NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On October 11 2022 03:17 Mohdoo wrote: I feel like, from a bird's eye view, the fact that Russia is relying on Belarus and little bits of drones from Iran means Russia is basically screwed. I am not nearly as much of a war/history buff as many people on this forum, but here is how I see it:
1) If anything, Ukraine is actively taking back territory right now
2) Russia lacks equipment and proper training to be able to sustain this fight
3) Ukraine has essentially unlimited resources since the entire planet is helping them other than like 4 countries
4) Russia has nukes, but MAD basically means they will get toasted if they use them, so they don't have an actual reason to use them.
Add this all together and Russia basically feels like a dead man walking. Every time Russia adds more, the West adds more. The West has an infinite pool of resources, so they will always outlast Russia. What is the Russian path to victory here? Right now it feels like they'd be lucky to hold on to Crimea.
What am I missing?
I think the key point is 3). As long as western support holds, ukraine will hold. I am not sure if this means they will be able to restore their borders of 2014, or even take back crimea, but I am starting to feel confident that ukraine as a state will continue to exist. After that its all what you consider winning / losing, and how committed the west will be. I think there still is the possibility of russia being able to hold parts of ukraine and western support eventually drying up, leaving them to having to agree to a peace deal with russia. Or the constant attacks on ukrainian infrastructure forcing them to settle. The longer this war goes on, the less western aid is ensured I think.
And mud season followed by winter is upon us, which will give russia time to fix their manpower issue with the now partial/possibly not so partial mobilisation, which would enable them to go for the long war. Ukraine is doing well at the moment, but we will have to see how the next phase goes, unless ukraine manages to deal a killing blow before the weather slows things down.
On October 11 2022 03:17 Mohdoo wrote: I feel like, from a bird's eye view, the fact that Russia is relying on Belarus and little bits of drones from Iran means Russia is basically screwed. I am not nearly as much of a war/history buff as many people on this forum, but here is how I see it:
1) If anything, Ukraine is actively taking back territory right now
2) Russia lacks equipment and proper training to be able to sustain this fight
3) Ukraine has essentially unlimited resources since the entire planet is helping them other than like 4 countries
4) Russia has nukes, but MAD basically means they will get toasted if they use them, so they don't have an actual reason to use them.
Add this all together and Russia basically feels like a dead man walking. Every time Russia adds more, the West adds more. The West has an infinite pool of resources, so they will always outlast Russia. What is the Russian path to victory here? Right now it feels like they'd be lucky to hold on to Crimea.
What am I missing?
Nothing. It’s done. Only remains to be seen how many more innocents die for Putin’s pride.
On October 11 2022 00:39 Acrofales wrote: As to whether Russia will help defend Belarus in the case of a NATO "peacekeeping" mission... I don't think anybody in NATO is scared of Russia's conventional army anymore. They cannot possibly commit to another front in Belarus vs NATO, so their only option is to threaten nukes, and nobody believes that they will launch nukes to defend Belarus...
I see this sentiment thrown around a lot and I think its plain wrong. The reasons for russias failing in ukraine are far more complex than 'russian army bad'. Russias military strength might have been overrated, but given the amount of resources and effort that are poured into intelligence gathering by nato, assuming that they have been *that* wrong in their assessment seems unreasonable to me. You hear that sentiment a lot from retired military personnel that has served on nato posts not too long ago. (for the german speaking posters, there is a great german podcast with erhard bühler, who served as commander of the allied joint force command brunssum. "Was tun herr general", available on youtube and overall very balanced and grounded in reality, though you won't hear any breaking news or insider knowledge there ofc. Great for solid recaps of current events in this war and what they mean for the overall direction of the war)
After memeing so much about 'lul, special military operation' people should remember that indeed russia did not plan this as a war, and a lot of the things we ridicule is a direct result of that. For the past months we have increasingly seen the russian military fall apart due to, amongst other reasons, lack of troop rotation and dedicated structures for manpower replenishment.
This war has the potential to cripple russia to a point were its no threat anymore, but thinking their military was no threat before this war or will never be one afterwards to me seems ignorant and short-sighted - and incidentally also what got my country in this position where our stocks and capabilities are so depleted that the military is no longer able to completely fulfil its role of defending the nation.
The reason why nato countries are not worried about russia is because of the protection of the US.
I feel like you're putting entirely too much stock in the opinions of western intelligence. The same western intelligence services that basically wrote the Ukrainians chances off as "approximately zero", because their army was deplorable with Russia having much more and much more modern equipment, and their country being essentially indefensible terrain other than the Dnieper river, which Russia bypassed through Belarus on their march to Kiev.
Either way, there are obviously a whole lot of reasons the Russian army is not up to snuff, and all those reasons also apply to them being able to stop anybody from bringing "freedom and democracy" to Belarus. Most of their equipment is very poorly maintained, the logistics just aren't there to ship them to where they're needed, and both production and maintenance of their modern equipment relies on technology that was imported and they don't have the capacity to create themselves. The soldiers may be plentiful, but are poorly trained.
I do agree with Ardias that it'll be more costly than bringing that into Iraq, mainly because Russia's AA installations are more effective and it'll be very hard to establish absolute aerial dominance without bombing quite a long way into Russia, which I doubt is something NATO is willing to do. However, I don't see any way Belarus, even with Russia's help, can defend itself if NATO does decide some "shock and awe" is what is needed. And if you had asked me the same in February this year I would have said, it would have been an impossible war to fight...
This video explains one tactical element that Ukraine has been using to make big territorial gains very fast. Apparently it's called a "thunder run" and it has worked beyond expectation because of incompetence on the Russian side.
On October 11 2022 00:39 Acrofales wrote: As to whether Russia will help defend Belarus in the case of a NATO "peacekeeping" mission... I don't think anybody in NATO is scared of Russia's conventional army anymore. They cannot possibly commit to another front in Belarus vs NATO, so their only option is to threaten nukes, and nobody believes that they will launch nukes to defend Belarus...
I see this sentiment thrown around a lot and I think its plain wrong. The reasons for russias failing in ukraine are far more complex than 'russian army bad'. Russias military strength might have been overrated, but given the amount of resources and effort that are poured into intelligence gathering by nato, assuming that they have been *that* wrong in their assessment seems unreasonable to me. You hear that sentiment a lot from retired military personnel that has served on nato posts not too long ago. (for the german speaking posters, there is a great german podcast with erhard bühler, who served as commander of the allied joint force command brunssum. "Was tun herr general", available on youtube and overall very balanced and grounded in reality, though you won't hear any breaking news or insider knowledge there ofc. Great for solid recaps of current events in this war and what they mean for the overall direction of the war)
After memeing so much about 'lul, special military operation' people should remember that indeed russia did not plan this as a war, and a lot of the things we ridicule is a direct result of that. For the past months we have increasingly seen the russian military fall apart due to, amongst other reasons, lack of troop rotation and dedicated structures for manpower replenishment.
This war has the potential to cripple russia to a point were its no threat anymore, but thinking their military was no threat before this war or will never be one afterwards to me seems ignorant and short-sighted - and incidentally also what got my country in this position where our stocks and capabilities are so depleted that the military is no longer able to completely fulfil its role of defending the nation.
The reason why nato countries are not worried about russia is because of the protection of the US.
It's really not that difficult to imagine the Russian military performing very poorly since they've performed poorly in every war in the last few decades. The war in Georgia for example was a disaster that only ended in a victory because they're a much larger country. All the examples you give for the Russian military falling apart are indications of bad leadership. What's different is that Ukraine has a more capable army than expected and it's large enough to sustain a war against Russia.
On October 11 2022 00:39 Acrofales wrote: As to whether Russia will help defend Belarus in the case of a NATO "peacekeeping" mission... I don't think anybody in NATO is scared of Russia's conventional army anymore. They cannot possibly commit to another front in Belarus vs NATO, so their only option is to threaten nukes, and nobody believes that they will launch nukes to defend Belarus...
I see this sentiment thrown around a lot and I think its plain wrong. The reasons for russias failing in ukraine are far more complex than 'russian army bad'. Russias military strength might have been overrated, but given the amount of resources and effort that are poured into intelligence gathering by nato, assuming that they have been *that* wrong in their assessment seems unreasonable to me. You hear that sentiment a lot from retired military personnel that has served on nato posts not too long ago. (for the german speaking posters, there is a great german podcast with erhard bühler, who served as commander of the allied joint force command brunssum. "Was tun herr general", available on youtube and overall very balanced and grounded in reality, though you won't hear any breaking news or insider knowledge there ofc. Great for solid recaps of current events in this war and what they mean for the overall direction of the war)
After memeing so much about 'lul, special military operation' people should remember that indeed russia did not plan this as a war, and a lot of the things we ridicule is a direct result of that. For the past months we have increasingly seen the russian military fall apart due to, amongst other reasons, lack of troop rotation and dedicated structures for manpower replenishment.
This war has the potential to cripple russia to a point were its no threat anymore, but thinking their military was no threat before this war or will never be one afterwards to me seems ignorant and short-sighted - and incidentally also what got my country in this position where our stocks and capabilities are so depleted that the military is no longer able to completely fulfil its role of defending the nation.
The reason why nato countries are not worried about russia is because of the protection of the US.
I feel like you're putting entirely too much stock in the opinions of western intelligence. The same western intelligence services that basically wrote the Ukrainians chances off as "approximately zero", because their army was deplorable with Russia having much more and much more modern equipment, and their country being essentially indefensible terrain other than the Dnieper river, which Russia bypassed through Belarus on their march to Kiev.
Russia really did have everyone fooled. Lots of stuff was theoretical. We knew all of Ukraine's weaknesses and really not many of Russia's. Now that we have "real time" data, I think it is fair to point out the info we are working with is much more solid. The fighting is happening. We have so much information we didn't have before. What is left to the unknown at this point?
On October 11 2022 00:39 Acrofales wrote: As to whether Russia will help defend Belarus in the case of a NATO "peacekeeping" mission... I don't think anybody in NATO is scared of Russia's conventional army anymore. They cannot possibly commit to another front in Belarus vs NATO, so their only option is to threaten nukes, and nobody believes that they will launch nukes to defend Belarus...
I see this sentiment thrown around a lot and I think its plain wrong. The reasons for russias failing in ukraine are far more complex than 'russian army bad'. Russias military strength might have been overrated, but given the amount of resources and effort that are poured into intelligence gathering by nato, assuming that they have been *that* wrong in their assessment seems unreasonable to me. You hear that sentiment a lot from retired military personnel that has served on nato posts not too long ago. (for the german speaking posters, there is a great german podcast with erhard bühler, who served as commander of the allied joint force command brunssum. "Was tun herr general", available on youtube and overall very balanced and grounded in reality, though you won't hear any breaking news or insider knowledge there ofc. Great for solid recaps of current events in this war and what they mean for the overall direction of the war)
After memeing so much about 'lul, special military operation' people should remember that indeed russia did not plan this as a war, and a lot of the things we ridicule is a direct result of that. For the past months we have increasingly seen the russian military fall apart due to, amongst other reasons, lack of troop rotation and dedicated structures for manpower replenishment.
This war has the potential to cripple russia to a point were its no threat anymore, but thinking their military was no threat before this war or will never be one afterwards to me seems ignorant and short-sighted - and incidentally also what got my country in this position where our stocks and capabilities are so depleted that the military is no longer able to completely fulfil its role of defending the nation.
The reason why nato countries are not worried about russia is because of the protection of the US.
I feel like you're putting entirely too much stock in the opinions of western intelligence. The same western intelligence services that basically wrote the Ukrainians chances off as "approximately zero", because their army was deplorable with Russia having much more and much more modern equipment, and their country being essentially indefensible terrain other than the Dnieper river, which Russia bypassed through Belarus on their march to Kiev.
Either way, there are obviously a whole lot of reasons the Russian army is not up to snuff, and all those reasons also apply to them being able to stop anybody from bringing "freedom and democracy" to Belarus. Most of their equipment is very poorly maintained, the logistics just aren't there to ship them to where they're needed, and both production and maintenance of their modern equipment relies on technology that was imported and they don't have the capacity to create themselves. The soldiers may be plentiful, but are poorly trained.
I do agree with Ardias that it'll be more costly than bringing that into Iraq, mainly because Russia's AA installations are more effective and it'll be very hard to establish absolute aerial dominance without bombing quite a long way into Russia, which I doubt is something NATO is willing to do. However, I don't see any way Belarus, even with Russia's help, can defend itself if NATO does decide some "shock and awe" is what is needed. And if you had asked me the same in February this year I would have said, it would have been an impossible war to fight...
We might disagree what falls under military incompetence. I don't see russias assumption of ukraine not resisting much as a military failure, but an intelligence failure, and a lot of the things that get put off as incompetence can be much better explained by also considering the wrong assumptions.
I also think the "approximately zero" is an exaggeration, otherwise there wouldn't have been much support from anyone in the beginning. I don't even remember how much actual intelligence assessments we even heard, or how much of it was just self proclaimed experts or public figures... Confidence might have been low, but that confidence was also working under the assumption that russia goes into this as an actual war, which my whole point is that not doing so can explain a lot of the things that you might brush off as just incompetence.
And its not like 'western intelligence' is a homogenous thing, which is why I feel so confident in it. You have various different mindsets with various experiences and views on things all arrive at similar conclusions - that is a pretty good tell that the truth is somewhere within that ballpark to me.
In my opinion, people find incompetence and corruption a very appealing explanation because it is simple and conveniently fits a stereotype of russia/eastern europe that is very prevalent. It is a factor, but I remain in the camp of 'its more complicated than that'
On October 11 2022 05:02 RvB wrote: It's really not that difficult to imagine the Russian military performing very poorly since they've performed poorly in every war in the last few decades. The war in Georgia for example was a disaster that only ended in a victory because they're a much larger country.
The war in georgia did reveal some shortcomings of the russian army, which were then used to further transition them away from the 'red army' era, labelling it as a 'disaster' seems like a big stretch though. It also was a much different russian army at the time, which is something people always like to forget, including myself at times.
All the examples you give for the Russian military falling apart are indications of bad leadership. What's different is that Ukraine has a more capable army than expected and it's large enough to sustain a war against Russia.
Not calling it a war and refusing to mobilise until the very end is not military leadership failing, its the political leadership failing. Which is a key point of what the people who lean more towards the complex explanation point to: Political leadership tasked the military with a not-war without giving them sufficient backup for a war, even after it became clear that it would be one. Its not like russian military decided they want to use poorly trained convicts, random mercenaries, non military security forces and people (sometimes forcefully) conscripted from DNR/LNR, that is a solution to a problem created by political leadership for example.
I am sure russian military leadership was fully aware that redeploying troops without much time to recover and merging decimated units leaves you with less effective troops, but if that is the situation you are presented with it is what you have to do.
Before people start misunderstanding me, I am not absolving the russian military of any incompetence, but I am trying to demonstrate that you can shift the blame for some of the most relevant shortcomings away from the military. There also have been many military blunders, as well as ones where it is not quite sure yet where to place the blame. But the point is still: its complicated.
And without wanting to diminish ukrainian performance, not mentioning the western support seems about as reductionist as just calling 'corruption and incompetence' on the russian military. Ukraine increasingly relies on the west for financial aid, logistical support (maintenance / repairs), and supplies, both humanitarian and military. Many of the struggles a defender usually has are not present for ukraine. Their finances are propped up, they don't have to maintain a large scale war industry, they even get to train some troops safely abroad. Another thing that the russian political leadership failed to account for and is failing to do anything about. Admittedly, there probably is nothing they can do about it, but its still a failing on their part. Even if you go with the most simple explanation, you would have to start conceding that a lot of the incompetence is with the political side and not the military leadership and thus admit that russias military performance in ukraine is not a complete indicator of their potential.
This war has already crippled Russia and done long lasting harm to its ability to project power. Russia has failed to achieve all of its goals for this war (like deterring NATO expansion, for example), and the only way it can sell a victory back home at this point is through imperialism by taking and holding Ukrainian land and Russia is currently losing that land. This war has been an utter failure for Russia. Even if Russia ends up occupying all of Ukraine, this war will still be an utter failure just from the military equipment losses alone. To give an idea of how extensive Russia's losses in this war are, here are some numbers: Russia had roughly 3,300 operational tanks at the start of this war. Russia sent roughly 1,200 of those into Ukraine. So far, they have lost about 2,500 tanks in Ukraine. https://www.minusrus.com/en
Russia's failure in Ukraine is more complex than Russia's military being poorly trained/equipped/lead/etc, but the Russian military's poor state is definitely a major part of why they're failing. If it was in a better state and making real progress, I don't think the west would be sending nearly as much aid to Ukraine as it is. It wouldn't be worth sending something like HIMARS if there was a moderate risk of losing them to Russian artillery fire (or worse, capture). I think the partial mobilization effort is Putin's hail mary play. We'll have to see if it works out.
Germany has stated it will deliver its' state of the art air defense system in the coming days.
BERLIN, Oct 10 (Reuters) - Germany will deliver the first of four IRIS-T SLM air defence systems to Ukraine within days, German Defence Minister Christine Lambrecht said on Monday.
"The renewed missile fire on Kyiv and the many other cities show how important it is to supply Ukraine with air defence systems quickly," Lambrecht said in a statement.
"Russia's attacks with missiles and drones terrorize the civilian population in particular. That is why we are now providing support especially with air defence weapons."
Russia pounded cities across Ukraine during rush hour on Monday morning, killing civilians and knocking out power and heat, in apparent revenge strikes after Russian President Vladimir Putin declared a blast on Russia's bridge to Crimea to be a terrorist attack.
Nicely visualized rocket strikes (where they came from, what they hit). According to this video UA has shot down 43 rockets and 13 drones so about 50%. Unfortunately some of them still managed to reach kid's playgrounds...
My father and I got conscription letters in the mail at our old address in Russia. My uncle has already left the country. I know that conscription was announced a while ago, but I figured that I might as well update this thread to inform anyone interested about how its going.
My dad: former officer from when he was a student, is well past service age, conscription letter said "urgent need due to unique set of skills" or similar.
My uncle: escaped before getting any letter, not sure whether he got one or not.
Me: never enlisted or registered. In theory you have to have done one or the other, otherwise the army should in theory not know where/who you are. Clearly this is no longer the case and they are now scraping the bottom of the barrel, as in male population that was never registered. Conscription letter said "mandatory need to report."
So yea, things are looking pretty grim. Definitely won't be able to see my home city, or my grandmother, for a long time. Possibly forever, with my grandmother. Fuck KwarK for saying she deserves this. It's her son who had to escape to Turkey. Fuck you, KwarK, you insufferable piece of shit.
On October 11 2022 11:29 KwarK wrote: Not sure how I got involved in your grandmother’s life but whatever, Russians and blaming everyone else for their issues, an iconic combo.
Don't play stupid. It happened exactly when you said she deserved to never see her family members again. Why? Because we are Russian. Fuck you.
I'm not blaming you for the war, conscription, or anything like that, because that's obviously stupid. I'm pointing out that you're a piece of shit because you think people deserve to suffer for the actions of their government. My uncle is an opposition journalist. My parents and I are American citizens. My grandmother is an octogenarian academic who does not support the war. None of us wanted this war. Yet you have no shame in saying shit like the above and what you said about my grandmother deserving it. Go fuck yourself.
On October 11 2022 11:29 KwarK wrote: Not sure how I got involved in your grandmother’s life but whatever, Russians and blaming everyone else for their issues, an iconic combo.
Don't play stupid. It happened exactly when you said she deserved to never see her family members again. Why? Because we are Russian. Fuck you.
I'm not blaming you for the war, conscription, or anything like that, because that's obviously stupid. I'm pointing out that you're a piece of shit because you think people deserve to suffer for the actions of their government. My uncle is an opposition journalist. My parents and I are American citizens. My grandmother is an octogenarian academic who does not support the war. None of us wanted this war. Yet you have no shame in saying shit like the above and what you said about my grandmother deserving it. Go fuck yourself.
I have no clue what you’re referring to and I haven’t seen your grandmother in years.
On October 11 2022 09:50 Jealous wrote: My father and I got conscription letters in the mail at our old address in Russia. My uncle has already left the country. I know that conscription was announced a while ago, but I figured that I might as well update this thread to inform anyone interested about how its going.
My dad: former officer from when he was a student, is well past service age, conscription letter said "urgent need due to unique set of skills" or similar.
My uncle: escaped before getting any letter, not sure whether he got one or not.
Me: never enlisted or registered. In theory you have to have done one or the other, otherwise the army should in theory not know where/who you are. Clearly this is no longer the case and they are now scraping the bottom of the barrel, as in male population that was never registered. Conscription letter said "mandatory need to report."
So yea, things are looking pretty grim. Definitely won't be able to see my home city, or my grandmother, for a long time. Possibly forever, with my grandmother.
Thanks for the insight and sorry for what your family has to go through. You did the right thing, i wouldn't want to go fight Ukraine either. It's madness to send untrained underequipped conscripts into the meatgrinder against the maybe most battle hardened army around and it'll be winter soon.
I don't want Russians to die or suffer needlessly, but please mind there are millions of refugees from Ukraine already in Europe. And from my experience with them, they just want to go home. Hopefully they and you can go back sooner than later but that rests in the hands of the guy who started this. Take care.
On October 11 2022 11:29 KwarK wrote: Not sure how I got involved in your grandmother’s life but whatever, Russians and blaming everyone else for their issues, an iconic combo.
Don't play stupid. It happened exactly when you said she deserved to never see her family members again. Why? Because we are Russian. Fuck you.
I'm not blaming you for the war, conscription, or anything like that, because that's obviously stupid. I'm pointing out that you're a piece of shit because you think people deserve to suffer for the actions of their government. My uncle is an opposition journalist. My parents and I are American citizens. My grandmother is an octogenarian academic who does not support the war. None of us wanted this war. Yet you have no shame in saying shit like the above and what you said about my grandmother deserving it. Go fuck yourself.
I'm sure you can quote KwarK where he says your grandmother deserves 'it' and what 'it' is exactly?
On October 11 2022 11:29 KwarK wrote: Not sure how I got involved in your grandmother’s life but whatever, Russians and blaming everyone else for their issues, an iconic combo.
Don't play stupid. It happened exactly when you said she deserved to never see her family members again. Why? Because we are Russian. Fuck you.
I'm not blaming you for the war, conscription, or anything like that, because that's obviously stupid. I'm pointing out that you're a piece of shit because you think people deserve to suffer for the actions of their government. My uncle is an opposition journalist. My parents and I are American citizens. My grandmother is an octogenarian academic who does not support the war. None of us wanted this war. Yet you have no shame in saying shit like the above and what you said about my grandmother deserving it. Go fuck yourself.
If you are a us citizen why are you still in Russia?
A lot of Russians wanted the war and still do. See putin still ruling the country and Russians still doing war crimes in his name.
I agree though kwark did invade Ukraine and started the war. Its just how science works.
I’m reliably informed by people posing as track installers on Reddit that track is super easy to fix because it’s interchangeable and standardized. You yank out the broken track and drop in new track, takes hours.
The structural integrity of the bridge under the track is the concern.
EPT
