The Russian Invasion of Ukraine Part 4

[a_unique_person]

They are barely moving.

They are moving. The Russians destroy an area with artillery. Then they occupy it. Then they move the artillery forward and repeat. It's barbaric and brutal but it's working. The Ukranians have less people to lose than the Russians.

 

[SpitfireIX]

As has been discussed, the Ukrainians' far greater willingness to accept casualties will more than make up for Russia's larger population. Putin may not care how many soldiers he loses, but the Russian people do. And they will find out the truth eventually, despite Putin's best efforts at censorship.

 

[Jimbo07]

It's not totally one-sided, yet. Ukraine is claiming an air-to-air kill. The fact that we're even talking about a viable airforce three months in is something! I have my fingers crossed that Ukraine's Herculean effort doesn't end up being in vain.

That said, for eveyone touting Western resupply, not everything is reaching the front as quickly as it needs to. Ukraine has said it can't use only a few artillery pieces at a time, and were suggesting a pullback to consolidate. Even so, the attrition rate is going to have to go even higher to compensate for Russian superiority in numbers of personnel and shells.

ETA:

the Russian people do. And they will find out the truth eventually, despite Putin's best efforts at censorship.

See my post above. Hoping that someday, maybe, some Russians might rise up is not currently an effective military strategy.

 

[SpitfireIX]

If Putin is so unconcerned about Russian public opinion, then why hasn't he formally declared war on Ukraine? It would make things a lot simpler.

Additionally, Putin's popularity doesn't just insulate him against a domestic uprising. It also reduces his vulnerability to a coup, as any would-be conspirators are much more likely to move against an unpopular leader than a popular one.

 

[Oystein]

...
A couple of weeks ago we had all kinds of stories about how effective the NATO-supplied 155mm howitzers were, how long-range anti-ship missiles were on the way, what a great job the anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles were doing. That's all gone very quiet now so maybe those weapons systems aren't as effective as we'd hoped against the current Russian tactics of simply laying waste to towns and cities before advancing.

Two or three days ago, I read a short article where someone in the UA army was quoted as saying something to the effect that some of the Western artillery has arrived and been put into action, and is already improving their performance greatly. He compared the change from old Soviet gear to Western gear as switching from a steam train to an electric car - so much more efficient and precise.

I did nothing to verify this, nor where such gear might be deployed, and how much, and how much of a difference it makes.
Just pointing out that at least someone there says it is making a nice difference.

 

[a_unique_person]

As has been discussed, the Ukrainians' far greater willingness to accept casualties will more than make up for Russia's larger population. Putin may not care how many soldiers he loses, but the Russian people do. And they will find out the truth eventually, despite Putin's best efforts at censorship.

They aren't supermen, a lot of them are volunteers going through hell. Morale is suffering and desertions are happening.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I hope that the strategy of training up motivated locals and give them the weapons they need will become the norm for US military intervention going forward - it's clearly way more effective than what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's cheaper and it's less likely to create an entire generation that hates us.

 

[Andy_Ross]

They are moving. The Russians destroy an area with artillery. Then they occupy it. Then they move the artillery forward and repeat. It's barbaric and brutal but it's working. The Ukranians have less people to lose than the Russians.

you don't think that there is artillery going the other way too?

It's war, how else do you think they are going to do it?

 

[theprestige]

I hope that the strategy of training up motivated locals and give them the weapons they need will become the norm for US military intervention going forward - it's clearly way more effective than what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's cheaper and it's less likely to create an entire generation that hates us.

Same here. I've long felt that the thing to do with war refugees is put them in training camps, arm and train them, and send them back to fight for their homeland.

Not offer them indefinite asylum while we stand idly by and watch their homeland burn.

 

[theprestige]

And I still think NATO* could end this conflict in less than a week, just with stealth airstrikes on Russian artillery and supply lines.

 

[Ziggurat]

I hope that the strategy of training up motivated locals and give them the weapons they need will become the norm for US military intervention going forward - it's clearly way more effective than what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's cheaper and it's less likely to create an entire generation that hates us.

We did that in Afghanistan, in the '80's. And it was cheap. But it still didn't work out so well in the end. We also did that in Nicaragua, also in the 80's. Remember the whole Contras thing? Also cheap, but not especially effective.

Ukraine is a lot different than Afghanistan, I'm not expecting a similar outcome there. But arming and training locals isn't a new concept, we've done it before plenty of times.

 

[Andy_Ross]

And I still think NATO* could end this conflict in less than a week, just with stealth airstrikes on Russian artillery and supply lines.

That's nice but it isn't a NATO war.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

If Putin is so unconcerned about Russian public opinion, then why hasn't he formally declared war on Ukraine? It would make things a lot simpler.
.

one reason has been suggested: by not declaring it a war, he might have a much easier time not getting prosecuted for war crimes - in times of war, he would be the Commander in Chief, the one ultimately responsible for the actions of his troops.
But if there is no war, he can use some general as a scapegoat.

 

[Ziggurat]

And I still think NATO* could end this conflict in less than a week, just with stealth airstrikes on Russian artillery and supply lines.

Well, NATO as an organization cannot do this. NATO is a purely defensive organization. NATO members could do this on their own, but that's a major escalation which carries significant risk. And I think a country which does this doesn't get article 5 protection against a counter-attack.

 

[Ziggurat]

If Putin is so unconcerned about Russian public opinion,

Every dictator is always concerned with public opinion.

The real question is how vulnerable he is to it. And that's a function of how likely that opinion is to change, how much it might change, and how much of a threat that would be to his power. On that front, I'm not sure he is very vulnerable. But even if I'm right about that, it's in large part because of Putin's efforts to control public opinion and crack down on opposition, which he does precisely because he cares about it.

Additionally, Putin's popularity doesn't just insulate him against a domestic uprising. It also reduces his vulnerability to a coup, as any would-be conspirators are much more likely to move against an unpopular leader than a popular one.

Yes, I agree with that.

 

[theprestige]

Well, NATO as an organization cannot do this. NATO is a purely defensive organization. NATO members could do this on their own, but that's a major escalation which carries significant risk. And I think a country which does this doesn't get article 5 protection against a counter-attack.

I'm using NATO* as a shorthand for "nations that are all NATO members, but are acting independently outside of the letter of the NATO agreement, to support Ukraine with the exact same equipment, doctrine, and supporting resources they'd be using in an official NATO campaign".

I honestly don't understand why we're still quibbling over this.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm using NATO* as a shorthand for "nations that are all NATO members, but are acting independently outside of the letter of the NATO agreement, to support Ukraine with the exact same equipment, doctrine, and supporting resources they'd be using in an official NATO campaign".

I honestly don't understand why we're still quibbling over this.

The distinction needs to be made explicit because the fact that article 5 doesn't protect individual NATO members who attack Russia is pretty damn important and needs to be made explicit as well. That's why I think it doesn't suffice to say NATO as shorthand for NATO members acting outside the NATO umbrella.

 

[jimbob]

I hope that the strategy of training up motivated locals and give them the weapons they need will become the norm for US military intervention going forward - it's clearly way more effective than what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's cheaper and it's less likely to create an entire generation that hates us.

I thought that in 2001 as well.

We provided sufficient support for the Northern Alliance to topple the Taleban and then after they had fallen, we sent troops in to fight an insurgency.

 

[theprestige]

The distinction needs to be made explicit because the fact that article 5 doesn't protect individual NATO members who attack Russia is pretty damn important and needs to be made explicit as well. That's why I think it doesn't suffice to say NATO as shorthand for NATO members acting outside the NATO umbrella.

I had no idea any of that was still in doubt, among the regulars in this thread.

 

[Ziggurat]

I had no idea any of that was still in doubt, among the regulars in this thread.

Lots of threads have occasional lurkers, and I expect ones about current events of wide interest to have plenty of them.