Russia's War Against Ukraine

[MengJiao]

Interesting.  That can't be footage of actual soldiers? 

I like what narrator quoted at the end, "i've seen paintball teams with better organization".

  Maybe they are the cream of the 4000 Wagner Group assassins that went to kill any one of 23 Ukrainian leaders on some playing cards (not playing with a full deck apparently).

[ArizonaTank]

Interesting.  That can't be footage of actual soldiers? 

I like what narrator quoted at the end, "i've seen paintball teams with better organization".

  Maybe they are the cream of the 4000 Wagner Group assassins that went to kill any one of 23 Ukrainian leaders on some playing cards (not playing with a full deck apparently).

Reminds me of the stories about the Soviets in Afghanistan. In an ambush, the Soviets in the kill zone would bunch up, and none of the troops would take command when leaders were killed. Troops outside the kill zone would not maneuver to counter-attack the ambush positions. However, guess that later in the conflict, the Russians got better at battling ambushes.

In Ukraine, most of the Russian ability to react to ambushes seems to be abysmal. However, I have seen one drone video where a platoon sized Russian tank unit actually reacted pretty well   to an ambush. The tanks took cover, turned toward the ambush, and started to return fire. But at least in video land, that reaction seems to be the exception.

I think the thing to watch in the coming weeks is if the Russians can learn from their mistakes. If history means anything, the Russians may not be done yet.

For example, the British had a terrible opening to the Second Boer War, mostly due to their failure adapt to Boer tactics and weapons. After the first three months of the war, where the British had lost all of the major battles they fought and took horrendous casualties, many observers had written them off. But the British learned their lessons, adapted their organization and tactics, and eventually put major Boer formations to flight (of course the war then become a massive guerilla war...but that is another story).

[JasonPratt]

Agree on "bodies to hold ground." Maybe the Russians are looking toward getting enough garrison troops for a long occupation. I could see that they would not waste well-trained reserves in such roles. Also, Putin probably wants to keep strong forces and reserves available to keep NATO in check elsewhere.

Or even more likely, to keep his own people in check elsewhere.

Putin's KGB right? Those State Security types don't make really great Generals. And with Vlad not trusting anyone but his cook/Wagner buddy, maybe he is calling all the balls and strikes himself. Which might explain the confused strategy and lack of focus on a single, decisive target.

Heh, wonder if he left the KGB as a corporal...!

[MengJiao]

Interesting.  That can't be footage of actual soldiers? 

I like what narrator quoted at the end, "i've seen paintball teams with better organization".

  Maybe they are the cream of the 4000 Wagner Group assassins that went to kill any one of 23 Ukrainian leaders on some playing cards (not playing with a full deck apparently).

Reminds me of the stories about the Soviets in Afghanistan. In an ambush, the Soviets in the kill zone would bunch up, and none of the troops would take command when leaders were killed. Troops outside the kill zone would not maneuver to counter-attack the ambush positions. However, guess that later in the conflict, the Russians got better at battling ambushes.

In Ukraine, most of the Russian ability to react to ambushes seems to be abysmal. However, I have seen one drone video where a platoon sized Russian tank unit actually reacted pretty well   to an ambush. The tanks took cover, turned toward the ambush, and started to return fire. But at least in video land, that reaction seems to be the exception.

I think the thing to watch in the coming weeks is if the Russians can learn from their mistakes. If history means anything, the Russians aren't done yet.

For example, the British had a terrible opening to the Second Boer War, mostly due to their failure adapt to Boer tactics and weapons. After the first three months of the war, where the British had lost all of the major battles they fought and took horrendous casualties, many observers had written them off. But the British learned their lessons, adapted their organization and tactics, and eventually put major Boer formations to flight (of course the war then become a massive guerilla war...but that is another story).

  Supposedly (and I'm just going by newsy articles), the Russians are going for an attritional phase with a fair amount of not particularly targeted high explosives landing in lots of places.  This solves a lot of problems: it keeps up pressure on the Ukrainians to negotiate (ie give the Russians whatever it is that they want if anyone could figure out what that might be other than total, unconditional surrender);
allows them to sit still and do a lot of damage; doesn't expose them to any more major problems with moving their forces around and lets them use all the various HE dispensing devices they have evolved over the years without any definite tally of successes and failures -- just a fair amount of stuff exploding in general in Ukraine.

[ArizonaTank]

  Supposedly (and I'm just going by newsy articles), the Russians are going for an attritional phase with a fair amount of not particularly targeted high explosives landing in lots of places.  This solves a lot of problems: it keeps up pressure on the Ukrainians to negotiate (ie give the Russians whatever it is that they want if anyone could figure out what that might be other than total, unconditional surrender);
allows them to sit still and do a lot of damage; doesn't expose them to any more major problems with moving their forces around and lets them use all the various HE dispensing devices they have evolved over the years without any definite tally of successes and failures -- just a fair amount of stuff exploding in general in Ukraine.

Not to make too much of the Second Boer War analogy, but there is some historical resonance I believe. The major shift in "strategy" for the Brits was to stop set piece battles where the Boers were beating the snot out of them.* The Brits shifted to going after the Boer civilians. The Brits began to burn Boer farms and confiscate livestock to starve the Boers out. The Brits also put the Boer women and children in concentration camps (I think the Turks actually "invented" the concept of concentration camps, but Brits took it to new level during the Second Boer War). The camps were often run badly, and many Boer women and children starved or died of disease. The Brits became pariahs in many circles, and there was public pressure in the US and Europe to send direct military support to the Boers. You even had individual Americans and Europeans going off to join the Boer fighters because of what was seen as British atrocities. It took 2 1/2 years, but eventually the British beat the Boers down. The atrocities of burning farms and concentration camps were forgotten by the advent of WWI. 

In the Ukraine, the Russian version of this strategy is more brutal; attacking civilians directly, also destroying homes and infrastructure, while reportedly kidnapping civilians and carting them off to Russia.

*The Boers were equipped with up-to-date rifles; the Boer weapons had good range and a high rate of fire. As farmers growing up with firearms, most of the Boers were also good marksmen, and they usually fought from trenches or other cover. At the beginning of the Second Boer War the British still believed in marching in line formation and bayonet charges; as you can imagine it did not go well for the British.

[MengJiao]

  Supposedly (and I'm just going by newsy articles), the Russians are going for an attritional phase with a fair amount of not particularly targeted high explosives landing in lots of places.  This solves a lot of problems: it keeps up pressure on the Ukrainians to negotiate (ie give the Russians whatever it is that they want if anyone could figure out what that might be other than total, unconditional surrender);
allows them to sit still and do a lot of damage; doesn't expose them to any more major problems with moving their forces around and lets them use all the various HE dispensing devices they have evolved over the years without any definite tally of successes and failures -- just a fair amount of stuff exploding in general in Ukraine.

Not to make too much of the Second Boer War analogy, but there is some historical resonance I believe. The major shift in "strategy" for the Brits was to stop set piece battles where the Boers were beating the snot out of them. The Brits shifted to going after the Boer civilians. The Brits began to burn Boer farms and confiscate livestock to starve the Boers out. The Brits also put the Boer women and children in concentration camps (I think the Turks actually "invented" the concept of concentration camps, but Brits took it to new level during the Second Boer War). The camps were often run badly, and many Boer women and children starved or died of disease. The Brits became pariahs in many circles, and there was public pressure in the US and Europe to send direct military support to the Boers. You even had individual Americans and Europeans going off to join the Boer fighters because of what was seen as British atrocities. 

In the Ukraine, the Russian version of this strategy is more brutal; attacking civilians directly, also destroying homes and infrastructure, while reportedly kidnapping civilians and carting them off to Russia.

  Not to dismiss any particular history or resonance, but generalized wrecking and slaughter have been traditional methods of war since the beginning of wars.  Hostage-taking and deliberate atrocities have
been something that has happened (with varying "success"...even the Sumerians had to give up their favorite mass impalement ceremonies due to their growning unpopularity with their enemies and the
Persians got a lot of early milage out of NOT taking hostages and so on unlike say the Assyrians or the Neo-Babylonians) for as long as there have been wars.  On the other hand, generalized wrecking and slaughter can be seen as a sign
that the wreckers and slaughterers are not doing very well with their more fundamental aims (such as taking ground or destroying their armed opponents).  Plus in Ukraine, it seems like the more effort the Russians waste on generalized dispensing of HE, the less they may be able to cope with whatever their actual armed opponents might be up to.

[Pete Dero]

"If we see Ukraine as a threat, we have the right to use force to ensure the threat is eradicated. We have entered into a conflict which has not only physical but also metaphysical significance. We are talking about human salvation, something much more important than politics."

This isn't Putin speaking but the Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill recently preaching to his 90 million followers .

[GDS_Starfury]

So - we are now expecting Russia to use biological and chemical weapons...and still no red line drawn by NATO or the UN?

Putin plays the tune, and NATO dances.

except that NATO is not "dancing" at all.  they dont need to.  if you want to be all gung ho and kill russians then get a plane ticket to Poland.
you might to read up on the concept of strategic ambiguity where it intersects with US nuclear policy.

[GDS_Starfury]

Does no one else think he's going to cut Ukraine in half by troops joining from the south and the north and kind of putting the whole area under long term siege? Looks feasibly to me on paper.

they quite literally cant support the troops moving any farther then the already are.  so how are they going to cover all of that ground and link up with active Ukraine forces fighting them the whole way?

[GDS_Starfury]

seems Ukrainians got back Makariv yesterday.



one of the many bits of information confirming this:

[GDS_Starfury]

Welp, those people calling for a three-week invasion-supply limit (or less) have turned out to be correct! Time for sitzkrieg! Strictly speaking, Putin should have more shells for that than Guderian did (or whoever coined that term 3 weeks into Barbarossa.)

I was a little surprised to hear that Odessa had not in fact been taken. Not very surprised, but a little -- the basic news account seemed to be that it was held as a secured beachhead but nothing much was happening there. I'm glad for Ukraine that they may have to withdraw or be destroyed (shades of Gallipoli!)

since no russians have landed in Odessa, where are you getting your "basic" news from?

[MengJiao]

"If we see Ukraine as a threat, we have the right to use force to ensure the threat is eradicated. We have entered into a conflict which has not only physical but also metaphysical significance. We are talking about human salvation, something much more important than politics."

This isn't Putin speaking but the Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill recently preaching to his 90 million followers .

  Wow.  That is so nutty.  So Ukraine is this metaphysical threat?  Just cuz it is the only country out of the various Chechenia and Georgia spots left to pick on?  You can imagine the Patriarch scratching his
head and saying Oh Moldovia is too far, we already trashed Chechenia and Georgia.  What else looks like a metaphystical problem?  Well not Poland (that's in NATO and they would blow your itchy
metaphysics away pretty fast), but hey, sure Ukraine is a metaphysical problem (because unlike most other places we've only attacked it once and it is not very well armed and has no allies).

  Wow.  That's metaphysics for you.  It's like kicking a poor sick old cat metaphysically around while ignoring the Tiger that is eyeing your antics and wondering about your moral vision.

[Gusington]

Metaphysical threat?? I didn't think it possible but the level of insanity is actually increasing out of Russia.

[Jarhead0331]

You're watching the beginning of their justification to use nukes.

[Gusington]

I fucking hope not.