Assessing the Russian Military Campaign in Ukraine (so far)

[A Canadian Cat]

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?

Yes, for sure if your plan was to take over an install a new government.

Come on guys. If their plan was to just expand the territory the stole in 2014 they could have done that. But they did not do that they tried to take the whole country fast and quiet and got their asses handed to them. I agree that one outcome we can potentially see is a frozen conflict with more of Ukraine under Russian control. The trouble for the Russians is that Ukraine gets some say in deciding when this ends. The have savaged the Russian invasion force. They have not won yet but I don't see why they would stop.

 

[A Canadian Cat]

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.

Is it a trickle though? There are a lot of Russian casulties and a lot of burned out hulks of Russian AFVs that say otherwise. My understanding is that Poland has their own manufacturing of 152 shells. They are already supplying Ukraine - they can add it to the list.

 

[Nemesis]

I see Russia's move to the East as trying to get the Ukrainian Army into the open steppe so that it can be destroyed.

Lots of people in this thread are speculating as to Russia's political and territorial ambitions. Some good hypotheses have been put forth.

However, RIGHT NOW I think that the Russians are focusing on destroying the Ukrainian Army which can't possibly go toe to toe with them on the open steppe.

Destroy the Ukrainian Army and everything else that Russia wants (and maybe more) becomes available.

BTW, the Russian Army was clearly expecting Ukraine to just collapse. The airport captures and a 40 mile long relief convoy moving on a pencil thin axis just scream, "we don't think you will put up any meaningful resistance." Russia was wrong, but then again Ukraine did very poorly in the earlier fights.

 

[Meat Grinder]

 

[Bones26]

I see Russia's move to the East as trying to get the Ukrainian Army into the open steppe so that it can be destroyed.

Lots of people in this thread are speculating as to Russia's political and territorial ambitions. Some good hypotheses have been put forth.

However, RIGHT NOW I think that the Russians are focusing on destroying the Ukrainian Army which can't possibly go toe to toe with them on the open steppe.

Destroy the Ukrainian Army and everything else that Russia wants (and maybe more) becomes available.

@Nemesis

If you'll allow me to play devils advocate here.

While getting the Ukrainian Army out onto the open steppes so that it can be destroyed would obviously be to Russia's advantage, as you yourself have noted, the Ukrainian forces also have a say in this as well, and knowing they would be grossly disadvantaged in such a battle, then why would they subject themselves to such a outcome and choose to fight on that battlefield? As far as I know, there is no inherent military value in the steppes that would justify the Ukrainians throwing their forces away going toe to toe for it.

Why not instead tactically retreat into urban areas and compel the Russians to come and force them out? Thus largely eliminating the mobility & strength of the Russian armor and instead making it more vulnerable to the kind of hand held anti-armor weapons that have flooded into the country from the West. An example of this tactic was the German retreat up the Moro River Valley and in Ortona in particular during WWII.

Apart from the attrition this kind of close quarter city fighting would inflict on the Russians, and as I see it once you get down the platoon level that kind of fighting would entail, I don't think the Russian Army posses any particular distinct advantage over the Ukrainians, the inevitable destruction of civilian infrastructure that would result from such urban warfare would continue to engender much sympathy in the West and ensure continued support for the Ukrainian cause.

Either way chalk it down to another hypothesis , time will eventually tell.

Cheers!

 

[Nemesis]

@Nemesis

If you'll allow me to play devils advocate here.

While getting the Ukrainian Army out onto the open steppes so that it can be destroyed would obviously be to Russia's advantage, as you yourself have noted, the Ukrainian forces also have a say in this as well, and knowing they would be grossly disadvantaged in such a battle, then why would they subject themselves to such a outcome and choose to fight on that battlefield? As far as I know, there is no inherent military value in the steppes that would justify the Ukrainians throwing their forces away going toe to toe for it.

Why not instead tactically retreat into urban areas and compel the Russians to come and force them out? Thus largely eliminating the mobility & strength of the Russian armor and instead making it more vulnerable to the kind of hand held anti-armor weapons that have flooded into the country from the West. An example of this tactic was the German retreat up the Moro River Valley and in Ortona in particular during WWII.

Apart from the attrition this kind of close quarter city fighting would inflict on the Russians, and as I see it once you get down the platoon level that kind of fighting would entail, I don't think the Russian Army posses any particular distinct advantage over the Ukrainians, the inevitable destruction of civilian infrastructure that would result from such urban warfare would continue to engender much sympathy in the West and ensure continued support for the Ukrainian cause.

Either way chalk it down to another hypothesis , time will eventually tell.

Cheers!

You are asking the million dollar question. If UKR doesn't defend the steppe, then the Russians will just grab it and use it as a buffer zone. As someone pointed out, they will probably use a river as a barrier.

Historically, nations are averse to just giving up land like this. Further, there are a few examples of Russian atrocities occurring, so politically it is hard to give up land and the people on that land.

Avoiding a battle on the steppe is actually the right decision. But can the UKR make that decision? Time will tell.

 

[Hedgehog]

Nuclear power I believed would stop any more useless wars which really is not the case, in fact it's stopping some countries stepping in and helping Ukraine from the Russian attacks which just should not be happening, Bulling tactics from disgusting Putin with his band of horrors should be stopped but as we know the stakes are to high..... I know there are some Russian people who are against this illegal war but sadly the vast population of Russian people Are scared to say any thing against the monster Putin ...... The more I see on the News what's going on get's me annoyed ....... That's enough from me

 

[Nemesis]

If this is true and numbers are sufficient, the use of American MLRS systems could be a game changer. Especially if the US is providing targeting information.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1519691184729374721

 

[Aurelius]

Remains to be seen, since Russian AA systems have been taking down Grads and Uragans fired by Ukrainians.

 

[Nemesis]

As I said, it COULD be. Numbers would have to be sufficient too.

A logical move, since UKR will be badly outgunned on the open steppe.

 

[Aurelius]

Then we would read/hear about yet another concentration of manpower and equipment destroyed by long range high precision systems.

 

[Nemesis]

Then we would read/hear about yet another concentration of manpower and equipment destroyed by long range high precision systems.

I disagree. We hear very little about the actual military situation. Mostly high level propaganda by both sides.

The Russians will not want to talk about losses. The US/UKR will not say much because the US is probably assisting with targeting.

 

[Septic Limb]

You have to give Russia credit for not taking the bait that's constantly being dangled in front of them. The US is printing another 33 billion in aid (that's almost 50 billion now) for Ukraine. We also have another group of politicians visiting Kiev at the moment. It really seems like we are trying like hell to get Russia to spark something off.

 

[chiquichops]

You have to give Russia credit for not taking the bait that's constantly being dangled in front of them. The US is printing another 33 billion in aid (that's almost 50 billion now) for Ukraine. We also have another group of politicians visiting Kiev at the moment. It really seems like we are trying like hell to get Russia to spark something off.

Something more than invading a neighbouring country? In whose interest would that be?
It doesn't make much sense to me that provoking Russia was the aim all along, I don't see a benefit for either side here. I believe Putin did see a benefit to himself and made a grave error in invading and that NATO was expecting a worse result than we have seen and tried to deter invasion. Why would the USA try to escalate events? I admit, I'm not an expert on this topic but I really don't see why helping Ukraine to defend itself from aggression is an attempt to destabilise Europe and the world.

 

[Wellsonian]

You have to give Russia credit for not taking the bait that's constantly being dangled in front of them. The US is printing another 33 billion in aid (that's almost 50 billion now) for Ukraine. We also have another group of politicians visiting Kiev at the moment. It really seems like we are trying like hell to get Russia to spark something off.

Whatever dude.

 

[Bones26]

Something more than invading a neighbouring country? In whose interest would that be?
It doesn't make much sense to me that provoking Russia was the aim all along, I don't see a benefit for either side here.

@chiquichops

If you will allow me to suggest a possible benefit here, as trite as it might sound, I would simply say, FOLLOW THE MONEY. To-date as @Septic Limb noted, there are close to $50B USD reasons why this would be of benefit in certain quarters. (To put this in some perspective, Ukraine’s 2021 GDP was around $155B USD and the high-end estimate of its own defense spending in 2021 was pegged at some $5.2B USD).

After all, if your business is making the bombs, missiles and other instruments of war, well …

To wit:

“Less than three full months into 2022, Lockheed Martin's stock has surged by more than 25%, while the share prices of Raytheon, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman have also risen by roughly 12%, 14%, and 16%, respectively.

Even before the Kremlin attacked Ukraine last month, arms manufacturers could hardly contain their excitement over the prospect of war, which they explained would be good for their bottom lines.

In a January earnings call, Lockheed Martin CEO James Taiclet said that the "renewed great power competition" would lead to inflated defense budgets and additional sales. On the same day, Raytheon Technologies CEO Greg Hayes told investors that the company expected to see "opportunities for international sales" amid the Russian threat.

"The tensions in Eastern Europe, the tensions in the South China Sea, all of those things are putting pressure on some of the defense spending over there," Hayes said. "So, I fully expect we're going to see some benefit from it."

Source: Common Dreams, March 15, 2022

This game is as old as war itself and was aptly described by Major General Smedley Butler, who at the time of his death was the most decorated Maine in in U.S. history, in his book “War is a Racket” published by in 1935.

To quote Major General Smedley Butler:

“War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small ‘inside’ group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.”

“I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.

In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

It was also no doubt the impetus for President Eisenhower’s to give his oft referenced final address to the American people.

And if you want to test out his concern, simply check out the current gigs all those high ranking ‘retired’ military analyst’s the MSM constantly trot out to pontificate on the war and the pressing need to ship more armaments to Ukraine. Inevitably you will find that 95% or more are currently serving in some capacity within the MIC itself, either serving on their boards or engaged as a lobbyist. (Trouble is, rarely is that fact ever brought to the viewers attention). Conflict of interest maybe...? You decide.

So may I humbly suggest that it would be best for all us to dissuade ourselves from believing there are any good or moral actors involved in this current conflict, other than those unfortunate civilians caught in its maws. Be it Russia, NATO, the U.S. or Ukraine, they all share in the genesis of & continuation of this tragedy.

But that’s just my opinion, your mileage may vary.

Cheers!

 

[Nemesis]

I love this thread. Russia attacks its smaller neighbor. The US helps the smaller neighbor and we literally have people questioning the motives of the Americans and applauding the Russians for not "taking the bait."

If the US did nothing, I am sure that you would be up in arms about that too.

 

[Nemesis]

The best discussion of the military situation that I have seen yet.

 

[Bones26]

Agree that this is an interesting and comprehensive summary of events to-date.

However I am still personally somewhat wary of any claims that the Russian campaign has failed to meet expectations, given that as stated at approximately the 8:42 mark of the video, the exact Russian Political Goals still remain unclear.

While it is obviously somewhat easier to weigh in on the relative success or failure of any particular battle, it would seem to me that logically if the end goals of this campaign cannot be clearly articulated, then neither can gauging the success or failure of the campaign to achieve those goals yet be determined.

One other thing I found that was curious was its several references to the shortcomings & issues Russian was purportedly experiencing with its supply lines. While I will concede that it is all together possible they are in fact having these issues, I would be surprised that this would be the case given that relatively speaking they are attacking from 'friendly' territory and with basically no intervening enemy forces appearing positioned to effectively interdict those lines in any meaningful fashion.

One thing I don't believe is given much attention is the logistics issue the Ukrainian forces themselves potentially face. As currently much of the fighting is now taking place in the East-Southeast of the country, all the various weapon systems and armaments flooding into the country and being provided by the US/NATO basically must enter Ukraine in the West of the country through Poland and then disperse predominantly by rail through Lviv to the front. This represents an extremely long supply line that could itself be significantly interdicted through tactical air strikes on key road & rail junctions and bridge crossings across the whole of its length. And this is something Russia can initiate all without any significant expenditure of ground assets.

(As Unity of Command 2 illustrates, the importance of logistics at the operational level in carrying out successful military operations cannot be dismissed. )

Cheers!

 

[Septic Limb]

I love this thread. Russia attacks its smaller neighbor. The US helps the smaller neighbor and we literally have people questioning the motives of the Americans and applauding the Russians for not "taking the bait."

If the US did nothing, I am sure that you would be up in arms about that too.

I was against sending Ukraine non-lethal aid back in 2014/15. I believed that it would just help drag out the civil war they where fighting and after eight years I would say that I was correct. I became very upset when in early 2021 the US quietly switched from non-lethal to lethal aid shipments to Ukraine. The war between Donbass and Ukraine had ground down to an established frontline with just heavy skirmishes. Lethal aid shipments allowed the Ukraine to build up for an offensive which would ramp the war up again. I have already covered the majority of my position earlier so I'm not going to repeat it again.

"Russia attacks its smaller neighbor." lacks so much content and makes it extremely misleading. Yes they attacked but it wasn't because they happened to be bored that day.

Always question what the American government is doing. Especially when the big players of the Senate and House have heavy business ties to the area.

If someone is arming and equipping your opposition and they stick their face within reach, wouldn't you hit it as hard as you could?

After twenty years of war I, as a tax paying American citizen, would be happy if we sat this one out. Let someone else play world police and savior.