[RD] Russia Invades Ukraine: The 7th Thread Itch; scratch it here!

[Thorgalaeg]

This kind of tu quoque is silly and unconvincing. Russia has plenty of margin for error in this war. How much does Ukraine have?

More than some people think obviously. Example: following your own argument, they failed the counteroffensive, so committed an error, yet the general scenery has not changed. Russia keeps achieving not relevant gains, it is not even able to expel Ukrainians from the east of the Dnieper, and keeps losing huge amounts of soldiers and material every single day.

 

[Kyriakos]

Pyrrhos was also a far better general - with a far better army - than the romans, but the latter could replenish their ranks so had more room for failure or lack of pure victory. Russia simply can afford more wrong moves than Ukraine, nothing to contest in such a post.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

This kind of tu quoque is silly and unconvincing. Russia has plenty of margin for error in this war. How much does Ukraine have?

Indeed. Russia's war has been quite a succesful landgrab.

They stole important land.
They managed to convince a large part of their population they are liberating Ukrainians from NATO and Nazis.
The losses in lives on either side don't really matter to them.
They are in the process of russifying the occupied territories.

 

[Lexicus]

More than some people think obviously. Example: following your own argument, they failed the counteroffensive, so committed an error, yet the general scenery has not changed. Russia keeps achieving not relevant gains, it is not even able to expel Ukrainians from the east of the Dnieper, and keeps losing huge amounts of soldiers and material every single day.

It remains to be seen how much of an error the counteroffensive was. The key question is the ability to make losses good. Did Ukraine lose more than it could afford to lose? Ukraine's military high command may know. I doubt anyone else does.

Indeed. Russia's war has been quite a succesful landgrab.

They stole important land.
They managed to convince a large part of their population they are liberating Ukrainians from NATO and Nazis.
The losses in lives on either side don't really matter to them.
They are in the process of russifying the occupied territories.

It is quite bad, I agree. But we cannot confuse what we want to be true with what is true.
One issue i've seen is that according to CNN in september Ukraine was firing 6,000 shells per day and would like to fire 10,000 per day. Meanwhile US planned production increases are for producing 100,000 shells per month (roughly 1/3 of what Ukraine would like to fire) by CY 2025.

Unless Europe goes to some mighty efforts that ain't enough shells. This is a problem for those of us who don't want to see the destruction of the Ukrainian people at the hands of Russia.

 

[Gedemon]

Fortunately, "way bigger than Ukraine" losses is nothing but your wet dreams by now. Ukraine preparing for the next round of mobilization.

"way bigger" should be around 4 times bigger to allow parity in a war of attrition IIRC

So I suppose from a Russian perspective, 3 times bigger is not "way bigger", but "affordable".

Russia army has recruited 335,000 people this year. They mobilized 300,000 during last year mobilization. They currently have 200,000 soldiers in Ukraine. Let's do some maths...

Russia says 335,000 sign up to fight, no plans for new mobilisation

Russia has no plans for an additional mobilisation of men to fight in Ukraine as more than 335,000 have signed up so far this year to fight in the armed forces or voluntary units, Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said on Tuesday.

www.reuters.com

 

[Zardnaar]

Pyrrhos was also a far better general - with a far better army - than the romans, but the latter could replenish their ranks so had more room for failure or lack of pure victory. Russia simply can afford more wrong moves than Ukraine, nothing to contest in such a post.

Russia can't equip those troops manpower isn't the problem for them.

I wouldn't be claiming victory for either side until something is signed or someone is routed.

Russia might he able to win on the vattlefiekdveventually they still lose overall. Economically, demographically, militarily they lose.

Their military also has been exposed as a big joke. That's worth billions in military sales.

 

[Kyriakos]

I doubt it means that much, given "western" arms also have been destroyed in this war. Should make it obvious that paying tens of millions for those didn't mean they won't go down.
Not that this was a major tank war. Some sides literally have thousands of tanks in a small border.
If anything, it is the precursor to using other weapons en masse, such as drones and relatively cheap anti-air.

 

[Zardnaar]

I doubt it means that much, given "western" arms also have been destroyed in this war. Should make it obvious that paying tens of millions for those didn't mean they won't go down.

The western arms are in small quantities and for the most part are older stuff that was to be decommissioned anyway.

Best Russian stuff went up against 90's left overs. With air superiority to the Russians.

 

[Kyriakos]

The oldest was LeoI afaik, there are also LeoII, the comedic Bradleys (of Bradley Square fame) and other such.

 

[red_elk]

"way bigger" should be around 4 times bigger to allow parity in a war of attrition IIRC

Closer to 5x, considering that official numbers of Ukraine's population included Donbass and Crimea.

So I suppose from a Russian perspective, 3 times bigger is not "way bigger", but "affordable".

There is no Russian perspective in simple math, way bigger in Russia means same as everywhere else.
Fact is, Ukrainian casualty numbers are currently classified, supposedly for a good reason.
Russia continue to have advantage in artillery, air, and as even Western sources admit, electronic warfare too.
Add to that the fact that Ukraine has been unsuccessfully trying to advance against Russian fortified positions for significant part of the year.
And they still lost about twice more territory than they gained.

We don't have objective data for casualties, aside of propaganda numbers from both sides. The facts above though suggest the picture is not too rosy for Ukraine right now.

Russia army has recruited 335,000 people this year. They mobilized 300,000 during last year mobilization. They currently have 200,000 soldiers in Ukraine. Let's do some maths...

Let's do it.
- How many of those 335k are in Ukraine? Training takes months. How many are even suppose to be there? I hope you are not suggesting all or even most Russian troops are in Ukraine now.
- Before September 2022, Russian contracted soldiers had option to terminate their contracts and quit the job. How many did it? One of major purposes of last year's mobilization was to compensate for these so-called "500-s" cases and to prevent further quits.
- How many people Ukraine mobilized in almost 2 years of non-stop mobilization?

I don't think your math will signify a lot unless you can answer these and many other questions.

 

[Zardnaar]

The oldest was LeoI afaik, there are also LeoII, the comedic Bradleys (of Bradley Square fame) and other such.

Older odels and they're not exactly new NATO tech. HIMARs was deployed in 1991.

Ukraine also couldn't use NATO doctrine. Russian army wpujd have ceased to exist around March/April last year if NATO was directly involved.

So said Bradley's etc would not have gad to deal with minefields and artillery en masse.

Ukraine pretty much using Gulf War I era tech with a handful of newer toys.

 

[Kyriakos]

If Nato was "directly" involved, a lot more than Russia would have ceased to exist, including main Nato sides. Maybe it was never even an option.

 

[Gedemon]

I doubt it means that much,

It's more than that, but the decline started before 2022, it's just that last year "performance" has pushed them further down.

 

[Sarin]

If Nato was "directly" involved, a lot more than Russia would have ceased to exist, including main Nato sides. Maybe it was never even an option.

Which is why Russia needs to be discouraged from ever making a move against NATO country, and best way to do it is to make sure to teach it a lesson in Ukraine.

As long as its imperial ambitions stand, then the moment Russian leadership gets an idea they could succeed in taking over the Baltic states, they'll do it, even if they'll be massively overestimating their capabilities and underestimating NATO response, like when they've launched the latest invasion.

 

[Gedemon]

- Before September 2022, Russian contracted soldiers had option to terminate their contracts and quit the job. How many did it?

that's actually a good question. smart move by those people here.

 

[Kyriakos]

Which is why Russia needs to be discouraged from ever making a move against NATO country, and best way to do it is to make sure to teach it a lesson in Ukraine.

As long as its imperial ambitions stand, then the moment Russian leadership gets an idea they could succeed in taking over the Baltic states, they'll do it, even if they'll be massively overestimating their capabilities and underestimating NATO response, like when they've launched the latest invasion.

No one seriously thinks Russia would start a war against a main Nato country (someone also with nukes). You are likely thinking of the baltic states - which may not fare better than Ukraine did regarding being protected by Nato.
Either way, if you need direct Nato involvement to prevent Russia from stealing stuff, it seems this is a lost cause.
Take heart, though; at some point anti-nuke defense of some type will arrive, and then we will certainly have a massive world war.

 

[Sarin]

No one seriously thinks Russia would start a war against a main nato country (someone also with nukes). You are likely thinking of the baltic states - which may not fair better than Ukraine did regarding being protected by Nato.
Either way, if you need direct Nato involvement to prevent Russia from stealing stuff, it seems this is a lost cause.
Take heart, though; at some point anti0nuke defense of some type will arrive, and then we will certainly have a massive world war.

Russia is no stranger to delusions of grandeur and power, as this war showed in abundance. So yeah, it's a real possibility. And Baltic states are especially important for Russian imperial ambitions. When the Soviet Union started falling apart, guess where they sent the tanks in attempt to stop the revolution? Yeah, that's right...

You seem to be under impression that in case of invasion, Baltic states would be left on their own. That's incorrect. Failure to protect any of its members would mean effective end to NATO. At this moment, there are approx. 10000 NATO troops from other countries stationed in Baltics, and further 11000+ in Poland. This includes contingents from the biggest militaries in NATO. The deterrence strategy there is that any attack would be an attack against troops from many NATO countries, necessitating a response.

 

[red_elk]

that's actually a good question. smart move by those people here.

I'd say smart move by Ukrainian men who fled to Europe or Russia, but that's a matter of opinion.
Those Russians who quit had legal right to do it, but they were essentially replaced by other, often less trained guys.
I'm not there, so I'm not in position to condemn them either.

 

[Farm Boy]

No one seriously thinks Russia would start a war against a main Nato country (someone also with nukes). You are likely thinking of the baltic states - which may not fare better than Ukraine did regarding being protected by Nato.
Either way, if you need direct Nato involvement to prevent Russia from stealing stuff, it seems this is a lost cause.
Take heart, though; at some point anti-nuke defense of some type will arrive, and then we will certainly have a massive world war.

Seems like it. The tools get better, the horselords stay the same.

 

[Kyriakos]

Russia is no stranger to delusions of grandeur and power, as this war showed in abundance. So yeah, it's a real possibility. And Baltic states are especially important for Russian imperial ambitions. When the Soviet Union started falling apart, guess where they sent the tanks in attempt to stop the revolution? Yeah, that's right...

You seem to be under impression that in case of invasion, Baltic states would be left on their own. That's incorrect. Failure to protect any of its members would mean effective end to NATO. At this moment, there are approx. 10000 NATO troops from other countries stationed in Baltics, and further 11000+ in Poland. This includes contingents from the biggest militaries in NATO. The deterrence strategy there is that any attack would be an attack against troops from many NATO countries, necessitating a response.

I am sure you expect Greece to send troops to defend Turkey if it is attacked by Russia, since both are in Nato.
To cover the blank statement logic.
Depending on a number of variables, some sides will join in, others may stall or worse. Similar to what is going on with Ukraine, where some Nato countries didn't even sanction Russia.