The Russian Invasion of Ukraine Part 4

[arthwollipot]

This post has aged well.

There will be no Ukrainian counter-offensive. It is essentially over already. As Putin said, they haven't even started yet (paraphrasing). I lurk in your thread and I admire your intention, but these people will stay with you for a long time. The Ukraine is toast.

 

[Pixel42]

This post has aged well.

As I said at the time:

I'm looking forward to adding this to the "Things Childlike Empress was 100% wrong about" list.

 

[The Don]

This post has aged well.

I'm sure that there are *reasons* why this is not a counterattack

These might include:

• Reports of Ukrainian gains on the Kherson front are fake news, Russia is holding its positions comfortably, and even advancing
• Any Ukrainian "gains" are merely the result of Russian forces making tactical withdrawals for humanitarian and/or sound military reasons
• The gains are so minor that they don't really count as a counterattack, merely the ebb and flow of the front
• This is not a Ukrainian counterattack, it's a NATO attack on Russia

I'm sure there are many others we'll get to enjoy in three weeks or so.

 

[The Don]

Thank you for the comprehensive response. I'll try to keep this to a manageable length.

Really? I'm not getting that message at all.

The message I'm getting is that Russia has less military resources to spend than previously estimated; that they're spending those resources at a high rate for marginal gains; that this rate of spending cannot be sustained much longer; and that this combined with Ukraine's (equally surprising) resilience means there is a growing chance that Ukraine can not only resist the Russian advance, but even turn the tide of battle and drive the Russians back.

The thing is that we've been told for a considerable time now that they're expending forces at a and that it cannot be sustained - and yet here we are, nearly six months in and it seems that it can be sustained.

Yes, that would be the ideal result. Have you ever heard of a bust-out? In the later stages, a business can already be hollowed out and incapable of ever resuming normal operations, while still finding a final few sources of credit to exploit before it's fully used up. I suspect that's probably the core of the western strategy right now: Force Putin to run a bust-out on his own armed forces, in an attempt to keep things going in Ukraine. I think the Russian military is already deep in it, probably too far to recover at this point. The only question is how much longer Putin can or will keep the bust-out going.

What if that never happens, or more accurately what happens if this takes years. Russia is amply financed thanks to their commodities sales and there seems to be no shortage of equipment. The type of war they've settled on doesn't require anything leading edge, their vast reserves of Soviet-era hardware is adequate for the job

*That* is your concern? Hasn't the actual sequence of events been the opposite? Prior to February, it seems Western intelligence believed that Russia's strength and capability was far greater than it has turned out to be. The west has been gearing up for a near-peer conflict. They expected the Russian army to be a less-advanced, but still well-equipped and highly competent fighting force, with some areas of true excellence, such as air defense and long-range artillery.

Now that we see them in action, we're realizing they're barely up to the challenge of holding their own against Ukraine. Their air defenses are okay. Their long-range artillery is okay. Their logistics are ass. Their training and maintenance are ass. Their morale is probably somewhere between okay and ass.

It's clear that Russia is still able to field some functional formations. But the level of functionality, and the total number of units being fielded, is far less than what we expected.

If Putin had a mass of well-equipped, well-trained, highly competent troops, it was probably the ones he committed to Kiev, which were thrown back and apparently destroyed.

It's amazing that in a world where it's clear that Russian military officials have successfully over-represented their actual numbers and readiness, you still insist on believing those things have been under-represented.

And yet here they are, still grinding away making marginal gains in the east and reinforcing the Kherson front. Their forces may be ass, but they've settled on tactics which they're able to execute AND they're succeeding in one of their objectives, to severely weaken Ukraine economically.

That doesn't make any sense. Russians are not magic. Russia is holding out because they're throwing more and more of what we know to be limited reserves at a smaller area of operation in an attempt to hang onto very limited gains.

The only thing we don't know for sure is exactly how long Russia can sustain this level of spend, for these marginal gains. We're pretty sure it won't be long enough to exhaust western support for Ukraine. And at the moment it doesn't seem like it will soon exhaust the Ukrainian willingness to keep fighting.

Ukraine's biggest problem right now is limited manpower. If they do counterattack, they probably won't have the troops to try it more than a few times. So it makes sense that they would chip away at the Russians in the meantime, waiting until they've built up enough of an advantage, and deteriorated the enemy forces sufficiently, to initiate a decisive battle in their favor.

IMO Russia can keep plodding on with such high rates of losses because their tactics are so unsophisticated. Western units rely on specialists, intelligence and mobility. A few losses in key areas can significantly degrade their capability. OTOH if your approach is to simply pound your opponent with low-accuracy artillery and then make tiny advances once the city/town/village has been reduced to rubble then you can do this with a comparatively small number of relatively unskilled troops.

I think Russia has already passed the point where it will be ready for another go in a few years. Decades, maybe. If they carry out some major reforms, and also somehow rev up their economy.

The army that broke out in the east and also advanced on Kiev doesn't exist anymore. The army that's still fighting in the east is a lot weaker than we expected back in February.

For someone who supposedly wants the west to stay committed, you sure seem quick to discard "this is working, let's keep doing it" in favor of "this isn't working, let's rethink".

I think what we're doing is working. I think the Russian military is much weaker than we believed a year ago. I think it's probably hollowing itself out pretty quick, to keep up a strong front in the East. How strong that front actually is, and how fragile it will prove to be, if and when Ukraine counterattacks, remains to be seen.

Russia is still getting billions of dollars a week from commodity sales and as they move away from selling to the West to selling to Asia, they secure that income. You're absolutely right that they're not the "near peer" force we believed them to be a year ago but they've also demonstrated that they can still damage a country if they choose to do so. Even if Ukraine is able to recover the land taken by Russia, the costs of rebuilding will cripple the Ukrainian economy, meanwhile Russia can start, with Chinese, Iranian and Indian support, to rebuild.

It's already clear it's not strong enough to make any kind of major push, or drive the Ukrainians substantially back. I think the Secret Formations you fear, that will show up Real Soon Now to enable a Russian push, don't exist. Quite the opposite: I think the troops being sent to shore up the eastern front are going to be progressively weaker and weaker. I think Ukraine's biggest concern right now is not whether they could crush the Russians around Kherson, but whether they can do it with enough reserves to avoid a pyrrhic victory and leave themselves open to any half-assed invasion that might seek to take advantage. And I think that every week that passes, with the Russians trying to keep up appearances, and the Ukrainians getting stronger and stronger, tips the balance further in Ukraines favor.

I really, really hope you're right. When I saw the Russian withdrawal from around Kyiv I thought that Russia was significantly, perhaps fatally, weakened and that it would be months until they could re-field those units. Instead they managed to get them back into the meat grinder in a couple of weeks.

 

[jeremyp]

Thank you for the comprehensive response. I'll try to keep this to a manageable length.



The thing is that we've been told for a considerable time now that they're expending forces at a and that it cannot be sustained - and yet here we are, nearly six months in and it seems that it can be sustained.




What if that never happens, or more accurately what happens if this takes years. Russia is amply financed thanks to their commodities sales and there seems to be no shortage of equipment. The type of war they've settled on doesn't require anything leading edge, their vast reserves of Soviet-era hardware is adequate for the job



And yet here they are, still grinding away making marginal gains in the east and reinforcing the Kherson front. Their forces may be ass, but they've settled on tactics which they're able to execute AND they're succeeding in one of their objectives, to severely weaken Ukraine economically.





IMO Russia can keep plodding on with such high rates of losses because their tactics are so unsophisticated. Western units rely on specialists, intelligence and mobility. A few losses in key areas can significantly degrade their capability. OTOH if your approach is to simply pound your opponent with low-accuracy artillery and then make tiny advances once the city/town/village has been reduced to rubble then you can do this with a comparatively small number of relatively unskilled troops.




Russia is still getting billions of dollars a week from commodity sales and as they move away from selling to the West to selling to Asia, they secure that income. You're absolutely right that they're not the "near peer" force we believed them to be a year ago but they've also demonstrated that they can still damage a country if they choose to do so. Even if Ukraine is able to recover the land taken by Russia, the costs of rebuilding will cripple the Ukrainian economy, meanwhile Russia can start, with Chinese, Iranian and Indian support, to rebuild.

The problem with all of this is that you are theorising after the fact. For example, there was much speculation in the West before this whole thing began about what Putin's objectives were.

I really doubt that "weakening Ukraine economically" was in his list. It probably contained things like "install puppet government" or "annex Ukraine" or (more credibly) "establish land bridge to Crimea". When he invaded and went straight for Kyiv, it seemed like "install puppet government" was top of the list. They have failed in their initial objectives and now they are scrabbling for new ones to make it seem like they won.

As for their selling billions of dollars of commodities. Well they were doing that before the sanctions and even then their economy was only about the size of that of Texas. It's definitely smaller than that now. They may have the help of China to rebuild (or they may not) but Ukraine will have the help of the EU, the UK and the USA. Also, Ukraine will not be subject to crippling sanctions. Of Russia and Ukraine, Ukraine will recover faster.

I really, really hope you're right. When I saw the Russian withdrawal from around Kyiv I thought that Russia was significantly, perhaps fatally, weakened and that it would be months until they could re-field those units. Instead they managed to get them back into the meat grinder in a couple of weeks.

Well, they fielded some units with the same names and some of the same personnel. The fact that they've simply fed these "elite" units into the meat grinder is somewhat telling.

 

[The Don]

The problem with all of this is that you are theorising after the fact. For example, there was much speculation in the West before this whole thing began about what Putin's objectives were.

I really doubt that "weakening Ukraine economically" was in his list. It probably contained things like "install puppet government" or "annex Ukraine" or (more credibly) "establish land bridge to Crimea". When he invaded and went straight for Kyiv, it seemed like "install puppet government" was top of the list. They have failed in their initial objectives and now they are scrabbling for new ones to make it seem like they won.

As for their selling billions of dollars of commodities. Well they were doing that before the sanctions and even then their economy was only about the size of that of Texas. It's definitely smaller than that now. They may have the help of China to rebuild (or they may not) but Ukraine will have the help of the EU, the UK and the USA. Also, Ukraine will not be subject to crippling sanctions. Of Russia and Ukraine, Ukraine will recover faster.

Will the EU, UK and USA be willing to plough in $100bn-$200bn a year for the next 5, 10, 15 years while Ukraine rebuilds at the same time that UK and EU economies are suffering because of Russia's withdrawal of oil and gas supplies ?

Will US politicians be happy to provide this much money when people are clamouring for tax cuts and for money to be spent on Americans ?

Well, they fielded some units with the same names and some of the same personnel. The fact that they've simply fed these "elite" units into the meat grinder is somewhat telling.

Maybe it is, but those units are still slowly taking ground in the East.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Will the EU, UK and USA be willing to plough in $100bn-$200bn a year for the next 5, 10, 15 years while Ukraine rebuilds at the same time that UK and EU economies are suffering because of Russia's withdrawal of oil and gas supplies ?

Will US politicians be happy to provide this much money when people are clamouring for tax cuts and for money to be spent on Americans ?



Maybe it is, but those units are still slowly taking ground in the East.

There is no need to rebuild. The French helping out the colonists wasn't about advancing freedom, but advancing national interest. Almost all foreign aid is serving national interest, and it is on a nation itself to ultimately secure it's defense, sometimes independently.

At some point, aiding Ukraine will no longer serve Western interest, and they may lose, and that's fine.

 

[Ziggurat]

As for their selling billions of dollars of commodities. Well they were doing that before the sanctions and even then their economy was only about the size of that of Texas. It's definitely smaller than that now. They may have the help of China to rebuild (or they may not)

They won't. China will continue to buy stuff from them, but it's in no position to give them significant aid per se. The debt crisis that's exploding in slow motion in China will preclude anything of the sort.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Will the EU, UK and USA be willing to plough in $100bn-$200bn a year for the next 5, 10, 15 years while Ukraine rebuilds at the same time that UK and EU economies are suffering because of Russia's withdrawal of oil and gas supplies ?

Will US politicians be happy to provide this much money when people are clamouring for tax cuts and for money to be spent on Americans ?



Maybe it is, but those units are still slowly taking ground in the East.

Current best estimate to rebuild Ukraine is US$500 billion to one trillion.

About US$300 billion will come from frozen Russian assets. More will come from the EU and the non-EU G7. Additional money could be raised by requiring Russia to pay a portion of its energy revenue into a Ukraine reconstruction fund in return for being allowed to resume selling oil and gas to the West, as Iraq was required to do for Kuwait.

As for "slowly taking ground in the East," as we have discussed, continuing to slowly advance does not indicate that the advance is sustainable, and the Russians clearly can't sustain what they're doing in the long run.

 

[jimbob]

Further to what jlhas been said. There's a huge inertia in a war involving hundreds of thousands of combatants on both sides. Especially with the Ukrainian strategy of "corrosion" which is not very flashy or quick, not wiping out or capturing scores of BTGs, but degrading their ability to fight effectively through lots of different approaches.

It is a gradual degredation though.

 

[The Don]

As for "slowly taking ground in the East," as we have discussed, continuing to slowly advance does not indicate that the advance is sustainable, and the Russians clearly can't sustain what they're doing in the long run.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by the long run.

Decades ? Definitely not.

Could they keep it up for a year or two ? Well they certainly have a huge stockpile of low accuracy ammunition and artillery.

 

[timhau]

They won't. China will continue to buy stuff from them, but it's in no position to give them significant aid per se. The debt crisis that's exploding in slow motion in China will preclude anything of the sort.

Moreover, whatever "aid" China gives them, it will be of a form which leads to China owning significant chunks of Russia. And they have the muscle to assert their ownership, should Russia call it into question.

 

[SpitfireIX]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by the long run.

Decades ? Definitely not.

Could they keep it up for a year or two ? Well they certainly have a huge stockpile of low accuracy ammunition and artillery.

How large (and how reliable) Russia's stockpile of artillery ammunition is is questionable, but even taking your statement at face value, the fact that Russian ammunition depots keep blowing up tends to drastically reduce that stockpile's utility.

 

[Wudang]

How large (and how reliable) Russia's stockpile of artillery ammunition is is questionable, but even taking your statement at face value, the fact that Russian ammunition depots keep blowing up tends to drastically reduce that stockpile's utility.

Also the Russians seem to rely a lot on trains to move ordnance and UAF are doing a lot of damage to the rail network as part of the "corrosion" strategy. As a US General said some years back "amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics".

 

[Aridas]

Also the Russians seem to rely a lot on trains to move ordnance and UAF are doing a lot of damage to the rail network as part of the "corrosion" strategy. As a US General said some years back "amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics".

Speaking of trains...

Ukraine update: Russia loses two supply trains in a day ... but only one to Ukrainian attack

Southern axis, specifically.

 

[The Don]

Speaking of trains...

Ukraine update: Russia loses two supply trains in a day ... but only one to Ukrainian attack

Southern axis, specifically.

To paraphrase Lady Bracknell, to lose one supply train is unfortunate, to lose two suggests carelessness....

 

[jimbob]

Speaking of trains...

Ukraine update: Russia loses two supply trains in a day ... but only one to Ukrainian attack

Southern axis, specifically.

To paraphrase Lady Bracknell, to lose one supply train is unfortunate, to lose two suggests carelessness....

If it was indeed due to being overzealous in lighting a smokescreen to hide the ammunition train from visible reconnaissance and that set off the ammunition, then yes that is pretty careless. Or a way to minimise time being vulnerable to attack and rock bottom morale.

 

[jimbob]

Also the Russians seem to rely a lot on trains to move ordnance and UAF are doing a lot of damage to the rail network as part of the "corrosion" strategy. As a US General said some years back "amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics".

And more echoes of history, 79 years ago.

The railways are single track.

It's a good job the Russians seem to have learned nothing from the Great Patriotic War, despite it seeming to be larger in nationalist culture than the Battle of Britain is in UK nationalist culture.

 

[ponderingturtle]

If it was indeed due to being overzealous in lighting a smokescreen to hide the ammunition train from visible reconnaissance and that set off the ammunition, then yes that is pretty careless. Or a way to minimise time being vulnerable to attack and rock bottom morale.

There is always the poor handling by conscripts of munitions, compounded in this case by the poor storage conditions of them(I have seen pictures supposedly of russian artillery shells in crates sitting outside with some of the crates damaged from the enviroment). The Port Chicago disaster in WWII killed 300 from poor handling conditions

 

[ginjawarrior]

If it was indeed due to being overzealous in lighting a smokescreen to hide the ammunition train from visible reconnaissance and that set off the ammunition, then yes that is pretty careless. Or a way to minimise time being vulnerable to attack and rock bottom morale.

Talking of trains carrying ammo blowing up

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/wfgbpv/multiple_violent_explosions_as_a_result_of_himars/

That's a big one