Ukraine - Russia Conflict
- Thread starter randomradio
- Start date
They say they are winning and at the same time they start crying , cant make out whether they are crying for ukraines win or russian losses. Every day they keep pushing rubbish propaganda on how russian convoy is stuck, their tanks blown up or not having fuel, russian soldiers having nothing to eat, super snipers going to ukraine, how zelensky will lead them to great victory, thousands of russian soldiers killed, russian invasion has failed....etc every damn useless thing like tyres have no air, vehicles stuck in mud , traffic violations.... how dumb russian army must be when they send 20 thousand odd vehicles which are not in pristine show room condition and incur losses.
On the economic side sanctions have crushed them. There is no netflix to watch, mcdonalds to eat (very important according to americans used to eating junk food), no pepsi to drink
... credit card doesnt work. Russia is ruined , they are gone.... if that was the case why not join ukraine . deal the final blow and take credit for it? Why stand on the sidelines and cheer lead like a loser from the sidelines?
How many of us knew this? In slightly more than 100 yrs this city has changed hands 5 times already. No clue if this is going to be the 6th . Doesn't seem likely.
More than Russia crashing out of the history books eventually instead of fading away gently like erstwhile colonial super powers France & UK & unlike the Ottoman Empire, Czarist Russian Empire , Austro Hungarian Empire etc it's the supremacy of the US which will be tested , contested & will sap it's resources, clout & goodwill in the times to come . Then they've China to contend with.
As I remarked earlier this is just the beginning. The days of the US as sole super power or hyper power as China describes them is over. Of course all this will take time to manifest itself completely but the seeds are sown. Eventually it'd be time for the bitter harvest. @A Person
NATO soldiers thought this is Afghanistan or Iraq, they are either getting slaughtered or running away with their tails tucked:
I mean even if he was the world's best sniper ( which I very much doubt ) , where was the need to announce it to the world ? They basically painted a target on this man . I'm willing to bet my last rupee on the fact that this entire psy ops / propoganda campaign is conducted by some Paddy.
There's no way you can deny this Paddy ! @BMD
'Russia is the global enemy': Fallout from Ukraine invasion could last for years
When he invaded Ukraine, Vladimir Putin almost certainly expected a quick, decisive conquest that would restore the Kremlin's influence in Eastern Europe and burnish his own status as a Russian leader on par with Peter and Catherine the Great.
'Possibly' it says, so basically they're hedging bets based Russian propaganda to sell papers. I mean take a look at the rest of the sh*t Ironhide posts.British news pappers are also reporting higher numbers. Daily mirror reports 100 killed
Three Brit ex-special forces troops feared dead in airstrike near Polish border
It is believed three British ex-special forces died instantly in the Russian cruise missile blasts on a base close to the Polish border, the Mirror can revealwww.mirror.co.uk
I don't understand this Paddy . As it is barring certain minerals metals agricultural produce oil & gas EU wasn't importing anything else . You've practically terminated all export. Of what good is the WTO here . This is like stabbing a person after he's dead . Makes sense to you & only you I Guess.Just heard on the news, the EU, US, NATO and all NATO allies are removing all WTO privileges from Russia.
'Russia is the global enemy': Fallout from Ukraine invasion could last for years
When he invaded Ukraine, Vladimir Putin almost certainly expected a quick, decisive conquest that would restore the Kremlin's influence in Eastern Europe and burnish his own status as a Russian leader on par with Peter and Catherine the Great.www.yahoo.com
@Ironhide
Sure, that's all you've ever exuded in this thread... an unbiased opinion, just like Ironhide.
Russian garbage. Russia encouraged militia groups to take up arms in 2014 and caused these divisions for its own ends in order to annex Donbass and Crimea. If Russia had that much support in Ukraine, then given the size of their own army, this would have been over much quicker.
What exactly is the west to you? Japan has no problems with North America and Europe, neither does ROK, or Taiwan, or many African nations. None of these places are the west. A democracy and free market are just something that most people support. China and Russia are not that though and Russia has isolated itself thanks to Putin. It's extraordinary how you try to twist everything.
Because people are willing to speak out anyway. That guy will be in the gulag by now.
Almost a week ago, it was determined that the Russian campaign had already absorbed 100% of the allocated forces. It is worth revisiting this issue as we have seen Russian forces adapt to this reality over the past week. Russia committed around 55% of their total regular ground forces to their invasion of Ukraine. It was tactical risk. While there are forces still in Russia for reinforcements, they are either on other missions, in training, or of a lower quality (esp their reserves).
It is also a strategic risk. Russia has deployed a large proportion of its ground combat power on a single mission that it hoped would be over quickly. This was not a calculated risk by the Russians; it was a gamble. There is a big difference between the two in military ops.Plan A was the ‘fast, cheap and easy’ campaign plan. Use light and airborne forces to seize Kyiv and other key points, capture government leaders and force a political accommodation from Ukraine. Within 48 hours, combat losses indicated to Russian commanders this had failed.
Therefore they needed a Plan B without a massive additional injection of forces. If the Russians had been clever as many thought, they would have wargamed worst case scenarios during the build-up phase of this invasion. They clearly did not wargame – or not rigorously enough if they did. But then again, these are the same folks who have talked up concepts like ‘strategies of limited action’. So, the Russian campaign Plan B after day 2 of the war has been ‘creeping, multi-axis attrition’. It features lots more firepower, as well as destruction of smaller cities to set an example for Kyiv. Plan B also appeared to hope the Russian Air Force eventually turns up.
The latest Pentagon background brief notes Russian forces are now at about 90% strength of the original forces that invaded the country. This is optimistic. Even in most benign circumstances, losses to minor medical conditions, psych issues, etc eats away at forces. Plan B has not worked out either. They have slowly gained ground, but at massive cost in personnel & equipment. At the same time, rear area security has suffered. This is obviously a trade off by the Russians so they can push forward as much combat power as possible. But rear area security is a significant mission, and normally absorbs thousands of troops (infantry, air defence, cavalry, engineers, etc). Because the Russians have incompetently executed this mission, there have been constant ambushes against logistics convoys.
These ambushes on logistics convoys are another source of attrition in personnel, supplies and equipment to add to combat losses, and (if it is to be believed) combat refusals and desertions from Russian troops. As open source, as well as UK and US military briefs, note, the Russian advances in the north, east and south are grinding to a standstill. They have been out fought by the Ukrainians and have not been able to logistically sustain advances on multiple fronts.
Summing up, Russia has not achieved its key military objectives in the north, east of south. It is conducting concurrent offensives in different, disconnected parts of Ukraine. It has committed all the military forces it had for Ukraine on these missions. The Russian campaign, if it has not already, is about to culminate. US doctrine defines this as (for offense) “the point at which continuing the attack is no longer possible and the force must consider reverting to a defensive posture or attempting an operational pause.” So, the Russian high command has had to go back to drawing board (again) with their campaign design. As I noted in an earlier thread, it is through campaign design that commanders and their staffs’ sequence and orchestrate tactical goals and actions.
Now we see the beginnings of Russia’s ‘Plan C’ campaign in Ukraine. It is an even more ad hoc & brutal plan that their two previous attempts. This demonstrates Putin's frustration, the desperation of Russian military leaders & weakness in the Russian military position. Plan C might be described as: hold current gains, long range firepower on cities, foreign fighters as cannon fodder, destroy as much infrastructure and manufacturing capacity as possible, expand the war to the west to deter foreign volunteers & aid providers. This will permit the Russians to economise in personnel, trickle in replacements (and foreign mercenaries), while expending large amounts of cheap artillery and rockets in the hope they can terrorise Ukrainian civilians to force a political accommodation.
Two final issues. First, the number of personnel committed demonstrates that the Russians miscalculated & under resourced the war. Best case planning rarely works. Russia is also now probably suffering from the ‘sunk cost’ fallacy over its Ukraine operations. As we have seen in other wars however, countries adapt to wartime crises & survive longer than logic dictates. Under Putin’s leadership, the Russian’s are likely to do this. And the Ukrainians will keep fighting conventionally or in an insurgency. It will be a long war.
This in turn, leads to the second issue. There may be a requirement for a military intervention if the west doesn’t want a forever war on the doorstep of Europe. The US and NATO may have to start making some hard military choices that they have been delaying. Provision of lethal aid is low cost in money and personnel. But to end this war, something more may be needed. Estimates (not fear) of Russian escalation should inform decisions, but not defer them.
Russian operations have been compromised by the size of their forces committed, and force attrition. This now has strategic consequences as their campaign culminates, and adapts to be firepower-centric, resulting in mass destruction and deaths of Ukrainian civilians.
It is also a strategic risk. Russia has deployed a large proportion of its ground combat power on a single mission that it hoped would be over quickly. This was not a calculated risk by the Russians; it was a gamble. There is a big difference between the two in military ops.Plan A was the ‘fast, cheap and easy’ campaign plan. Use light and airborne forces to seize Kyiv and other key points, capture government leaders and force a political accommodation from Ukraine. Within 48 hours, combat losses indicated to Russian commanders this had failed.
Therefore they needed a Plan B without a massive additional injection of forces. If the Russians had been clever as many thought, they would have wargamed worst case scenarios during the build-up phase of this invasion. They clearly did not wargame – or not rigorously enough if they did. But then again, these are the same folks who have talked up concepts like ‘strategies of limited action’. So, the Russian campaign Plan B after day 2 of the war has been ‘creeping, multi-axis attrition’. It features lots more firepower, as well as destruction of smaller cities to set an example for Kyiv. Plan B also appeared to hope the Russian Air Force eventually turns up.
The latest Pentagon background brief notes Russian forces are now at about 90% strength of the original forces that invaded the country. This is optimistic. Even in most benign circumstances, losses to minor medical conditions, psych issues, etc eats away at forces. Plan B has not worked out either. They have slowly gained ground, but at massive cost in personnel & equipment. At the same time, rear area security has suffered. This is obviously a trade off by the Russians so they can push forward as much combat power as possible. But rear area security is a significant mission, and normally absorbs thousands of troops (infantry, air defence, cavalry, engineers, etc). Because the Russians have incompetently executed this mission, there have been constant ambushes against logistics convoys.
These ambushes on logistics convoys are another source of attrition in personnel, supplies and equipment to add to combat losses, and (if it is to be believed) combat refusals and desertions from Russian troops. As open source, as well as UK and US military briefs, note, the Russian advances in the north, east and south are grinding to a standstill. They have been out fought by the Ukrainians and have not been able to logistically sustain advances on multiple fronts.
Summing up, Russia has not achieved its key military objectives in the north, east of south. It is conducting concurrent offensives in different, disconnected parts of Ukraine. It has committed all the military forces it had for Ukraine on these missions. The Russian campaign, if it has not already, is about to culminate. US doctrine defines this as (for offense) “the point at which continuing the attack is no longer possible and the force must consider reverting to a defensive posture or attempting an operational pause.” So, the Russian high command has had to go back to drawing board (again) with their campaign design. As I noted in an earlier thread, it is through campaign design that commanders and their staffs’ sequence and orchestrate tactical goals and actions.
Now we see the beginnings of Russia’s ‘Plan C’ campaign in Ukraine. It is an even more ad hoc & brutal plan that their two previous attempts. This demonstrates Putin's frustration, the desperation of Russian military leaders & weakness in the Russian military position. Plan C might be described as: hold current gains, long range firepower on cities, foreign fighters as cannon fodder, destroy as much infrastructure and manufacturing capacity as possible, expand the war to the west to deter foreign volunteers & aid providers. This will permit the Russians to economise in personnel, trickle in replacements (and foreign mercenaries), while expending large amounts of cheap artillery and rockets in the hope they can terrorise Ukrainian civilians to force a political accommodation.
Two final issues. First, the number of personnel committed demonstrates that the Russians miscalculated & under resourced the war. Best case planning rarely works. Russia is also now probably suffering from the ‘sunk cost’ fallacy over its Ukraine operations. As we have seen in other wars however, countries adapt to wartime crises & survive longer than logic dictates. Under Putin’s leadership, the Russian’s are likely to do this. And the Ukrainians will keep fighting conventionally or in an insurgency. It will be a long war.
This in turn, leads to the second issue. There may be a requirement for a military intervention if the west doesn’t want a forever war on the doorstep of Europe. The US and NATO may have to start making some hard military choices that they have been delaying. Provision of lethal aid is low cost in money and personnel. But to end this war, something more may be needed. Estimates (not fear) of Russian escalation should inform decisions, but not defer them.
Russian operations have been compromised by the size of their forces committed, and force attrition. This now has strategic consequences as their campaign culminates, and adapts to be firepower-centric, resulting in mass destruction and deaths of Ukrainian civilians.
I was wondering about supplying some tanks (M1A2SEPV3s, Challenger IIIs, Leopard IIs etc.) and maybe PAC-3 MSE, PAC-2 and your SAMP-T. Maybe some GMLRS and ATACMS too, plus some GPS-guided artillery, and of course, up to the minute positional intelligence. Those IMS too.
Last edited: