|
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 States44195 Posts
On February 21 2026 06:54 Velr wrote:
Aren't you disregarding that Russia also lost most of their elite units and is therefore now using badly trained soldiers?
I mean... Yeah, if the war would stop for 3 years, I have no doubt that Russia would have taken some lessons to heart and be way better at "waring" but thats not the world we live in?
It’s probably polarized. Their meat wave fodder is badly trained but I’d assume their drone warfare and ewar units are probably top tier. Same with active kill chains. No western army has been engaged in a nation scale live fire training exercise for years.
It’d be silly to imagine that untested theorycraft and practice drills could match non stop execution with methods tested against a very capable adversary with lessons taught by death.
|
Finland964 Posts
The absolute best way for a military to learn how to fight a war is to fight a war. Some of these lessons might not be valid for every single war to be fought in the near future, of course. But the Russian military has adapted a lot from the early days of 2022. As we enter the fifth year, a lot has changed, and despite the horrific casualty figures, they've made changes to their tactical and operational levels. Not necessarily a complete doctrine change, but definitely adjusting to the way the war is being fought.
|
On February 21 2026 07:36 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2026 06:54 Velr wrote:
Aren't you disregarding that Russia also lost most of their elite units and is therefore now using badly trained soldiers?
I mean... Yeah, if the war would stop for 3 years, I have no doubt that Russia would have taken some lessons to heart and be way better at "waring" but thats not the world we live in? Not to mention their stock of materiel is severely diminished.
I am assuming that a war fought will look something like the Ukrainian one. The quality of your front line assault soldiers matter little in this static type of war, they are going to die regardless. It is the artillery, drone operators, planners, behind the lines spec ops etc that are having an impact.
If they instead want another fast war with moving columns against a lesser opponent they are much worse off than at the start of the current war. They have less people trained on how to operate in a totally superior setting or in maneuver warfare because it doesn't work in this war.
Most of their military has transitioned from a mechanized assault force to a drone force. If the drone part is useful they are good by now, else they would have lost the war.
The other points raised regarding corruption etc are true. I am not debating that Russia doesn't have large systemic issues. They and Ukraine are simply the only two nations that has fought a near peer modern war of a specific kind. Assuming they are worse at that type of war than nations that are experimenting with various concepts and slowly training personnel seems strange to me. IF the war is instead fought in a different manner, such as NATO air superiority doctrine then their knowledge isn't as relevant but still applicable.
I also raised a short time line and warned about demographic collapse long term for Russia. I am not optimistic about their long term trends. They simply are one of two large nations having fought a near peer (outside civil wars) recently and thus can be assumed to have a somewhat competent military until that knowledge is rotated out as training fails.
edit. You also have to account for the internal policing policies working against the military. Telegram is a known tool of the military. The government restricts it before a replacement is in place. This is just one example of the government making the military job harder, the entire Ukraine war is of that type. It was a bad war to start, it wasn't planned properly etc etc. Even if you have a good military, they cannot win that handicapped (and Russia had a decent military at the start that was financed as a good one without corruption).
|
On February 21 2026 08:41 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2026 05:48 Simberto wrote:Thinking back I was more pessimistic on Ukrainian chances at the start as well. I have been proven wrong multiple times on this topic. Mostly by not understanding how weak and corrupt Russia is, there is always another level below the one I thought they were at. They are getting their military industry to the place it needs to be but can only run that for 1-2 more years at most. Absolutely. Before this war, I thought of Russia as basically the Soviet Union. The WW2 red army. Endless soldiers, endless tanks. Capable of basically marching across europe if it weren't for the threat of nuclear war. And i think i was not alone. The worst thing Russia lost in this war might have been that perception of being a first-rate army. In 1940 Germany was able to put 6 million men in uniform fairly easily too. There was a very large young male generation due to changing family dynamics and large agricultural surpluses. They were still regularly having 10 child families back then. Today's Germany looks very different. I’m sure as a German you can see the change within your own nation. Russia has been subject to the same changes. The demographic weirdness of early industrialization is unlikely to ever be repeated.
Sure, in retrospect that is totally obvious that 2020s Russia is not the 1940s soviet union. I just didn't think about that stuff in 2021.
|
The danger of this war, has since the beginning been a false peace, I you give Russia 15-20 years and try again, it's the whole world that is in danger.
It takes time to brew the conditions for a world war, but it eventually happens if they try hard enough.
|
I do feel like Putin is quite a big factor in this though, and Putin doesn't have 15-20 years. I don't get the sense that once Putin is gone everything will continue as is in the same way that I feel it with for example Trump and republicans.
|
United States44195 Posts
Putin's replacement will have a key option that Putin doesn't have, they can blame it all on Putin. But the greater the sacrifice imposed on the Russian people the harder it will be for them to change course and declare that it was all for nothing.
|
I don't think Putin's replacement will be able or interested in blaming anything important on Putin. Russians like him and it would be hard to convince them they were wrong. Sure, you can make them believe in anything, but it takes effort you could dedicate to something more worthwhile. I don't see any room for someone like Khrushchev to step in and admit Stalin was actually a little bit bad. I don't know who will take Putin's place but I'm convinced it'll be either someone even more insane than him or some slimy corrupt rat like Yanukovych or Yeltsin.
|
United States44195 Posts
It’s a tough one because after all the sacrifice so far it’ll be incredibly unpopular to end the war without a victory. Given oblasts Russia doesn’t control have been incorporated into Russia under Russian law even if Russia gets to keep all the land it has taken and then some that would still be giving up Russian land (such as the ‘Russian’ city of Kherson).
And any likely successor to Putin is almost certainly going to be incredibly reluctant to end the war for ideological reasons. They really do believe in the Russian empire and in forcing Ukrainians (and Finns/Baltic peoples) back into it.
So we have a scenario where the leader and the people will both be pretty invested in a successful outcome of the war. But they have the problem of being unable to actually win it. If state tv talking heads start to push the narrative that they’re fighting all of NATO, then that it’s unwinnable, then that the whole thing was some sort of British (because it’s always British) trick to weaken Russia, then start referring to it as Putin’s folly then I could see there being support for ending ‘Putin’s folly’.
|
On February 21 2026 15:52 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2026 07:36 Gahlo wrote:On February 21 2026 06:54 Velr wrote:
Aren't you disregarding that Russia also lost most of their elite units and is therefore now using badly trained soldiers?
I mean... Yeah, if the war would stop for 3 years, I have no doubt that Russia would have taken some lessons to heart and be way better at "waring" but thats not the world we live in? Not to mention their stock of materiel is severely diminished. I am assuming that a war fought will look something like the Ukrainian one. The quality of your front line assault soldiers matter little in this static type of war, they are going to die regardless. It is the artillery, drone operators, planners, behind the lines spec ops etc that are having an impact. If they instead want another fast war with moving columns against a lesser opponent they are much worse off than at the start of the current war. They have less people trained on how to operate in a totally superior setting or in maneuver warfare because it doesn't work in this war. Most of their military has transitioned from a mechanized assault force to a drone force. If the drone part is useful they are good by now, else they would have lost the war. The other points raised regarding corruption etc are true. I am not debating that Russia doesn't have large systemic issues. They and Ukraine are simply the only two nations that has fought a near peer modern war of a specific kind. Assuming they are worse at that type of war than nations that are experimenting with various concepts and slowly training personnel seems strange to me. IF the war is instead fought in a different manner, such as NATO air superiority doctrine then their knowledge isn't as relevant but still applicable. I also raised a short time line and warned about demographic collapse long term for Russia. I am not optimistic about their long term trends. They simply are one of two large nations having fought a near peer (outside civil wars) recently and thus can be assumed to have a somewhat competent military until that knowledge is rotated out as training fails. edit. You also have to account for the internal policing policies working against the military. Telegram is a known tool of the military. The government restricts it before a replacement is in place. This is just one example of the government making the military job harder, the entire Ukraine war is of that type. It was a bad war to start, it wasn't planned properly etc etc. Even if you have a good military, they cannot win that handicapped (and Russia had a decent military at the start that was financed as a good one without corruption).
This is actually a quite common misconception for many militaries. Underestimating the importance of regular army soldiers. Sure, they won't be the ones doing the most spectacular operations, won't be the best trained or sharpest tools in your arsenal but they still play a vital role. After all, when the enemy has been pushed away someone has to take those positions, entrench, establish logistics and hold the line. That's the grunt's job but it's an important one.
You can have all the artillery, air power and spec ops but in the end it's the grunts that must take and hold the objectives, without them you can't really hold on to any territory.
There isn't much glory to be had there and they're typically looked down upon by other branches of the military but they remain a vital part of it.
|
On February 22 2026 08:21 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2026 15:52 Yurie wrote:On February 21 2026 07:36 Gahlo wrote:On February 21 2026 06:54 Velr wrote:
Aren't you disregarding that Russia also lost most of their elite units and is therefore now using badly trained soldiers?
I mean... Yeah, if the war would stop for 3 years, I have no doubt that Russia would have taken some lessons to heart and be way better at "waring" but thats not the world we live in? Not to mention their stock of materiel is severely diminished. I am assuming that a war fought will look something like the Ukrainian one. The quality of your front line assault soldiers matter little in this static type of war, they are going to die regardless. It is the artillery, drone operators, planners, behind the lines spec ops etc that are having an impact. If they instead want another fast war with moving columns against a lesser opponent they are much worse off than at the start of the current war. They have less people trained on how to operate in a totally superior setting or in maneuver warfare because it doesn't work in this war. Most of their military has transitioned from a mechanized assault force to a drone force. If the drone part is useful they are good by now, else they would have lost the war. The other points raised regarding corruption etc are true. I am not debating that Russia doesn't have large systemic issues. They and Ukraine are simply the only two nations that has fought a near peer modern war of a specific kind. Assuming they are worse at that type of war than nations that are experimenting with various concepts and slowly training personnel seems strange to me. IF the war is instead fought in a different manner, such as NATO air superiority doctrine then their knowledge isn't as relevant but still applicable. I also raised a short time line and warned about demographic collapse long term for Russia. I am not optimistic about their long term trends. They simply are one of two large nations having fought a near peer (outside civil wars) recently and thus can be assumed to have a somewhat competent military until that knowledge is rotated out as training fails. edit. You also have to account for the internal policing policies working against the military. Telegram is a known tool of the military. The government restricts it before a replacement is in place. This is just one example of the government making the military job harder, the entire Ukraine war is of that type. It was a bad war to start, it wasn't planned properly etc etc. Even if you have a good military, they cannot win that handicapped (and Russia had a decent military at the start that was financed as a good one without corruption). This is actually a quite common misconception for many militaries. Underestimating the importance of regular army soldiers. Sure, they won't be the ones doing the most spectacular operations, won't be the best trained or sharpest tools in your arsenal but they still play a vital role. After all, when the enemy has been pushed away someone has to take those positions, entrench, establish logistics and hold the line. That's the grunt's job but it's an important one. You can have all the artillery, air power and spec ops but in the end it's the grunts that must take and hold the objectives, without them you can't really hold on to any territory. There isn't much glory to be had there and they're typically looked down upon by other branches of the military but they remain a vital part of it.
I agree they are important. The only alternative to having them is killing everybody as you move forward, which is a more costly way to wage war. It also assumes you are winning rapidly and don't need to hold ground.
The main thing changing with drones is that they are taking most of the role of holding ground. So a drone operator has the role of both artillery and infantry depending on what they are using. You need somebody to dig in a position, do guard duty during nights etc. But I don't see how you can get elite infantry any more or that they are worth the cost when the attrition rate becomes as insane as it is in Ukraine. Where you can't use them as observers on the front line in contested zones. Deploying there doesn't seem worthwhile, train them up in another role instead.
The infantry holding stuff 50km behind the line or towards Belarus is still important. Saves equipment for the active front line.
The usage that seems relevant is holding cities or very heavy fortifications. To ensure opponent drone forces can't get in to target your own. Kind of strange how war is moving. Or perhaps special ops like operations in heavy fog to target opponent drone teams.
|
Fairly unrelated to everything going on, which is sounding more positive for Ukraine than it has been in a long time.
A “lastivka” Ukrainian marketplace is open in my small city next week and I can’t wait to check it out.
|
Thoughts on whether this war in Iran will positively or negatively affect Ukraine? I’m leaning towards negatively with oil prices going up and not much cooperation going on currently between Iran and Russia.
Long term Russia losing an ally possibly permanently is a good thing. It might also swing some public perception in the US that if they are at open war with Russias allies they are not the good guys. But that last one will take some logical reasoning I think is out of reach of most of the MAGA.
|
Canada11584 Posts
I suspect the impact will be somewhat muted compared to if it had been North Korea. As I understand it, Russia is now just producing their own Shahed drones and not relying on Iranian production, but I could be wrong.
|
United States44195 Posts
On March 03 2026 03:48 Falling wrote:
I suspect the impact will be somewhat muted compared to if it had been North Korea. As I understand it, Russia is now just producing their own Shahed drones and not relying on Iranian production, but I could be wrong.
My understanding is the same. This massively undermines Russia as a security provider but they already got the drones when they needed them and more recently they got the gold too. The positive from the oil price increases outweigh the negative from the loss of an ally.
|
I don’t think anyone is signing a mutual defence pact with Russia anytime soon! At least not as anything more than theatre.
|
On March 03 2026 02:13 Billyboy wrote:
Thoughts on whether this war in Iran will positively or negatively affect Ukraine? I’m leaning towards negatively with oil prices going up and not much cooperation going on currently between Iran and Russia.
Any long war in middle-east is bad for Ukraine, if only because of all the patriot missiles used that won't be delivered to defend Ukraine.
But I'm not sure if a quick fall of Iran wouldn't also make things worse by making Putin double-down.
He was supposedly very shook over Gadhafi and just blowing up Khamenei is already a different league.
|
On March 03 2026 04:55 pmp10 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2026 02:13 Billyboy wrote:
Thoughts on whether this war in Iran will positively or negatively affect Ukraine? I’m leaning towards negatively with oil prices going up and not much cooperation going on currently between Iran and Russia.
Any long war in middle-east is bad for Ukraine, if only because of all the patriot missiles used that won't be delivered to defend Ukraine. But I'm not sure if a quick fall of Iran wouldn't also make things worse by making Putin double-down. He was supposedly very shook over Gadhafi and just blowing up Khamenei is already a different league.
Yep. If production that would be going to Ukraine could go to Israel, it's going to Israel.
|
The latest news is that during February Ukraine has retaken more land than Russia has captured. Let's hope this trend continues.
On March 03 2026 09:38 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2026 04:55 pmp10 wrote:On March 03 2026 02:13 Billyboy wrote:
Thoughts on whether this war in Iran will positively or negatively affect Ukraine? I’m leaning towards negatively with oil prices going up and not much cooperation going on currently between Iran and Russia.
Any long war in middle-east is bad for Ukraine, if only because of all the patriot missiles used that won't be delivered to defend Ukraine. But I'm not sure if a quick fall of Iran wouldn't also make things worse by making Putin double-down. He was supposedly very shook over Gadhafi and just blowing up Khamenei is already a different league. Yep. If production that would be going to Ukraine could go to Israel, it's going to Israel.
It's not just Israel though. Kuwait, Quatar, Bahrain and other countries in the region are reporting AA shortages.
|
Honestly the salvos Iran has been churning out seem restrained, I have a feeling that they are holding one big one back, at least, and they are waiting for more evidence of the interceptors being out.
When that happens, if they really decide to go all in (well, the other question here is who is to make this decision) we could see some real damage done, not just random Saheds and singular ballistics coming through the defense, but serious damage done to whatever general area they are aiming at, my guess would be the big Israel population centers.
It's a very stupid and dangerous game that USA is playing, there are other countries with a lot of missiles that might decide to test their luck once things start going through, the production numbers are relatively known, it's abundantly obvious that there is more offensive then defensive firepower, and then, once things start falling and doing serious damage, hand starts naturally moving towards the nuclear button as people get more desperate.
It's all so, so fucking dumb, people in Ukraine dying so Nethyanahu and Trump can do their warmongering in ME, the whole world is rapidly escalating into shit and just like in the case of Ukraine it was for the ego of an aging despot, now we are going to go into another recession, refugee crisis and god knows what else for egos of a few other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
