Assessing the Russian Military Campaign in Ukraine (so far)

[Rico]

The Chieftain: There are a lot of videos coming out of Ukraine, leading to a lot of opinions. Not to be a wet blanket, but I caution that these are merely small data points, and normally will only permit conclusions supported by that one snippet, not larger trends.

Interesting question posed towards end of video: Where are the large Ukrainian mechanised/armoured maneuver units?

 

[Rico]

Great assessment...

 

[Abbasid111]

I'm getting to the point where I am doubting if any of the TV 'expert' talking heads no what the hell they are talking about. The Battlefront forum thread on this war is much more informed and analytical then they are!

 

[Bones26]

“It’s often been observed that the first casualty of war is the truth. But that’s a lie, too, in its way. The reality is that, for most wars to begin, the truth has to have been sacrificed a long time in advance.”​

— L. Neil Smith

Cheers!

 

[Septic Limb]

Thank you for sharing both of those videos Rico.

I have some thoughts that I feel like tossing out.

What are Russia's actual objectives?

Everything I hear is that they are trying to take over the country. Yet if you think about how they started the conflict it doesn't add up. They opened with classic military targets but didn't really hit many logistic targets, like bridges, rail tracks, rail stations, water treatment plants, power plants, etc. Up to last week, people were still fleeing Kiev by train. I haven't heard of any highways getting bombed either. You would think they would disrupt Ukraine's ability to move men and material around as much as possible. Which would include flooding the area with fleeing civilians by removing standard transport services and routes.
To me, it appears that Russia has solidified its control of Crimea and created a land bridge from Crimea to the DPR. It also looks like they have reinforced the DPR along with the LPR and have pushed the Ukrainians from those borders. They have advanced towards Kiev from the north and northeast in what appears to be a pressure move which I think is to force Zelensky into negotiating Ukraine's neutrality policy. They have openly stateted what they are looking for at the table and it fits with what territory gains have been.


Why would Russia invade in the spring?

They are well aware of their mud season and how it cripples invading armies. They were doing some serious flexing on the border before this to intimidate Ukraine in regards to the DPR and LPR. I also came across some reports and recorded video of 20FEB22 that showed a Ukrainian offensive on the DPR. I did not download or save the video or report and can no longer find them (not unheard of nowadays) so I cannot back it up with the resource. As far as I could tell the attack was stopped dead but the next day, on the 21st, Russia officially recognized the Republics and started moving their "Peace Keeping" forces into the territories. Point is that it kind of looks like a situation where Ukraine ignored Russia and started a new offensive to take the Donetsk and Lugansk regions back and Russia had to commit. It is really the only scenario I can see that can explain what's happening. Nobody actually thought that they would invade and I would even suggest that Russia didn't think were going to either. It would explain why they seem so out of operational tempo, they committed to a half thought out "what if" plan. At the start of mud season for the icing on this crap cake.


That was a bit of a ramble but I figured I would throw that out there for discussion's sake.

 

[Bones26]

Thank you for sharing both of those videos Rico.

I have some thoughts that I feel like tossing out.

What are Russia's actual objectives?

Everything I hear is that they are trying to take over the country. Yet if you think about how they started the conflict it doesn't add up. They opened with classic military targets but didn't really hit many logistic targets, like bridges, rail tracks, rail stations, water treatment plants, power plants, etc. Up to last week, people were still fleeing Kiev by train. I haven't heard of any highways getting bombed either. You would think they would disrupt Ukraine's ability to move men and material around as much as possible. Which would include flooding the area with fleeing civilians by removing standard transport services and routes.
To me, it appears that Russia has solidified its control of Crimea and created a land bridge from Crimea to the DPR. It also looks like they have reinforced the DPR along with the LPR and have pushed the Ukrainians from those borders. They have advanced towards Kiev from the north and northeast in what appears to be a pressure move which I think is to force Zelensky into negotiating Ukraine's neutrality policy. They have openly stated what they are looking for at the table and it fits with what territory gains have been.


Why would Russia invade in the spring?

They are well aware of their mud season and how it cripples invading armies. They were doing some serious flexing on the border before this to intimidate Ukraine in regards to the DPR and LPR. I also came across some reports and recorded video of 20FEB22 that showed a Ukrainian offensive on the DPR. I did not download or save the video or report and can no longer find them (not unheard of nowadays) so I cannot back it up with the resource. As far as I could tell the attack was stopped dead but the next day, on the 21st, Russia officially recognized the Republics and started moving their "Peace Keeping" forces into the territories. Point is that it kind of looks like a situation where Ukraine ignored Russia and started a new offensive to take the Donetsk and Lugansk regions back and Russia had to commit. It is really the only scenario I can see that can explain what's happening. Nobody actually thought that they would invade and I would even suggest that Russia didn't think were going to either. It would explain why they seem so out of operational tempo, they committed to a half thought out "what if" plan. At the start of mud season for the icing on this crap cake.


That was a bit of a ramble but I figured I would throw that out there for discussion's sake.

Thanks for your thoughts and not a ramble at all.

In fact an all-together highly plausible explanation for trying to understand Russia's decision to invade & its timing. (F.Y.I. an internet search did turn up various reports of some provocative Ukrainian military actions within the Donbas region on February 20th, but the sourcing & credibility of these reports are likely to be deemed suspect depending on one's biases i.e. Reported by TeleSur24 Television Network Venezuela). Also from my cursory reading these reports, they did not appear to suggest that these latest actions were any more provocative than other such incidents in the past. And it is common for both sides to periodically engage in these activities. But then again, in the past one didn't have 170-190,000 Russian troops on the border.

Insofar as Russia taking over the country, if one is suggesting the subjugation of the country and annexing is as part of a larger Russian Federation, I don't think so. One would be talking about militarily taking over a developed country with a population of some 43 million people, now bristling with billions of dollars of arms and armaments'. This with Russia having a total active armed forces of roughly 900,000 personnel (Another 2 million in reserves) . One just need look at contemporary history and the success the U.S. has had in its military efforts to 'nation build' in countries of comparable size and far less armed or organized. And I'm also sure Putin remembers as well Russia's own somewhat recent past efforts in that regard.

However, if one means by that, in the sense of a coup and installing their own Executive branch, I could see that as somewhat plausible if one harkens back to the Maidan Coup in 2014 that installed the current Ukraine regime and that had U.S. backing. That would perhaps help explain why the critical infrastructure has been largely spared. Why destroy more of the country you purportedly want to take over than you have to right...? But I don't see that as likely either as I think the country would inevitably break apart into various warring factions, and that doesn't enhance Russia's security much, as it opens the door to provide justification for other outside influences. And we are back to wash, rinse & repeat.

So I agree that your analysis that at the end of the day "...that Russia has solidified its control of Crimea and created a land bridge from Crimea to the DPR. It also looks like they have reinforced the DPR along with the LPR and have pushed the Ukrainians from those borders." appears to be the most sensible & logical. Also your thesis is entirely consistent with Putin's & other official Russian past pronouncements on the question of security for the ethnic Russian population within the Donbas region and with respect to Ukraine's geopolitical alignment i.e. NATO, over the past several years.

Cheers!

 

[olaf]

The Times’s Visual Investigations team analyzed dozens of battlefield radio transmissions between Russian forces during an initial invasion of the town of Makariv, outside Kyiv. They reveal an army struggling with logistical problems and communication failures.

Subscribe: http://bit.ly/U8Ys7n
More from The New York Times Video: http://nytimes.com/video
----------
Whether it's reporting on conflicts abroad and political divisions at home, or covering the latest style trends and scientific developments, New York Times video journalists provide a revealing and unforgettable view of the world. It's all the news that's fit to watch.

 

[Gnarly]

In depth video of a Ukranian ATGM team (Stugna-P?) setting up, acquiring and engaging targets, including target selection discussions... And also (possibly?) the reloader reloading whilst the first missile still enroute, ruining the first shot?

 

[Nemesis]

Still think that the American and Russian campaigns are comparable @Bones26 ?

In any case, you did have a valid point that will likely now play itself out. The battle for UKR will now move to the wide open Eastern Steppe. The Russians will have a massive advantage here. The UKR Army may be destroyed or have to pull back to more closed in terrain.

To provide some perspective, for what it's worth:

'The 2003 invasion of Iraq was the first stage of the Iraq War. The invasion phase began on 19 March 2003 (air) and 20 March 2003 (ground) and lasted just over one month, including 26 days of major combat operations, in which a combined force of troops from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland invaded Iraq. The capital city of Baghdad was captured by Coalition forces on April 9, 2003 after the six day long Battle of Baghdad.'

I would also suspect that the more varied terrain (i.e. not flat desert) and greater prevalence of urban infrastructure & environments situated within the operational theater, and also the likely higher proficiency level of Ukrainian forces & available armaments than the Iraqi army had at their disposal, should not be discounted in assessing the campaign thus far.

Cheers!

 

[Rico]

 

[Bones26]

Still think that the American and Russian campaigns are comparable @Bones26 ?

@ Nemesis,

Not really, but then again, that wasn't my intention.

At the time of that post on March 7th, I was simply putting forth the observation that in those still early days of the campaign (2 weeks in) that it might be a bit premature to critique the Russian forces performance, and offered the historically recent Iraq campaign as a comparative.

And to some extent, even today, given the near total black-out here in the West of credible, factual, unbiased reporting coming from the various battle fronts, assessing either sides overall military performance would be simply conjecture at best. Particularly when we are still in the dark of what are the Russians specific strategic political objectives and how those considerations might be impacting the conduct of their military campaign as a consequence.

For my part presently, I am interested in seeing what direction the campaign will take should the Russian forces eventually secure Mariupol. (which I suspect will be likely). I believe, like what @Septic Limb alluded to in his March 24th post, that the reason why fighting has been so intense at this location is the city is the remaining obstacle to a major Russian strategic goal of opening a “land bridge” between the annexed territory of Crimea, taken by the Kremlin in 2014, and the eastern Donbas region long coveted by Moscow.

Another consideration for Russia to be concentrating on this strategic location would be its ability to hobble the Ukrainian economy. By taking Mariupol, Moscow would control the vast majority of Ukraine’s Black Sea coastline, a vital route for the country’s exports of grain, sunflower oil, coal and steel. Mariupol has the deep berths necessary for large vessels and its loss would represent a significant blow to Kyiv’s export capacity.

And lastly, from a purely propaganda perspective when Putin announced the invasion on February 24, he claimed the goal of Russia’s so-called “special military operation” was the liberation of Donbas from neo-Nazis. Given Mariupol is being defended in large measure by the Azov Brigade (long accused of harboring neo-Nazi elements), eliminating them from the equation would allow Putin to secure a 'win' of sorts on that front.

So should the Russians succeed in this effort, I would not be at all surprised to then see them curtail further ambitious offensive thrusts into much of the rest of Ukraine, except maybe up to Dnieper River, as its a natural defensive position. And instead focus on initiating aggressive 'security' measures throughout the Donbas region and seek to consolidate their hold on those territories and place them even more firmly in their hands. Then from that outcome look to secure a cease-fire.

Of course if the Russians are still in the rest of Ukraine proper 8 years after their invasion, I might have to reassess this position

Cheers!

 

[Septic Limb]

The Russian pressure on Kiev was working. Three times Ukraine publicly stated they where willing to have serious talks with Russia. Every time the US and/or other NATO countries sent a couple hundred million dollars over in "support". I think that Russia realized this wasn't going to work and pulled out because they never intended to actually take Kiev.

Pushing to the Dnieper and then fortifying for the Ukrainian counter attack would be the next move. If they can crush the counter attack then that may have Ukraine sit down at the table without NATO in their ear. Ukraine can receive all the money and equipment it could ever need but they only have so many people they can fight with.

 

[Bones26]

The Russian pressure on Kiev was working. Three times Ukraine publicly stated they where willing to have serious talks with Russia. Every time the US and/or other NATO countries sent a couple hundred million dollars over in "support". I think that Russia realized this wasn't going to work and pulled out because they never intended to actually take Kiev.

Pushing to the Dnieper and then fortifying for the Ukrainian counter attack would be the next move. If they can crush the counter attack then that may have Ukraine sit down at the table without NATO in their ear. Ukraine can receive all the money and equipment it could ever need but they only have so many people they can fight with.

@Septic Limb

Agreed. I was never convinced that the pressure on Kiev was anything other than a tactical maneuver likely intended to both pressure the Ukrainian government as well as hold down the Ukrainian forces defending the Capital and away from the Donbas front.

In my response above regarding why I felt the city of Mariupol was of some strategic importance to the Russians, I overlooked the fact that the city of Odessa which is further west along the coast and is also a significant transportation hub and major seaport onto the Black Sea, is still under Ukrainian control.

The issue as I see it is, if Russia were to make a significant move on Odessa via land forces coming from the East along the coast, they would face at least 4 major rivers & estuary's that would provide both important natural defensive positions and choke points (i.e. at Kherson & Mykolaiv for example) to any such advance. To-date I'm not aware of any naval landing forces being assembled that would indicate an operation coming from the Black Sea

Given it is the Ukraine's third largest city and its capture would basically landlock Ukraine, as well as push Russian control right up to the Moldavian border, which is not a NATO member and thus help provide a buffer on its western flank, do you think the Russians will make a push to take it as well?

Cheers!

(P.S. Sorry for the misspelling of your handle in that previous post, I have since corrected that error.)

 

[A Canadian Cat]

Agreed. I was never convinced that the pressure on Kiev was anything other than a tactical maneuver likely intended to both pressure the Ukrainian government as well as hold down the Ukrainian forces defending the Capital and away from the Donbas front.

That would only make sense if there was a significant push from the east while the forces threaten Kyiv from the north but that really hadn't been the case.

What makes me think they did mean to take Kyiv is the air borne assaults on the airports. It is pretty clear the plan was a quick landing followed by a march into the capital from the North to end this in a matter of days. Terrible plan against a determined defender but that was the plan non the less. Plus they didn't give up on the plan until their forces in the North were pretty much ragged from their efforts and the whole time only small effort seemed to be made in the East.

 

[Bones26]

That would only make sense if there was a significant push from the east while the forces threaten Kyiv from the north but that really hadn't been the case.

What makes me think they did mean to take Kyiv is the air borne assaults on the airports. It is pretty clear the plan was a quick landing followed by a march into the capital from the North to end this in a matter of days. Terrible plan against a determined defender but that was the plan non the less. Plus they didn't give up on the plan until their forces in the North were pretty much ragged from their efforts and the whole time only small effort seemed to be made in the East.

@A Canadian Cat:

I see your point, however a look at the current battle map does show significant Russian penetration in the East none-the-less, but I do understand what your getting at and I wouldn't dismiss your argument.

Perhaps its just me, but I have a hard time believing that they would want to try take and hold Kyiv given the substantial force attrition they would no doubt suffer engaging in a protracted offensive effort in such an urbanized city environment. Prior to the invasion, the city limits of Kyiv encompassed an area of some 780 square kilometers and it enjoyed a population of roughly 2.9 million people. Again, simply for comparison purposes, Fallujah had a population of only some 275,000 inhabitants and occupied just 10.5 square kilometers when the Islamic State first took control of it, and even though its population declined significantly following that operation, it still took just over a month to wrest control of that city back from ISIS in the second battle for the city. And again, I would have to think ISIS did not enjoy the same level of organization, training, nor the quantity of sophisticated armaments that the Ukrainians now enjoy. To say nothing of a highly motivated citizen population who might have decided to remain behind to conduct urban guerilla operations against the Russian forces.

Insofar as the airborne assault on the airport is concerned, whether if it was intended as a prelude to a more substantial invasion as you suggest or not, wouldn't it be a prime target of some tactical importance to wrest control of it in any case, if for no other reason than to deny its use as by the West for the airlift of arms etc. into the battle zone?

Cheers!

 

[Septic Limb]

@Bones26

I don't think they will push for Odessa, they will just concentrate on the east. They got the land but failed on getting Ukraine locked into a neutral non-EU/NATO country. What I do expect to see in the near future is Russia smashing the arms and equipment shipments pouring into Ukraine. I suspect that they are currently being escorted by NATO personnel so Russia wont hit them but how long can that last?

 

[Aurelius]

Yesterday, the 124th Logistics Support Center in Lvov was hit. Lvov is the first destination for western equipment. Furthermore, the trickle of western equipment isn't enough to sustain continuous combat. The most acute crisis is in 152 mm shells, which is the main killer of the war. We produce them, but chances of us (Serbia) selling them to Ukraine is low. Switching to 155 mm is possible, but too little too late.

 

[Bones26]

Yesterday, the 124th Logistics Support Center in Lvov was hit. Lvov is the first destination for western equipment. Furthermore, the trickle of western equipment isn't enough to sustain continuous combat. The most acute crisis is in 152 mm shells, which is the main killer of the war. We produce them, but chances of us (Serbia) selling them to Ukraine is low. Switching to 155 mm is possible, but too little too late.

@Aurelius

My first thought when I heard about the attack on Lvov was, why would they be hitting so far west and independent of any on-going offensive actions in that area, and once I saw its relative proximity to Poland, I figured supply interdiction had to be behind the attack. Thanks for the added precision.

F.Y.I.

From today's Military News Headlines

US troops to train Ukrainian soldiers how to operate American 155mm towed howitzer Army Recognition07:18

Cheers!

 

[Aurelius]

@Bones26 I am aware of the training and shipment of 18 towed howitzers (if memory serves me). That should have started long before the war to have any impact on the events. As it is, it will only serve to prolong the whole war and bring even more misery to Ukrainians.

 

[Bones26]

@Bones26

I don't think they will push for Odessa, they will just concentrate on the east. They got the land but failed on getting Ukraine locked into a neutral non-EU/NATO country. What I do expect to see in the near future is Russia smashing the arms and equipment shipments pouring into Ukraine. I suspect that they are currently being escorted by NATO personnel so Russia wont hit them but how long can that last?

@Septic Limb

Alas, here we must part ways...lol.

I can't help but feel that one way or another, Odessa is untimely going to play a pivotal role in the eventual outcome of this conflict or find itself being the raison d'etre for the next one. As I see it, Russia having come this far would be negligent to leave its flank needlessly exposed. And if as you suggest they are indeed failing "...on getting Ukraine locked into a neutral non-EU/NATO country." then if they really want to seriously hobble Ukraine and make it an even less attractive candidate for eventual NATO membership, I can't see how they can let in remain in Ukrainian hands. Besides with the rest of the Black Sea coastline now in Russian hands, here are simply to many military & geo-political ramifications for the region to leave Odessa like a little Gibraltar in their back yard..

If Russia waits and a peace or cease fire of sorts is eventually arranged and Odessa still remains in Ukrainian hands, then as sure as the sun rises, I really believe that then it will only be a matter of time before it becomes the flashpoint for the next conflict.

And if I'm right in that assessment, I'm afraid its going to be an ugly affair.

Cheers!