wouldn't be visiting Kyiv and now they have

 

[Genie]

5 minutes ago, bickster said:

Macron appears to be catching up on his emails from March. Also interesting that him and Scholz also both said they wouldn't be visiting Kyiv and now they have

 

Macron needs to be careful he doesn’t say anything that upsets Russia, we can’t have that.

[bickster]

1 minute ago, Genie said:

Macron needs to be careful he doesn’t say anything that upsets Russia, we can’t have that.

Not sure Putin can hear him in a coma 

[Genie]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

Not sure Putin can hear him in a coma 

Just saw that rumour, could be major news.