Russian-Ukrainian War: Combat Tactics & Strategy

vinod · Post by **vinod** » 13 Sep 2022 03:12

Russia doesn't seem to be in any hurry! What is their long term plan? I'm thinking they will go slow until winter gets over and see where EU will be.
Winter misery with high inflation is going to prick a lot of bubbles. Tide is going out and we will see who all are naked. Get your popcorn

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 13 Sep 2022 03:16

There is nothing - perhaps outside of destructive natural events - that is really as chaotic as a war. Logic never applies. Discussions are for those that do not have anything else to do. 20/20 vision is for the history books - not to manage an active chaos/war.

All those HIMARS and M777 were lost to chaos.

So, this reversal for Russia is an embarrassment (only to an outside observer). US (Korea)(Afghanistan), Hitler (Soviets), Napoleon (Russia), Soviets (Afghanistan) ....... the best of them have had some disastrous embarrassments.

A lot is in front of us. And, I suspect, unfortunately, for a very long time to come. 5-10 years, at a minimum.

sohamn · Post by **sohamn** » 13 Sep 2022 05:21

if Amreeka does sign the deal with Iran or remove sanctions against Venezuela then its all over for Russia. After I heard that Russia is getting weapons from NK, I knew Russia was in big trouble. This victory of ukraine will bring fresh funds and weapons from NATO as they will now believe that Russia can be defeated. Ukraine will throw in thousands of more men on the battlefield and Russia with lack of general mobilization will be simply overrun is other places as well.

The only way Russia can hold back is if they do a general mobilization, bring in half a million men and women to combat along with all its armor that it is holding back. IF they are not able to or not willing to mobilize then Russia will lose momentum and territory - and can only claim may be a Pyrrhic victory. And even that may be in doubt at this stage.

Also, a lot of people in this forum has claimed that winter is a big bonus for Russian as they know how to fight in winter & snow. I find this amusing, Ukraine's army is as adept as the russian army in the winter. no one holds any patents here.

Y. Kanan · Post by **Y. Kanan** » 13 Sep 2022 07:03

NRao wrote:A lot is in front of us. And, I suspect, unfortunately, for a very long time to come. 5-10 years, at a minimum.

How is Russia's situation giong to be any better in 5-10 years, or even 5-10 months, for that matter. Ukraine gets stronger each day and its manpower advantage grows more and more. Already Russia is outnumbered in theatre 3-1, and much worse in some sectors (they're outnumbered 8-1 in the north where the Ukies are counterattacking.

A long war doesn't seem to favor Russia in this case. Again, tell me how Russia wins without nukes?

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 13 Sep 2022 07:52

NRao wrote:
So, this reversal for Russia is an embarrassment (only to an outside observer). US (Korea)(Afghanistan), Hitler (Soviets), Napoleon (Russia), Soviets (Afghanistan) ....... the best of them have had some disastrous embarrassments.

NRao ji you have given good examples but there are dark implications to that. All of the above got embarrassed and and then lost the ultimate war / engagement. Are you saying that Russia is on the same path or that the evidence points to that - which will be disastrous.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 13 Sep 2022 07:55

vinod wrote:Russia doesn't seem to be in any hurry! What is their long term plan? I'm thinking they will go slow until winter gets over and see where EU will be.
Winter misery with high inflation is going to prick a lot of bubbles. Tide is going out and we will see who all are naked. Get your popcorn

There are two parties in the Western camp to this and three facets to this.

EU
US
Conflict zone.

Even if the EU feels as much pain as Russia can make them feel who is to say that the US will stop supporting the UKR.
And if that support does not end soon how long can Russia maintain this in the battlefield.

The bear is facing a trap of its own making.

Deans · Post by **Deans** » 13 Sep 2022 09:26

KrishnaK wrote: Maybe Russia did not prepare its population against the war because it's not likely to find favor with its population. They want to be able to access the capital, markets and the luxuries of the west. Without western markets and capital, the Russian economy is going to look substantially worse. The sanctions will eventually bite, especially ones on technology that Russia needs to build modern weaponry.

There's no existentialist war with NATO. I doubt even Russians believe that as much as people here seem to.

This is a case of Russian elites behaving like the Pakis - delusions of influence which they see as their right that is far in excess of their economic or military capacity. The Soviet Union lost WHEN IT HAD WAY MORE RESOURCES AND CAPACITY and had completely isolated itself from the west. How is Russia going to win any _existentialist_war_ against the west now ?

The thing Russia also miscalculated badly was how much pain EU was willing to put up with to back Ukraine. Besides predictions of the collapse of the western economies that I've been reading for a couple of decades now.

I mostly agree and would put this in a more nuanced way.
The Russian people would agree to a war to protect their country and (next in priority) protect Russians in neighboring countries. That is why Crimea
had the full support of Russians as did the intervention in Donbass in 2014-5 and the support to rebels subsequently.
They would probably not agree to a war against Ukraine under the guise of liberating the Donbass, but would agree (and Western sources acknowledge that Putin's popularity will increase on this account) to an operation to protect the Donbass against Ukraine + NATO, even if it means attacking Ukraine, because, the alternative, as NATO & Ukraine spokesmen are making clear, is the neutralization of Russia itself.

What Russians have ideally wanted (for centuries, not only now) is to be seen as part of Europe, especially (as they see it) as they protected Europe from the Mongols, Napoleon and Hitler and Christian culture (at a time when the church had lost its credibility elsewhere in Europe). However, Europe saw them as their gas station, or a `Nigeria with rockets'. Russian participation in Europe/ NATO forums was just a platform for the Baltics to indulge in Russia bashing. It was not something the Russian people would tolerate indefinitely and this was exacerbated by a war against Serbia, color revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine, attempted ones in Kazakhstan and Belarus (and a wink and nod Azeri war against Armenia)
I think this gave Putin a reasonably basis to start preparing Russians for war, around Sept of last year - when Zelenski signed a decree expressing his intention to liberate the Donbass and Crimea.

I believe Russia's biggest mistake, is having no idea of the extent to which NATO would support Ukraine or sanction Russia. The other big mistake was assuming the best case scenario would be the most likely (i.e. repeat of Crimea). When that did not happen and talks were broken off at the end of March, Putin could have prepared his people for war - he would have had the moral high ground then (not in 2021, or in Feb).

Russia can win an existentialist war by existing - in an economic state relative to Europe, that is the same as pre war and its national security goals met - i.e no NATO force or a hostile country on its borders, protection of Russians in neighboring countries and no outlaw status.

Vinit · Post by **Vinit** » 13 Sep 2022 12:39

I've seen tactical nuclear weapons use by Russia mentioned more than once here.
I'm not sure what that would gain, apart from the shock value.

And the shock value is countered by:
(a) that their use has been regarded as kind of a possibility (low though it may be), so any competent UKR commanders would have at least thought about such a scenario, if not war gamed it;
(b) after the intial shock, the reaction may be more of anger and revenge and a renewed sense of purpose ("nuclear weapon exploded on our territory / country!") rather than scaring people into surrender;
(c) the reaction of the rest of the world, to the first use of nukes after WW2. I don't mean that this would escalate into WW3 - though that is always a small possibility - but rather, it would lead to even more hardening of attitudes towards the Putin regime, including amongst politicians and the general public everywhere, and make it more difficult for friends of Russia to continue to support them.

Now regarding battlefield impact: Actual damage to UKR forces would most likely be minimal if a single TNW is used, since this war is using wide-area and dispersion tactics, plus movement. As an example, a 5KT airburst causes fatalities and injuries in a radius of ~1.3km from the blast site to unsheltered personnel; impact on armour and sheltering infantry is lower. Not exactly a battle changer. If interested, check out this publication "Pakistan's Battlefield Nuclear Policy: A Risky Solution to an Exaggerated Threat" by MIT in 2014, which documents various scenarios showing possible damage due to TNW use in an Indo-Pak scenario, and "The US Experience with Tactical Nuclear Weapons, JSTOR, 2013." Both show very limited battlefield impact, particularly on armour.

Summary - the downsides of TNW use seem to be much, much, higher than any gains that could possibly accrue. And the Russians would know that. So more of "wishful thinking" perhaps - though why would anyone wish for this ...

vinod · Post by **vinod** » 13 Sep 2022 12:45

ks_sachin wrote:
vinod wrote:Russia doesn't seem to be in any hurry! What is their long term plan? I'm thinking they will go slow until winter gets over and see where EU will be.
Winter misery with high inflation is going to prick a lot of bubbles. Tide is going out and we will see who all are naked. Get your popcorn
There are two parties in the Western camp to this and three facets to this.

EU
US
Conflict zone.

Even if the EU feels as much pain as Russia can make them feel who is to say that the US will stop supporting the UKR.
And if that support does not end soon how long can Russia maintain this in the battlefield.

The bear is facing a trap of its own making.

Without EU support, US cannot arm Ukraine. If indeed US does try to do that, EU will be split.

The bear was trapped in 2014 itself. The current action was inevitable.

Deans · Post by **Deans** » 13 Sep 2022 15:20

Vinit wrote:I've seen tactical nuclear weapons use by Russia mentioned more than once here.
I'm not sure what that would gain, apart from the shock value.

What if :
- Russia were to announce `Nuclear cooperation' with Iran and return the enriched Uranium deposited with it, under the now invalid Nuclear deal
that US reneged on. US may be forced to enter into serious talks with Russia for fear of a radical group exploding a nuke in the West.
- A tactical nuke was to be set off in Poland (suitcase bomb) at the base where Western arms supplies fly into and where foreign fighters are
stationed before they enter Ukraine. Damage limited to say a 2 km radius. Russia could say it was a NATO nuke accidently detonated.

Cyrano · Post by **Cyrano** » 13 Sep 2022 15:48

Some excessive reactions by bhailog here :

- TacNuks usage being casually predicted - this is pure BS. Presupposes Russia is stuck in a serious imminent threat that has atleast a total theater level disastrous impact on its forces & Donbass - there is no such sky is falling situation, a few villages and small towns retaken by AFU haven't created such a huge threat.

_Even if it were the case, which it is mot_ Russia has not exhausted the multiple options in its possession to deal with it, and reaching for tac-nukes is out of question.

- exercising such an option will require the approval of at least Russia's equivalent of defence & cabinet councils - but Putin going there will be an admission of a significant failure to run the SMO as planned - Why would Putin, Shoigu and has generals do that now?

Russia and NATO are playing an evolving game, both have been surprised and challenged by the other side's responses especially those that stem from irrationality.

Russia is surprised by the irrational motivation of Kiev regime to continue this self destructive war by selling everything of value, including their future to the west. And surprised by the common Ukranian's hatred for Russia and their "love" for violence/combat. And the Kiev regime's extraordinary ability to stoke it and channel it to the battlefield.

NATO & west's behaviour isn't a surprise for Russia - it's a full blown confirmation of the military, economic and civilisational threat Russia thinks they represent.

What is a surprise for the West is it's irrational assessments about Russian economy, Putin's unpopularity, RU military forces quality, equipment quality, stocks of missiles and munitions , antiquated comms, poor leadership of officers etc etc all turned out totally flawed.

Russia is (perhaps pleasantly) surprised and how irrational and poor the leadership of EU and US actually is, and how they handed Russia the energy chokehold on Europe and how their I'll concieved economic sanctions boomeranged on them and their ham fisted diplomacy actually helped Russia sell its position to the global west and increase its influence.

Many more things will happen as winter freezes balls on both sides of the Atlantic. But the longer this lasts, the worse it will be for the west, and better for the rest. In all cases Ukra-een is doomed.

Jay · Post by **Jay** » 13 Sep 2022 19:41

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/13/us/p ... tagon.html

Some excerpts from the article

The strategy behind Ukraine’s rapid military gains in recent days began to take shape months ago during a series of intense conversations between Ukrainian and U.S. officials. The counteroffensive — revised this summer from its original form after urgent discussions between senior U.S. and Ukrainian officials — has succeeded beyond most predictions.

,

Long reluctant to share details of their plans, the Ukrainian commanders started opening up more to American and British intelligence officials and seeking advice.

And in Kyiv, Ukrainian and British military officials continued working together while the new American defense attaché, Brig. Gen. Garrick Harmon, began having daily sessions with Ukraine’s top officers.

One critical moment this summer came during a war game with U.S. and Ukrainian officials aimed at testing the success of a broad offensive across the south.

We did do some modeling and some tabletop exercises,” Colin Kahl, the Pentagon’s policy chief, said in a telephone interview. “That set of exercises suggested that certain avenues for a counteroffensive were likely to be more successful than others. We provided that advice, and then the Ukrainians internalized that and made their own decision.”

Together Britain, the United States and Ukraine conducted an assessment of the new plan, trying to war game it once more. This time officials from the three countries agreed it would work

Before the counteroffensive, Ukraine’s armed forces sent the United States a detailed list of weapons they needed to make the plan successful,

kit · Post by **kit** » 13 Sep 2022 21:14

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/wor ... 169889.cms

I would say it's both pivotal and dangerous," former CIA director and US defence secretary Leon Panetta said Monday in an interview on Bloomberg Television's "Balance of Power With David Westin." Worrying that Russia could escalate the conflict, including with a potential tactical nuclear strike, if it feels at risk of losing, Panetta said, "It's dangerous because Putin, if he's boxed in, he has to strike back."

Cyrano · Post by **Cyrano** » 13 Sep 2022 21:21

Sounds like lots of post facto BS by NATO officials, taking credit only when something works even partially and hiding in the shadows when it doesn't.

They are involved neck deep since 8+ years now, remote controlling to various degrees, and saying we provide training and advice, it's AFU that decides and executes.

If you are funding the war, actually the entire administration and armies, training the men, providing Intel, ferrying and supplying arms, giving anti radar and other missiles, awacs support, supplying mercenaries, retired soldiers to operate 777s and himars etc, comms support, even sending jailed néonazis over to join their militias what is the likelihood that you'll let Ukrainians do as they please on the battlefield after they have lost over 20% of the territory?

If US/NATO take 1% credit their involvement is everything except regular troops dying with their flag and unit patches on.

Cyrano · Post by **Cyrano** » 13 Sep 2022 21:26

Panetta said, "It's dangerous because Putin, if he's boxed in, he has to strike back."

Dang! This Putin fella will nuke if he is losing... Then why not let him win eh? If he is so unhinged, why go a third across the globe and kick him in the shins while he is busy drinking vodka shirtless on horseback? Stoopid generals !

chanakyaa · Post by **chanakyaa** » 13 Sep 2022 21:34

Deans wrote:…
…. The other big mistake was assuming the best case scenario would be the most likely (i.e. repeat of Crimea). When that did not happen and talks were broken off at the end of March..

Deans, after reading the usual sources for the updates on the SMO, looks like the DPR and LPR areas are largely getting cleared of troublesome Ukies, despite some resistance reported recently. Repeating a Crimea in these areas won’t be as piece of cake, but if referendum leads to these areas joining Russia and these areas becoming Russia, isn’t the game over for Ukie and it’s supporters? What if then Russ install its deadly toys (including nooks, mostly perception management) and say that you touch Russ and Kiev and Lviv will be erased, what will Z and friends do? Tangential, but At the end of this SMO, Russ will add enough people to its country that would have taken 20-25 years at the natural rate of pop growth.

Then there are sanctions. Odessa and/or oil/gas this winter could be bargaining chip to get concessions? Reports of Ukies regaining some territory looks like Ukies and its supporters need some small wins/victories and headlines to convince its struggling population to cough up more aid, money ityadi. Bit cynical on those headlines, but I could be wrong with my assessment.

chanakyaa · Post by **chanakyaa** » 13 Sep 2022 21:37

Cyrano wrote:…
Dang! This Putin fella will nuke if he is losing... Then why not let him win eh? If he is so unhinged, why go a third across the globe and kick him in the shins while he is busy drinking vodka shirtless on horseback? Stoopid generals !

Yeah, all this nook talk is unnecessary distraction. Didn’t Russ go through the pain of dragging nook inspectors to Zaphy nook power plan to convince that it is safe?

Y. Kanan · Post by **Y. Kanan** » 13 Sep 2022 21:39

Cyrano wrote:They are involved neck deep since 8+ years now… If US/NATO take 1% credit their involvement is everything except regular troops dying with their flag and unit patches on.

True which still begs the question: why did Putin willingly walk right into what was always a big giant trap, laid by the US and its vassals, in the hopes that Russia might actually be dumb enough to just walk right into it. Why?

Surely Putin would never be that stupid, we all thought. I believed the invasion was en elaborate maskirovka right up to the last moment. Nope! It turns out Putin and his cronies weren’t geniuses after all. They were incompetent.

I certainly sympathize with Russia’s moral position in all this, and valued their role as spoiler to US/western dominance of global affairs. Yes, Russia was very much baited into this war over many years and many provocations. But nonetheless, invading Ukraine was such an obvious trap that there’s just no excusing the Russians’ rigidity of thinking on how to deal with their NATO problem. There were far better strategies they could have used, including war, but not a costly invasion of a heavily prepared opponent with zero element of surprise. There were better ways to push back! I’d really like to know exactly how Putin and his people gamed this out and concluded there was any chance of success.

Cyrano · Post by **Cyrano** » 13 Sep 2022 22:26

Y. Kanan wrote:Why?

What I gather from innumerable articles, analyses, interviews, think tank reports, expert uvachas, forum gnyanis etc... is:
1. Ukraine militias+ army was fully prepared to overrun Donbass in spring of 2022, and cause a level of atrocities and death that would compel Putin to act, since he has signed a joint defense pact with LPR, DPR, which declared themselves independent. All this is quite legal and as per UN charter.

Both sides had amassed huge troops and knew the others know it, can't hide such huge stuff from sat Intel anyways. Biden is on record that he warned Russia will attack in dec, Jan, Feb. Macron was shuttling like a headless poulet thermidor to Moscow as well.

Putin could have waited for Ukr to attack Donbass first and then invade, but he didn't care for that fig leaf. because he got cojones each bigger than biden's head to preempt and invade first. He had enough Intel to read the dirty game EU was playing to arm Ukr more and more. And perhaps most importantly, he didn't want to let a huge massacre of Donbass Russophone people happen if he could prevent it by going first.

It largely worked, except Kiev didn't fall. UK & US baked Zelinsky in concrete and made him stick on.

2. Zelinsky was dying to get into NATO and EU at any cost, and was offering to station NATO bases and N missiles in Ukr to sheild himself from a very pissed Russia. If that happened, even regular missiles can reach Moscow in under 4 minutes, which is below the minimum required threshold time to detect, respond with anti missile défenses and destroy incoming nuke to save Moscow. Totally unacceptable. There are also reports that Ukr was keen to re-nuclearise with Western help, which amounts to the same thing.

When Putin was convinced that waiting any longer will precipitate this scenario, he couldn't let Ukraine exist as a country in its present form.

I'd say he had the courage and foresight (and of course the capability and strength) to act, unlike India which had a similar situation with Pak in the 90s and 2000s but didn't/couldn't act

These 2 explanations are the only ones that seem convincing to me.

Once you start down this path, your initial thinking and strategy starts becoming less and less important and you have to play it as it comes. Which is what we are seeing now.

If there are any other really solid explanations, I'm all ears.

Jay · Post by **Jay** » 13 Sep 2022 23:29

Cyrano wrote: If US/NATO take 1% credit their involvement is everything except regular troops dying with their flag and unit patches on.

This was never a secret. It was always evident that US/NATO will fight the Russian's until the last of Ukrainians are disposed of and in doing so they want to impose as much pain as possible on Russia. If they get some wins for Ukrainians it's only a fortuitous gain they can lay claim to.
All things considered, this is the most bang for the buck conflict the US has undertaken since their Korean war years.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 14 Sep 2022 03:57

As per reports the Russian 1st guards regiments which is supposed to be their premier unit tasked with the defence of Moscow was destroyed in the recent Ukranian attacks. This, of course comes from the US/UK intelligence, so take it for what it’s worth

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 14 Sep 2022 06:11

Cyrano wrote: If there are any other really solid explanations, I'm all ears.

SNAFU perhaps in the strictest sense of the acronym and slang.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Sep 2022 07:04

Reports of UKR forces - the "largest" - have assembled across that Zap nuclear facilities.

RU doing nothing!!!!

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Sep 2022 07:13

Ukraine has allegedly captured one of Russia's most advanced aerial electronic warfare pods

Deans · Post by **Deans** » 14 Sep 2022 08:33

Tanaji wrote:As per reports the Russian 1st guards regiments which is supposed to be their premier unit tasked with the defence of Moscow was destroyed in the recent Ukranian attacks. This, of course comes from the US/UK intelligence, so take it for what it’s worth

I posted earlier in this page that a Russian guards tank division (1 of the 2 in the 1st Guards Tank army) was supposed to be in the Izyum region and its whereabouts during the Ukrainian breakthrough were unknown. It turns out that this division was withdrawn. The 10-12 BTG's estimated to be in this area (East of Kharkov-Izyum) were reduced to just 1. The Ukrainians attacked with 3 brigades (their best forces - 1 UK trained, 1 mostly Polish volunteers with newly supplied Polish T-72s) and were opposed by:
- 2 battalions of LPR militia, light infantry (about 1500 men)
- 2 Battalions of national guard (about 1500 men).
- 1 BTG - 6-800 men & half a battalion of airborne forces (300 men)
- Rear area units (about 1000 men).

Ukrainians had 2: 1 superiority in men (with men of much higher quality) and 8 : 1 in tanks, but since the Russians retreated, the Ukrainians mostly punched air in their advance. That does raise the question of why the tank division was withdrawn. It has created tensions between people in the Donbass and Russia and a lot of people in Russia are questioning the decisions of the country's leadership.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Sep 2022 08:48

Deans wrote:
Tanaji wrote:As per reports the Russian 1st guards regiments which is supposed to be their premier unit tasked with the defence of Moscow was destroyed in the recent Ukranian attacks. This, of course comes from the US/UK intelligence, so take it for what it’s worth
......................

Ukrainians had 2: 1 superiority in men (with men of much higher quality) and 8 : 1 in tanks, but since the Russians retreated, the Ukrainians mostly punched air in their advance. That does raise the question of why the tank division was withdrawn. It has created tensions between people in the Donbass and Russia and a lot of people in Russia are questioning the decisions of the country's leadership.

Agree on "punched air". And, I very much doubt that the Russians+allies lost men, perhaps material, not men.

On why did they withdraw, I suspect because Putin is about to pull all the energy + food plugs WRT EU and let them sink. An economic war.

Deans · Post by **Deans** » 14 Sep 2022 09:14

Y. Kanan wrote: True which still begs the question: why did Putin willingly walk right into what was always a big giant trap, laid by the US and its vassals, in the hopes that Russia might actually be dumb enough to just walk right into it. Why?

Cyrano's post reflects my own thoughts. However, I agree that Putin, having convinced himself of a threat to Russia, still got baited into this war, with inadequate preparation. In Sept 21, both sides had already amassed men on the border and Zelenski had signed a decree asking his army to liberate the Donbass and Crimea. At that stage, if Putin had to prepare for war, Russia should have done the following:
- Sell Dollar and Euro holdings in Western banks which are now frozen (use that to build a reserve to finance the war, or make the kind of investments in Iran that are being announced now.
- Start the mobilization of an additional 200,000 troops - If not in Sept, then at the end of March, when phase 1 failed and NATO had announced its
intention to defeat Russia. Enhanced training for the DPR/LPR militia and Russian national guard.
- Give advance notice to the Air force for war - They went into action with 1 week notice and in the first month did just 200 sorties/ day. They increased it to 300, after a month, despite losses, which shows they could have done 400/day to begin with.
In the 1971 war, the IAF with the same no of fighters as Russia has deployed against Ukraine, did 400 sorties/ day.
- When the SMO started, most of the Black Sea fleet's ships were not in the Black sea, but operating off the coast of Syria.
- Basic maintenance of vehicles in the formations going into combat. The biggest cause of tank /APC losses in phase 1 was breakdowns.
- Increase shifts in armaments factories in Sept, not after Mar 22.

A Deshmukh · Post by **A Deshmukh** » 14 Sep 2022 09:34

Deans wrote: - Sell Dollar and Euro holdings in Western banks which are now frozen

Russia got out of Dollar reserves in 2016.

ks_sachin · Post by **ks_sachin** » 14 Sep 2022 10:06

Deans,

Are there more of such unexpected and inexplicable decisions to come from the Russian high command?

And these is not a fog of war types of decisions.

At the moment they seems to be unable to organise a piss-up in a brewery!!

Oh for the glory days of Marshal Zhukhov!!

Oh but the way another question for you---

What is likely to be the impact on the Russian armed forces of this SMO.... (size / structure / personnel)

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 14 Sep 2022 10:23

Deans wrote:I believe Russia's biggest mistake, is having no idea of the extent to which NATO would support Ukraine or sanction Russia. The other big mistake was assuming the best case scenario would be the most likely (i.e. repeat of Crimea). When that did not happen and talks were broken off at the end of March, Putin could have prepared his people for war - he would have had the moral high ground then (not in 2021, or in Feb).

I"m not sure I've explained this properly - 2014 was about the limits of aggression the EU was going to put up with. A full fledged invasion of Ukraine was going to set the cat amongst the pigeons. Russia doesn't have the capacity to stand another cold war. Putin gambled that the EU would meekly accept the invasion and subjugation of Ukraine when presented with a fait accompli.

Russia can win an existentialist war by existing - in an economic state relative to Europe, that is the same as pre war and its national security goals met - i.e no NATO force or a hostile country on its borders, protection of Russians in neighboring countries and no outlaw status.

It can find a way to exist in peace with the rest of Europe OR it can go down the path it's on now. It's not going to be able to start invasions near EU borders and maintain its economic state relative to Europe.

Russia has thousands of nukes and a territory that's pretty much invulnerable. There's 0 chances that it'll get invaded NATO on its borders or not.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 14 Sep 2022 11:33

EU or NATO does not have to invade Russia to cross red lines. It can constantly keep biting off enclaves off Russia using its more rabid proxies such as Poland and Ukraine.

dnivas · Post by **dnivas** » 14 Sep 2022 11:46

KrishnaK wrote:
Deans wrote:I believe Russia's biggest mistake, is having no idea of the extent to which NATO would support Ukraine or sanction Russia. The other big mistake was assuming the best case scenario would be the most likely (i.e. repeat of Crimea). When that did not happen and talks were broken off at the end of March, Putin could have prepared his people for war - he would have had the moral high ground then (not in 2021, or in Feb).
I"m not sure I've explained this properly - 2014 was about the limits of aggression the EU was going to put up with. A full fledged invasion of Ukraine was going to set the cat amongst the pigeons. Russia doesn't have the capacity to stand another cold war. Putin gambled that the EU would meekly accept the invasion and subjugation of Ukraine when presented with a fait accompli.

Russia can win an existentialist war by existing - in an economic state relative to Europe, that is the same as pre war and its national security goals met - i.e no NATO force or a hostile country on its borders, protection of Russians in neighboring countries and no outlaw status.
It can find a way to exist in peace with the rest of Europe OR it can go down the path it's on now. It's not going to be able to start invasions near EU borders and maintain its economic state relative to Europe.

Russia has thousands of nukes and a territory that's pretty much invulnerable. There's 0 chances that it'll get invaded NATO on its borders or not.

I dont think you understand the amount of western penetration of the Russian 'civil' society since the late 90's. My wife who is from one of the ends of the world type towns is completely anti putin after hanging out with the hipsters and NGO types of St petersburg for a few months. If that extent of brain washing can be done to a small town patriotic girl, then that concept of territorial invulnerability can be nullified. One generation of NATO and EU funding have made Ukr's rabid Russia haters, same can happen to Russians and then cause chechnya 3.0 all across Russia.

So Putin did not have any choice but to take on the beast now. There is no time. Already the NGO and Civil society type bave been completely compromised by VOA/peace corp/ and other cutouts for the agencies. This is happening in India as well.

dnivas · Post by **dnivas** » 14 Sep 2022 11:50

IMO, next steps for Russia after taking out Ukr out of the equation is to reduce the baltics to little mongrels who have a cone around their head and cant bark/ bite. A lesson has to be made of a couple of the lap dog countries.

if US/NATO can play in Russia's backyard, Russia should do the same in the multiple backyards where these war mongers and civ destroyers play.

Unfortunately it looks like Russia has also been corrupted by some the dosa diplomacy effete types. They run to the UN and ask daddy for permission to do what they simply must do

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 14 Sep 2022 12:13

KrishnaK wrote:
It can find a way to exist in peace with the rest of Europe OR it can go down the path it's on now. It's not going to be able to start invasions near EU borders and maintain its economic state relative to Europe.

It takes two to make peace.

When one side wants to redress historical wrongs against Russia. Then peace might be desirable. But is not possible.

Russians were open to the idea of peaceful coexistence with the west till about 2007. After that they started responding to the west in the west's own language.

This war win or lose is the war for the existence of the Russian state it self. Putin or no Putin this war was going to be fought.

The question is who's will to prevail is greater. The collective west or the Russians state.

Who cares if Russia can be accepted as a member of the collective west.

Cyrano · Post by **Cyrano** » 14 Sep 2022 13:22

ks_sachin wrote:
Cyrano wrote: If there are any other really solid explanations, I'm all ears.
SNAFU perhaps in the strictest sense of the acronym and slang.

That's too easy Sachin Bhai, in saying so, you are calling not just Russians but also us forumites discussing this topic idiots. That's a disappointing comment from you.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 14 Sep 2022 13:30

Pratyush wrote:
It takes two to make peace.

When one side wants to redress historical wrongs against Russia. Then peace might be desirable. But is not possible.

Russians were open to the idea of peaceful coexistence with the west till about 2007. After that they started responding to the west in the west's own language.

This war win or lose is the war for the existence of the Russian state it self. Putin or no Putin this war was going to be fought.

The question is who's will to prevail is greater. The collective west or the Russians state.

Who cares if Russia can be accepted as a member of the collective west.

As an example to this we now have Georgia fishing in troubled waters:

https://odessa-journal.com/georgia-prop ... th-russia/

Cyrano · Post by **Cyrano** » 14 Sep 2022 13:44

Tanaji wrote:EU or NATO does not have to invade Russia to cross red lines. It can constantly keep biting off enclaves off Russia using its more rabid proxies such as Poland and Ukraine.

And Georgia, Armenia, Bylorussia, Kazakistan....

There is, or was until this war began, a healthy respect for classical Russian culture be it art, music, literature dance, theatre, performance arts etc. There were even expos of Russian art collections from Morozov and works of Ilya Repin (who is an absolute genius sans parallel) in Paris early 2022 which drew huge crowds.

Somehow Europe sees that classical Russia as different from Soviet Russia and today's Putin Russia. The first evokes admiration, the second acknowledgement of its power and atrocities and the last, apprehension and antagonism. Coldwar era NATO propaganda endures, there are few WW2 veterans alive today to say otherwise, and fewer who are listened to.

So destabilising Russia is seen as a just and needed endeavour by most EU countries, lest it becomes too agressive again and attacks them. That such preemptive destabilising will itself make Russia feel sufficiently annoyed and threatened and make this a self fulfilling prophesy is lost on the intellectually and morally weak woke leadership we have in Brussels and most European countries at the moment.

Unkil is always happy to fi(u)nd a conflict far from its shores and profit from it.

Cyrano · Post by **Cyrano** » 14 Sep 2022 14:24

Deans wrote: At that stage, if Putin had to prepare for war, Russia should have done the following:
--snip--

Agree Dean's ji,
Putin got some big stuff right, but missed many others.

The speed with which the Ru reserves were frozen and sanctions were announced with full agreement of US, UK, EU govts (which negotiate stuff like shape of bananas for years) was a dead giveaway for me. It was gamed in detail and the trap was sprung as soon as Putin stepped into Ukraine.

Its one thing to trap a wild animal but quite another to collar and subdue it. Despite some misses and surprises, even staunch critics of Russia have to ack their success in defeating the sanctions, protecting the Ruble, taking on Ukr+ EU+UK+US for 6 months and occupy territory nearly the size of England, some 100k + PoWs, and inflicted heavy casualties and destroyed billions of material. Some are calling Izuym area troop withdrawal which is a speck on the map, a huge Russian defeat, no doubt they are stimulated by the same stuff Zelinsky takes.
But where Putin and Russia earned my respect - I was among those who viewed Russia as a friendly spent force, nearly irrelevant but for its veto mostly due to my own ignorance - is how clearheaded Russian behaviour was AFTER the war started.
- They spared civilians and civilian infra consciously
- They didn't act with vengeance and hatred, treated pows fairly
- involved UN in Azovstal evacs and ZNPP
- Didn't respond to Bucha type provocations and slander in kind
- They continued to supply EU with gas and oil for months and hitnored contracts but for payment in Rubles
- Their discourse stayed out of the hysterical entitled realm occupied by the west
- they are always willing to talk to Macron, Scholz, even blinken etc

When there is nothing compelling them to.

Their adversaires have done all the opposite out of delusion and spite, also when nothing was compelling them to!

In some fundamental ways I see Russia behaving like I imagine today's India would in similar circumstances.

Deans · Post by **Deans** » 14 Sep 2022 14:39

In several posts I have commented on Russia's lack of infantry (as have experts). Given the Indian experience, I can't help thinking their infantrymen also lack the ability to risk their lives for the larger mission of the `paltan'. Russians capture a position (a trench, or bunker with an infantry squad or fire team of 4 people), after prolonged artillery fire or direct tank fire. Their infantry move forward only when the position shows no sign of life. That can take days. Infantry uses armored vehicles as much as possible, which are increasingly vulnerable to ATGMs.
In an IA infantry battalion, a squad might take that position on their own, with infantry crawling forward and risking their lives to get to grenade throwing distance.

In the Russian gallantry award citations I have looked at, there are none for the kind of action I described above. Its mostly like `pulled crew members out of burning tank', or continued firing when wounded.

The best and highest paid Russian troops are the Wagner mercenaries, who have the least incentive to die for their country.

Cyrano · Post by **Cyrano** » 14 Sep 2022 15:02

Deans ji,
Is it because Russian leadership has ordered minimising personnel losses as important and is being followed faithfully at every level?
Losing a position or time to accomplish a given mission is mandated to be secondary to troop preservation I think.
Russia is very much unwilling to fight till the last soldier at this stage on occupied territory.
My gut feel is they fully expect NATO to drag this longer and at some stage get involved with their troops and attack Russian territory, so they want to manage their resources carefully.

In the peak of winter the freezing EU people will start pressuring their govts big time for resolution. What is the likelihood these same EU leaders will choose compromise (=admitting they were wrong all along) instead of desperate doubling down and engage in all out war? German greens will prove to be worse ideologues (there are plenty of others who will gleefully join in) than hard core communists of the past and push Europe into frontal military confrontation aided by idiotic UK leaders and egged on by US I'm afraid. They won't hesitate to sacrifice this hyperconsumption capitalistic Gaia raping society to "save the planet" which some of them openly say will be better off without humans. And I'm not exaggerating.

The chances that sanity will prevail at that moment seem remote to me.