Russia's War Against Ukraine

[Gusington]

I don't see Ukraine taking back what it has lost for a long, long time, if ever - without some kind of drastic change in the status quo.

[Skoop]

I still say it's worth it to send 5 billion a year for artillery rounds, patriot missile resupply, himars resupply to keep them fighting.  But the cold reality of the blank checks from Biden in 2022 are over and we should have prepared Ukraine for that.

that kind of resupply take a lot more then five billion.  I'd rather send money and weapons now then US and NATO troops later.  I agree that Ukraine needs to step up it mobilization if it expects to do better.

Totally agree, but try selling that to fox news / Tucker watchers.  They've been told this is not our fight.  Their fight is the boarder and woke agenda pushback, and I can't disagree with them there.  Thing is, we can do Ukraine aid, the boarder, and conservatism, but republicans today aren't the republicans of Reagan.  They are populists, totally different agenda.  Notice how the Mitch McConnels and Mitt Rommineys are all tapping out. 

[GDS_Starfury]

I know and you know we can do both.  a border bill was all but signed and POOF.....

[GDS_Starfury]

don't see Ukraine taking back what it has lost for a long, long time, if ever - without some kind of drastic change in the status quo.

thats why I was specific to whats been gained over the last two months.  baby steps.

[MengJiao]

I can see where russia grinds itself out over the next few months, military aid finally arrives en mass from the west on Ukraine can at least retake whats been lost over the last two months.  thats my minimum short term hope.

The problem is, of course, that Russia can't come up with any truce/armistice/ceasefire offer that Ukraine will accept.
Essentially, Russia wants NATO to tell Ukraine to take some kind of deal, which might happen sort of in reverse...NATO says "We are taking over at the X line in Ukraine" and Russia withdraws and leaves a demiliarized zone.  Hostilities end in Ukraine and the "Confrontation" continues (= Russia hasn't surrendered at least in the Russian mind).
So the Russian agenda at this point would go:
1) Push dangerously far into Ukraine
2) Antagonize NATO
3) NATO sees how to end this thing and goes in as far as to some line
4) Presto-change-o hostilities end and "the confrontation continues" ( meaning Russia hasn't surrendered) and
that would be that

[JasonPratt]

Let's go back to Russian logistics. Leaving aside the ethics of anything involved, I was pretty impressed, in a way, that Russia managed to focus enough strength to force Ukraine out of Avdiivka. And without the rest of their line collapsing from lack of supply (and other CCC factors). Of course I realize Russia could only do this by bleeding their own forces white (which I suppose helps logistic problems in a way) and by draining Uk stocks of men and material. But a certain amount of focused support had to happen to get Russia to continue eroding the situation there at all.

I've been out of pocket for a few weeks, and haven't read or heard much about how Russia was able to keep beans and bullets going there (and also enough elsewhere to prevent a vacuum collapse so to speak).

[GDS_Starfury]

to be simple about it, they zerg rushed a zone and took advantage of the Ukraine supply problem.

[Crossroads]

ffs lets just get it over with already

I agree. Call this ****'s bluff and get in there. Fuck living under the boot of this wanker.

I know what that potentially means. I know it sounds like I'm taking that lightly - I'm not. But the alternative is to live under the threat of nuclear armageddon for the rest of our lives...and really, where's the point of NATO, the UN or any other of these international organisations if we're being handicapped by threats.

Especially as what the Ukrainians have asked all along is that give us weapons and we will do the fighting. As everyone and their dog has mentioned from the beginning, the price for stopping Putin only increases. It would have been easier to do so yesterday, but to do it today will be less than what it will take tomorrow. 

Ok, but what happens when there are no more Ukrainians left to do the fighting? Guns, ammunition and equipment alone will not win this war. That is an accepted fact.

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ukraine-outnumbered-outgunned-ground-down-by-relentless-russia-2024-02-21/

...it seems to me that some of you are suggesting that an actual nuclear war is preferable to the prospect of living with the threat of one. Is this what you're actually saying?

Whoever thought I would be the sole voice of reason!? 

I am not sure that is an accepted fact, I have not seen many if any reports the manpower per se is what is keeping Ukraine at bay. They've not even mobilised properly yet, something they really should have done eons ago.

This is an industrial struggle at levels not seen long since. Russia for one has lost some 10 000 (that's ten thousand) armoured vehicles of all sorts, something they are struggling to replace. Ukraine, meanwhile, estimated losses somewhat one third of that, is equally struggling to replace their armoured losses. Then there's the massive amounts of munition burned day in day out.

What I have read is indeed it is the war material they need to keep the front stable, in addition to financial aid of course, as Russia is busy hitting any and all valuable targets, civil and military.

Sort of at meta political level, it is up to each country to decide what if any support they will give, as it should be, too. The silver lining with the current situation is that maybe, just maybe the (Western) Europe starts to take the security situation seriously, instead of cheap lip service.

In the meanwhile, was it Lawrence Freedman who summarised a couple of weeks ago, that we sort of have an idea what difficulties Ukraine is facing at the moment, and in near future, while we pretty much have no idea what's going on and in within Russia.

Let us see what happens after Russian "elections", if and how they go into full Mordor mode.

[JudgeDredd]

Let's go back to Russian logistics. Leaving aside the ethics of anything involved, I was pretty impressed, in a way, that Russia managed to focus enough strength to force Ukraine out of Avdiivka. And without the rest of their line collapsing from lack of supply (and other CCC factors). Of course I realize Russia could only do this by bleeding their own forces white (which I suppose helps logistic problems in a way) and by draining Uk stocks of men and material. But a certain amount of focused support had to happen to get Russia to continue eroding the situation there at all.

I've been out of pocket for a few weeks, and haven't read or heard much about how Russia was able to keep beans and bullets going there (and also enough elsewhere to prevent a vacuum collapse so to speak).

I honestly don't think there's anything to be impressed by there.

And you kind of answered your own statement - losing bodies helps ease supply problems.

They threw bodies at it and managed to gain a few kilometers. I would imagine the reason they were able to put supply in Avdiivka without crumbling elsewhere is likely because Ukraine weren't really pushing elsewhere.

[MengJiao]

to be simple about it, they zerg rushed a zone and took advantage of the Ukraine supply problem.

There's a lot in ISW's assessments today.  Supposedly the Russians pulled some actual adaptive moves in their attack.
The Ukrainians seem to have been caught off-guard.  It might have been more of a one-time lucky break for the Russians rather than anything systematic.  Meanwhile ISW thinks the Russians are glide bombing as much as ever, though again that might be somewhat of an illusion in that during the peak of their recent offensive a lot of their guide-bomb approaches got shot down...consequently, the Russians are "continuing" (in their sense of appearing to do something so it doesn't look like they are giving up completely) to glide-bomb.
Also meanwhile, the Europeans appear to be getting serious about steadily supplying Ukraine (for example, saying their supply system envisions a run clear to 2027)
Well, why now?  Just because Ukraine is having trouble?  No, because it looks like supporting Ukraine will ensure the defeat of Russia.
It might be like this -- Europe had reasoned -- why support Ukraine if Russia is going to win anyway?  But I think now the writing is on the wall:  Russia isn't going anywhere in Ukraine and a hint of victory is in the air (if only from Russia's insistance that it will "continue"  -- not win, but "continue") and that's enough to bring more European support.

[Jarhead0331]

Some of you guys are so emotionally invested in the outcome of this war that you seem incapable of acknowledging cold hard truths. The reality is that Ukraine has very little chance of winning the war as it stands with the present status quo. Ever since the failure of the much-anticipated summer 2023 counteroffensive, there have been increasing quarrels over strategy among political and military elites, Ukraine's pool of soldiers (volunteer and those within reach of the draft) have begun to dry up, Ukraine's economy has been in shambles and the ability of its allies to keep arms flowing is in doubt. Finally, and perhaps most distressing, I perceive that Ukrainians' own conviction that they can and will win is shaken and beginning to falter. In short, Russia has the strategic initiative and Ukraine has tremendous obstacles to overcome in order to shift the balance back into its favor.

1. Moscow is fighting a much smarter, more capable war and while neat twitter videos of Russian vehicles blowing up are cool, they do not show the big picture. Russia has been able to convert its major size advantages into battlefield gains. Russia has a bigger economy, a bigger arms industry, and a bigger population than Ukraine. These are unassailable facts, and in this war, they matter. Compounding this, the Russian military, much as it did in WWII, has learned from its mistakes...poor logistics, unsuitable and badly maintained equipment, failure to arrange "defenses in depth", etc. The Russians also closed the electronic and drone gap and cut the effectiveness of Ukrainian drones and precision weapons by dispersing potential targets, learning how to jam communications, and scrambling GPS signals. Furthermore, Russian troops have constructed deep and well-designed defensive zones with layers of antitank ditches, dragon's teeth, mines, and prepared firing positions. The cost of breaching these zones is prohibitively high for Ukrainian attacks.

Facts - Russia draws on a population that is more than 3Xs the size of Ukraine's, and its economy is 10Xs as big. Ukraine's ammunition stocks have been so depleted that they were rationing bullets in Avdiivka. On the other hand, Russia has plenty of weapons and munitions for its artillery and infantry and Western sanctions have been ineffective at curtailing this since Russia has adapted and discovered ways to dramatically increase its war-industry output (see below). This is a war of attrition and the longer it lasts, the more Russia is favored to win.

2. Russia is arguably at an advantage due simply to its political system. Even a "quasi" democracy such as Ukraine must heed political and institutional norms and processes, public opinion, and international humanitarian law. Russia, an autocracy, on the other hand, need not. Putting aside the obvious political advantages of what is essentially a dictatorship when it comes to fighting a war, how do the political differences translate into gains or losses in the war?

First, manpower.  Putin does not need to justify the astronomical human toll the war has taken. Conscription is very uneven geographically and socially. Soldiers often come from poorer groups and regions while Moscow, St. Petersburg, and other cities show few signs of military mobilization. In 2022-2023, the Russian ranks were filled with criminals and convicts. When soldiers are hurt or wounded, they receive superficial medical care and are returned to the front without delay. By contrast, Ukraine must agonize over recruitment decisions. Of the volunteers who signed up in the early days of the war, only the most severely injured have been discharged. The rest are either dead or still fighting. Corruption in the draft system is a big problem too. The urge to avoid service in the trenches led to widespread bribery and many draft age men have fled the country.

As noted above, there is the unavoidable fact that Ukraine just has a much smaller pool of potential recruits than Russia. Ukraine has three times as many men in their forties as in their twenties. largely due to economic depression in the 1990s and low birth rates. The search for soldiers has led recruitment officers to raid gyms and shopping centers and take men from their villages without warning. At the same time, Ukraine must consider the demands of an economy that is lacking labor due to the military's manpower needs.

Second, allies. Russia is overcoming Western sanctions through the help of Abu Dhabi, Beijing, New Delhi, Pyongyang, and Tehran who gladly sell drones, ammo, and goods it can no longer procure elsewhere while in exchange buying Russian minerals, petrochemicals, and other exports. With the exception of India, all these partners are autocracies whose citizens have few if any rights and therefore cannot protest the actions of their governments. Meanwhile, Ukraine has western democracies who tend to be less resolute because they are responsible to their constituents. NATO faces challenges due to a handful of recalcitrant members (Hungary, I'm looking at you) and we all know what its happening in the halls of Congress.

I think the only bright spot in this war for Ukraine is its maritime successes and ability to sink Russian warships. A third of the Black Sea Fleet is at the bottom of the Sea. Ukraine's success at making the Black Sea unsafe for Russia's navy has kept alive a vital transport corridor that commercial ships can use to reach Odessa. But this alone will not be enough to win the war. With Russia holding the initiative, and with Ukraine facing massive shortages of both troops and ammo, it is difficult to see how Ukraine can regain ground. I'm not suggesting that a favorable outcome for Ukraine in a war of attrition is totally impossible, but it would require it to outlast a numerically superior enemy through a very long war. Russia, given its advantage in troops and materiel, can simply play a game of endurance.

This outlook gives me no joy, but it is how I see the war and its present strategic balance, or rather, imbalance.

[MengJiao]

Some of you guys are so emotionally invested in the outcome of this war that you seem incapable of acknowledging cold hard truths.

  The really cold hard truth is that Ukraine has never had a chance of winning this war on her own.  The other cold hard truths are:
1) Losing the Black Sea is a very serious problem for Russia.  For one thing, Turkiye is pretty much all in on the
Ukrainian side now and is building corvettes for Ukraine.
2) Iran and North Korea are about the two worst allies anyone could have.
3) You can't win a war by attrition alone.  No one ever has.  Sooner or later push comes to shove and it is already far far far Far too late for Russia to pull off any serious advances
4) The apparent autocratic advantage that Russia has is in fact incredibly fragile.  When Putin goes?  What happens?
5) NATO is narrowing its options.  Can NATO afford a defeat in Ukraine?  No.  It cannot and it is becoming clear that
Russia and NATO both see this and some kind of compromise solution (eg. a demiliarized zone) is increasingly likely
6) Given all that, I'd say Russia is looking for a way to look good (ie "continuing") while actually backing off

[GDS_Starfury]

while I don't disagree JH, I think that if elements of western democracies hadnt fucked around playing political games over the last year the Ukraine would be in a far better position right now.  domestically Im not just blaming the right.  the current administration could have done a lot more a lot quicker.

[GDS_Starfury]

these are the morons that Ukraine is fighting.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1766105373793009920

[Jarhead0331]

while I don't disagree JH, I think that if elements of western democracies hadnt fucked around playing political games over the last year the Ukraine would be in a far better position right now.  domestically Im not just blaming the right.  the current administration could have done a lot more a lot quicker.

I agree with your point, I only question what more means and whether the cost of doing it outweighs the benefit.