|
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. |
United States43458 Posts
On March 16 2022 06:34 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2022 06:24 Vindicare605 wrote:
It just begs the question though. Why did Moscow think that this was going to be so fucking easy?
They really did just buy their own brand of bullshit and believed the Ukranians weren't going to resist. How did you get the idea they think it would be easy? From what reliable source?  One of the best blitzkriegs was the original one against Poland - took 7 weeks. Poland is smaller than Ukraine. The other was the French invasion - took 6 weeks. So far all those "they thought it would be easy" were ideas and probably even projections of the west. I even linked an article from some American school of marines or w/e where they simulated the same type of the invasion with the only difference being that they would use more airforce and were more direct with it. They simulated 6 days of war and ended with the same result, which was kinda spooky IMO.
People say that this can’t have been Russia’s plan for a few reasons.
Firstly, the unsuccessful attempts they have made are clearly part of another plan. A special forces insertion near a key airfield presumably was intended to take and hold the airfield, not just get them all killed. The plan was to have the airfield, not to not have the airfield. The argument that they planned for a slow victory can’t explain why they tried all this fast victory stuff. These attempts must have been part of some other plan, we’re where we are now because they failed.
Secondly, a lightening war is the only possible successful war. The west is unwilling to engage in such extensive sanctions if they can’t change the result. The west is unwilling to arm rebels/militias in Ukraine, especially if that is seen as prolonging a conflict and getting people killed. Russia seizing the capital, creating a puppet regime, having the puppet regime order the military to stand down, and then delegitimizing any soldiers still fighting had to have been the plan. The west is coming through with a lot for the legitimate government of Ukraine as a surviving institution with an official military structure. We can give weapons to generals in uniform and know that it is being used by a nation in a recognized war. We would be far less comfortable giving IEDs to some militia assholes who don’t know when to give up after the war is already over, even if it’s essentially the same thing. The form matters and everyone knows it. Russia needed a lightening victory to avoid this happening. It must have planned for one.
Thirdly, it’s visibly not working out for them. If they had planned for this to happen they wouldn’t have tried in the first place. There is no plan that has “and then lose all our armoured vehicles” in it. This can’t have been the plan.
|
It also seems to me that comparing the timeline of military campaigns today and 80 years ago doesn't make all that much sense.
I think it's better to remember it took the americans 26 days to win the conventional war in Irak.
|
Based on the recent reports it seems like one more high ranking russian military was eliminated - General-major Oleg Mityaev (commander of 150th motorized rifle division), seen the first reports in a morning and had some doubts, but now at least we have a particular name and even more reports/confirmations.
At least from my pov the frequency of a loss of high ranking russian mitary officials is something extraodinary and insufficient for a modern warfare. Either they are really poorly trained, or corrupt, or unmotivated, or eveything at once. I would not be suprised if some of the TLers would do much better in comparison to all those generals in every possible aspect.
And we have a rumors (unconfirmed) about possible attempts to land russian troops to Odesa from the sea, that might be very nasty for the invaders, but the local fish of the black sea will have a nice banquette after all.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On March 16 2022 06:52 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2022 06:34 deacon.frost wrote:On March 16 2022 06:24 Vindicare605 wrote:
It just begs the question though. Why did Moscow think that this was going to be so fucking easy?
They really did just buy their own brand of bullshit and believed the Ukranians weren't going to resist. How did you get the idea they think it would be easy? From what reliable source? One of the best blitzkriegs was the original one against Poland - took 7 weeks. Poland is smaller than Ukraine. The other was the French invasion - took 6 weeks. So far all those "they thought it would be easy" were ideas and probably even projections of the west. I even linked an article from some American school of marines or w/e where they simulated the same type of the invasion with the only difference being that they would use more airforce and were more direct with it. They simulated 6 days of war and ended with the same result, which was kinda spooky IMO. People say that this can’t have been Russia’s plan for a few reasons. Firstly, the unsuccessful attempts they have made are clearly part of another plan. A special forces insertion near a key airfield presumably was intended to take and hold the airfield, not just get them all killed. The plan was to have the airfield, not to not have the airfield. The argument that they planned for a slow victory can’t explain why they tried all this fast victory stuff. These attempts must have been part of some other plan, we’re where we are now because they failed. Secondly, a lightening war is the only possible successful war. The west is unwilling to engage in such extensive sanctions if they can’t change the result. The west is unwilling to arm rebels/militias in Ukraine, especially if that is seen as prolonging a conflict and getting people killed. Russia seizing the capital, creating a puppet regime, having the puppet regime order the military to stand down, and then delegitimizing any soldiers still fighting had to have been the plan. The west is coming through with a lot for the legitimate government of Ukraine as a surviving institution with an official military structure. We can give weapons to generals in uniform and know that it is being used by a nation in a recognized war. We would be far less comfortable giving IEDs to some militia assholes who don’t know when to give up after the war is already over, even if it’s essentially the same thing. The form matters and everyone knows it. Russia needed a lightening victory to avoid this happening. It must have planned for one. Thirdly, it’s visibly not working out for them. If they had planned for this to happen they wouldn’t have tried in the first place. There is no plan that has “and then lose all our armoured vehicles” in it. This can’t have been the plan.
I'm not saying it went as was planned, but I doubt they were expecting an easy war.
But, let's counter point.
1) Yea, seezing the airfield would have been godlike, they did that before. (hint - we have historical experience, very good experience)
2) Any occupation of Ukraine is out of the question and was from the start. Our military experts(by experts I mean former or current military high ranking officers) say, that the start even was looking like this, that's why - in their opinion - they weren't as destructive at the start. They were - again, according to them - expecting Kyiv to surrender to their demands in exchange for country mostly in tact.
Also according to the local Ukrainians - they were barely listening to the current government, why would they listen to the Russian puppet? That's the reason why the puppet show is nonsense. And occupational forces for Ukraine are between 400k and 600k depending who you ask, so that's a huge no for Russia.
3) We. Do. Not. Know. What. They. Have. Planned.
Currently both sides lie over nine thousand.
IMO what Russia was expecting was a slightly easier resistence and not so strong reaction from the west considering their previous actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, supporting Saudis in Yemen, bombarding Libya, actions in Syria(Turkey????). And that's just few. But I doubt anyone of here is an expert on how to lead a war. And no, Starcraft experience doesn't count.
On March 16 2022 07:56 Dav1oN wrote:
Based on the recent reports it seems like one more high ranking russian military was eliminated - General-major Oleg Mityaev (commander of 150th motobrigade division), seen the first reports in a morning and now at least we have a particular name. Could be true after all, although, we should leave a little space for doubts. At least from my pov the frequency of a loss of high ranking russian mitary officials is something extraodinary and insufficient for a modern warfare. Either they are really poorly trained, or corrupt, or unmotivated, or eveything at once. I would not be suprised if some of the TLers would do much better in comparison to those generals in every possible aspect
And we have a rumors (unconfirmed) about possible attempts to land russian troops to Odesa from the sea, that might be very nasty for the invaders, but the local fish of the black sea will have a nice banquette after all
It seems they're trying unfuck the forward troops so the snipers and guerilla attacks have Christmas.
|
On March 16 2022 07:58 deacon.frost wrote:I'm not saying it went as was planned, but I doubt they were expecting an easy war.
Ugh, they sent riot police in the first couple of days...
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On March 16 2022 08:06 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2022 07:58 deacon.frost wrote:I'm not saying it went as was planned, but I doubt they were expecting an easy war. Ugh, they sent riot police in the first couple of days...
C'mon, this is Russia. I wouldn't be surprised if they were officially Specnaz  When I heard the horror stories from a friend of mine who spent in Russia roughly 2 years on multiple occassions(work related) it wouldn't surprise me.
Also would love to add an interview of our colonel (whoever) who is teaching tactics on our military university. He basically said that sure, they've done a lot of fuckups. But we are under the influence of the western media sensations - as an example he gave the supply convoys. It seems nothing moves, issues with supply demands and shit like that. He said, that sure, they are losing some, but many go through. I can try to find the link, but it was on a radio, so you won't even get subtitles 
(for the local Czechs, Radiozurnal)
Edit>
Also also there is currently an interview (in Czech, no subtitles,) with our Moscow reporter who has been recalled (Ivana Milenkovičová) and she said that since the start of the "special operation" Putin gained 10 % in popularity at Russia. She also mentioned the survey is being done by some state(or close to state) agency, so it may not be a proper survey (OTOH how old is the Yes, prime minister, where Sir Humphrey shows to Bernard how to do a "survey" ) but it seems that he's getting better not worse. At least at this moment.
Edit 2> those czech sources in case somebody here wanna listen/see them (some may understand)
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On March 16 2022 06:34 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2022 06:24 Vindicare605 wrote:
It just begs the question though. Why did Moscow think that this was going to be so fucking easy?
They really did just buy their own brand of bullshit and believed the Ukranians weren't going to resist. How did you get the idea they think it would be easy? From what reliable source? One of the best blitzkriegs was the original one against Poland - took 7 weeks. Poland is smaller than Ukraine. The other was the French invasion - took 6 weeks. So far all those "they thought it would be easy" were ideas and probably even projections of the west. I even linked an article from some American school of marines or w/e where they simulated the same type of the invasion with the only difference being that they would use more airforce and were more direct with it. They simulated 6 days of war and ended with the same result, which was kinda spooky IMO.
It was reported by Ukraine's Defense Ministry that Russia planned the war to last 15 days, per a seized battle plans document Ukraine recovered from Russian personnel. Not sure how accurate businessinsider's interpretation of the document is, but if it is accurate, that surely suggests Russia thought they could storm into Ukraine and conquer it very quickly.
https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-revealed-secret-battle-plans-left-behind-by-russian-troops-2022-3
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On March 16 2022 08:25 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2022 06:34 deacon.frost wrote:On March 16 2022 06:24 Vindicare605 wrote:
It just begs the question though. Why did Moscow think that this was going to be so fucking easy?
They really did just buy their own brand of bullshit and believed the Ukranians weren't going to resist. How did you get the idea they think it would be easy? From what reliable source? One of the best blitzkriegs was the original one against Poland - took 7 weeks. Poland is smaller than Ukraine. The other was the French invasion - took 6 weeks. So far all those "they thought it would be easy" were ideas and probably even projections of the west. I even linked an article from some American school of marines or w/e where they simulated the same type of the invasion with the only difference being that they would use more airforce and were more direct with it. They simulated 6 days of war and ended with the same result, which was kinda spooky IMO. It was reported by Ukraine's Defense Ministry that Russia planned the war to last 15 days, per a seized battle plans document Ukraine recovered from Russian personnel. Not sure how accurate businessinsider's interpretation of the document is, but if it is accurate, that surely suggests Russia thought they could storm into Ukraine and conquer it very quickly. https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-revealed-secret-battle-plans-left-behind-by-russian-troops-2022-3
Well, but that's the issue. In our news the Ukrainian embassy told that the Kyiv ghost is real While some of the footage was already disproved. We can't tell. Similarly the Russian phone talks - according to my military source - both Russia and Ukraine is big on taking the mobile phones away from units At the same time to him it seems weird that their ERA system would be connected to the 3G towers as - according to his experience - the Russian systems are on vehicles and planes and they don't need any shit like that.
I would love to see some independant source - not Ukraine or Russia as they have currently big reason to not tell the truth. e.g. the "casualties" of Russia reported by Russia and Ukraine.
Edit> you can falsify these very easily. The truth is the first casualty of war, unfortunately.
|
British Intelligence thinks that the Russians have suffered significant casualties. So much in fact the reason that the invasion has stalled is they don't have enough men.
|
On March 16 2022 06:24 Vindicare605 wrote:
It just begs the question though. Why did Moscow think that this was going to be so fucking easy?
They really did just buy their own brand of bullshit and believed the Ukranians weren't going to resist.
They didn't face any resistance with Crimea. Maybe they were dumb enough to expect the same to happen again despite the obvious differences between taking a small part that no one expected and the entire country when they were ready for it.
|
On March 16 2022 08:35 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2022 08:25 StasisField wrote:On March 16 2022 06:34 deacon.frost wrote:On March 16 2022 06:24 Vindicare605 wrote:
It just begs the question though. Why did Moscow think that this was going to be so fucking easy?
They really did just buy their own brand of bullshit and believed the Ukranians weren't going to resist. How did you get the idea they think it would be easy? From what reliable source? One of the best blitzkriegs was the original one against Poland - took 7 weeks. Poland is smaller than Ukraine. The other was the French invasion - took 6 weeks. So far all those "they thought it would be easy" were ideas and probably even projections of the west. I even linked an article from some American school of marines or w/e where they simulated the same type of the invasion with the only difference being that they would use more airforce and were more direct with it. They simulated 6 days of war and ended with the same result, which was kinda spooky IMO. It was reported by Ukraine's Defense Ministry that Russia planned the war to last 15 days, per a seized battle plans document Ukraine recovered from Russian personnel. Not sure how accurate businessinsider's interpretation of the document is, but if it is accurate, that surely suggests Russia thought they could storm into Ukraine and conquer it very quickly. https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-revealed-secret-battle-plans-left-behind-by-russian-troops-2022-3 Well, but that's the issue. In our news the Ukrainian embassy told that the Kyiv ghost is real While some of the footage was already disproved. We can't tell. Similarly the Russian phone talks - according to my military source - both Russia and Ukraine is big on taking the mobile phones away from units At the same time to him it seems weird that their ERA system would be connected to the 3G towers as - according to his experience - the Russian systems are on vehicles and planes and they don't need any shit like that. I would love to see some independant source - not Ukraine or Russia as they have currently big reason to not tell the truth. e.g. the "casualties" of Russia reported by Russia and Ukraine. Edit> you can falsify these very easily. The truth is the first casualty of war, unfortunately.
That's the problem with this topic (how easy did Russia think this would be) though: there are no independent sources out there that have the real answer to this question and I doubt we ever will. I know that's kind of your point, but I still think providing that news article was worth adding to the discussion.
|
Both sides propagandists are doing their best. I've seem some very dodgy stuff even on the "western" side, self appointed social media experts being the worst. A better idea of how fast a contemporary military campaign can go would be Russia-Georgia war, with that being a good example of what Russia might had been looking for. Ultimately though we truly do not know what the Russians had planned, though I do think they truly did expect a very quick war. As for the seeming high amount of generals being elminated, the Russian army seem to operate on an extremely authoritarian line where their lower ranks are not empowered to take decisions or mission command. So their lower generals seem to be the equivalent of regiment commanders, and it isn't without precedent that regimental commanders would be near the frontlines especially if ordered to assault. As for Odessa, I did say Russia has been making preparations for an amphibious assult onto Odessa some 2 weeks ago, though it seems they still haven't moved on since. Perhaps all those amphibious warfare ships are just there for show or for propaganda video. Much like their bizarre amphibious assault on the shores near Mariupol, when they have already taken the shore with ground forces.
|
On March 16 2022 07:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:
It also seems to me that comparing the timeline of military campaigns today and 80 years ago doesn't make all that much sense.
I think it's better to remember it took the americans 26 days to win the conventional war in Irak.
Depends on what your definition of "win" is. We had captured Baghdad within the first week. Accomplished pretty much all of our major military objectives within the first month. (except of course for finding those WMDs that never existed but I digress) Obviously the insurgency there still exists so you could say we never officially won that war too.
As far as comparing campaigns from 80 years ago. It seems the Russians are using tactics from 80 years ago in this current invasion so the comparisons seem to remain relevant.
|
Another Major General has been killed by Ukrainian forces. If true this would make the 4th General that has been killed in action.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not in all of the wiki articles I've seen. Here's the breakdown for the Colonel rank.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonel_(United_States)
By law, an officer previously required at least 22 years of cumulative service and a minimum of three years as a lieutenant colonel before being promoted to colonel.[1] With the signing of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (NDAA 2019), military services now have the authorization to directly commission new officers up to the rank of colonel.[2] The pay grade for colonel is O-6
Might be getting mixed up in the NATO vs US differentiations. But yea it's either a Colonel or a Brigadier General.
|
Zurich15358 Posts
On March 16 2022 03:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2022 03:21 Gorsameth wrote:
After Crimea yes, you have a point with being critical of Merkels actions towards Russia, but before that I don't think anyone was expecting Russia to aggressively expand West.
Heck 3 weeks ago many people didn't think a full scale invasion was actually going to happen. It’s weird because there was an absolute fortune to be made on ForEx etc. if you knew it was going to happen and Biden was openly saying “we have people highly placed who have literally already received the orders, it’s been decided and is already underway, the invasion has begun, they just haven’t announced it yet”. Everyone just dismissed Grandpa Biden and his incredibly advanced network of spies and surveillance satellites.
A tragic legacy of the Bush years and the BS the US intelligence community has been spreading for years.
|
US has updated Russian losses to be around 9k.
So, it seems that the Russians have lost 10% of their troops and 4 generals in 3 weeks. That's pretty significant losses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
