Welcome to The Few Good Men

Thanks for visiting our club and having a look around, there is a lot to see. Why not consider becoming a member?

Assessing the Russian Military Campaign in Ukraine (so far)

Status
Not open for further replies.
You have to wonder...

How is it possible to see Russia one moment as a power so weak that it could be pushed out of all former Ukrainian territory by force, and the next moment as a mighty threat to all of Europe or ‘freedom’ or ‘democracy’ or whatever?

If ‘the test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function’, then the current leadership class of the West are all geniuses.

Estimated total Russian defense spending in 2021 : $ 65.9 B USD$
Estimated total NATO defense spending in 2021 : $ 1,174 B USD$

Just saying...
Do you know the distribution by country for Nato? It would be interesting to see who spent the least (We already know who spent the most)
 
Do you know the distribution by country for Nato? It would be interesting to see who spent the least (We already know who spent the most)
@StickerEater

There are a few ways to consider your question.

In pure dollar expenditures, Montenegro is the lowest in actual dollar expenditures, spending just $97 million USD$ on its military which represented 1.74% of its total GDP or $122 when expressed on a per capita basis in 2021.

Then there is Albania which spends $239 million USD$, which is the equivalent of 1.44% of its total GDP but which is the lowest on a per capita basis at $66.

And meanwhile in Luxembourg, while they spent $474 million USD$ on their military which is equivalent to $594 on a per capita basis, this represented just 0.57% of their total GDP in 2021.

Least anyone is curious, given they are currently both in the news. While not part of NATO, Finland for its part spent $5.1 billion USD$ in 2021 (1.5% of its GDP) and Sweden spent $5.5 billion USD$ in 2021 (1.2% of its GDP)

Returning to the NATO / Russia comparison, consider that if both entities simply maintained military spending at their current spending levels, it would take Russia 17.8 years to spend the equivalent of what NATO spent in just one year 2021. And if during those intervening 17.8 years NATO simply maintained their current spending, they would have spent and added a further $ 20,915 Billion USD$ in military expenditures that would obviously widen the existing gap even further.

Cheers!
 
You have to wonder...

How is it possible to see Russia one moment as a power so weak that it could be pushed out of all former Ukrainian territory by force, and the next moment as a mighty threat to all of Europe or ‘freedom’ or ‘democracy’ or whatever?

If ‘the test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function’, then the current leadership class of the West are all geniuses.

Estimated total Russian defense spending in 2021 : $ 65.9 B USD$
Estimated total NATO defense spending in 2021 : $ 1,174 B USD$

Just saying...
It still can be both. Russia is nuclear armed with an idiot in charge. History also shows that the Russians ALWAYS start poorly, but finish strongly. The arms, men and equipment are there. They just need to "relearn" warfare which they always do.

Ukraine is not out of this yet. They can still lose.
 
When I think about the entirety of this campaign thus far I am wondering where Russias UKR 5th column is?

It appears they were a big part of the strategic planning and they are completely absent everywhere but donbass and it’s no wonder that’s the best theatre for RU. The RU force they sent was cold, hungry and was going to need help and safe passage.

They appear to have received zero local support for the Kiev assault. I wonder what happened to all the pro-Russians?

Thoughts ?
 
It still can be both. Russia is nuclear armed with an idiot in charge. History also shows that the Russians ALWAYS start poorly, but finish strongly. The arms, men and equipment are there. They just need to "relearn" warfare which they always do.

Ukraine is not out of this yet. They can still lose.

I probably would have thought and said something similar four or five months ago. Before the shocking incompetence, corruption and brutality of the Russian military was revealed. I now suspect the corruption probably permeates most of their institutions.

Russia was part of the Soviet Union during Afghanistan (so maybe you don't count that war) but Russia/Soviet Union did not finish strongly there. In Chechnya they basically had to hand the place over to the warlord Akhmad Kadyrov. Looking back, I think a lot of these smaller invasions showed indications of problems in the Russian military. However many, myself included, bought into the propaganda that Russia was a world class military power.

As far as the nukes, in theory, anything is possible. However, for Russia to use them would mean the end of Russia. Everybody in the chain from Putin down to the guys in the missile silos/planes/submarines would have to be okay with having Russia end. To include ending their lives, their families and probably everything they know in this world. Also there would have to be nobody, outside the direct chain, sane enough to intervene effectively before a nuke flies (like a want to be Putin replacement). So while it is possible and should be monitored the odds, IMO, are greatly against it as things now stand.

Time is not on Russia's side. Every day that goes by Ukraine gets stronger, Russia gets weaker. Russia does not have the resources to rebuild its military quicker than it is being attrited. Especially considering the Sanctions. Russia lost vast amounts of equipment and trained troops that would take years to replace. Most of the technology needed for modern military equipment Russians can't create or replace on their own (computer chips etc.). Russia was not able to properly maintain its military before the sanctions. There is no lend-lease for Russia this time. Even worse the lend-lease is going to their adversary. There are photos of conscripts with Mosin-Nagant bolt-action rifles. This conflict is measured in months.

There is no vast source of manpower to draw on. From 1993 to 2007, the fertility rate (defined as the number of children a woman can be expected to have over the course of her lifetime) fell below 1.5, far below the 2.1 replacement rate needed to hold a population steady.


The Russians can throw untrained conscripts into the meat grinder. Their VDV and elite Guards units were defeated and retreated from Kyiv. Other Russian units have been forced back from Kharkiv. In the past few days the Russians lost a Battalion Tactical Group attempting to cross a river. Will newly raised conscripts be able to do what the VDV and Guards units could not? Can Russia re-learn warfare in the next several months and win militarily and survive the sanctions? Even if the Russians froze the conflict I think the sanctions would continue. Hard to see Russia/Putin surviving military defeat and/or the sanctions.

I think an interesting question is what will Russia look like in six months and where will Putin be?
 
Last edited:
Fertilizer.

llasbiYh.jpg


8LSlSYfh.jpg
 
Should you be interested, I recently came upon this fellows YouTube channel and in it he attempts to offer a somewhat more strategic take on the current developments in the Russo-Ukraine conflict that he appears to have garnered from various sources. Its does seem to provide more depth to the military situation supported by maps and unit designations/actions than the MSM here in the West and of course you can judge for yourself his projections on likely next developments in this campaign and why.

A couple of interesting thing he has pointed out is the April replacement of the General in charge of the Russian effort having been sacked and him being replaced by the General responsible for the change of Russian fortunes in Syria, and the idea that contrary to popular wisdom, Russia's armed forces are not tank centric but are far more reliant on their artillery arm and in particular mobile howitzers & rocket launchers etc than given credit for. This is clearly apparent in their change on tactics following their change in command structure.

Anyways you can judge for yourself.

Cheers!

 
@Bones26 this is great.

The media has done an incredibly poor job covering this war. Mostly they push Ukrainian propaganda, mistake every vehicle for a tank, and never use situation maps that show how things are changing day to day or week to week.

Crazy how some dude in his house can do better than the media.
 
"Before the shocking incompetence, corruption and brutality of the Russian military was revealed."
Sorry, are we talking about Abu Graib or KBR?, anybody read anything about the second battle of Fallujah?

Where I work -and I am at work now, so I am a bit bored- a gentleman came the other day with a small Ukrainian flag in his jacket, was he wearing an Iraqi flag before? Did we "all" wanted Iraq to win?
I was reading something about Ukrainian Resistance... do they mean terrorists?, freedom fighters maybe?... or enemy combatants?
Mind, I am not defending anybody, I am blaming everybody... else.

A friend of mine was arguing that they are "killing people" in Ukraine... well, UK is selling weapons to Saudi Arabia -that bastion of Westerns Civilization-, Saudi Arabia has been killing people in Yemen for the last seven years -there is a truce now, but it was already killing people there during the Yom Kippur War-, how many refugees from Yemen are we taking?, are we selling weapons to Yemen too?
Sorry, to me it sounds more like fashion: Save the dolphins!, we don't care about the baby-seals this season. Yes, I am a "bit" callous.

From the military point of view...
Somebody was saying that we well know the truth in 50 years... Yes, something like that, like we all know the truth about the death of Lord Kitchener and the Tonkin Gulf Incident.
I do remember G. W. Bush saying "job done", it was?, it was such a perfect military operation?, it has been anyone, ever? The Six Day War was a great victory, but if you read about it, far, far away from perfect. If we look at the map of Ukraine, the south of Ukraine looks like a Russian defeat?, even if I keep reading in the newspapers that Ukraine is winning.
I don't know what Russia was thinking, maybe in 50 years we will know... but they got to Kiev's gates in two days, where was the enemy?, avoiding combat?, that would have been a wise move.
-And I think that would have been the right time to negotiate, it's war now, the long "before" is of no use now; like in the Middle-East, you get into a good position and we negotiate the end of the conflict, when the south was sill in Ukrainian hands-.
The only thing I remember is that the Ukrainian Army blow up a bridge, did Russia fail before Kiev, before Kharkov?, I don't think they wanted those cities, but the threat is a good negotiating point. I cannot remember anything about devastating the whole country, massive air attacks hitting everything -yes, planes are more expensive and I mean massive-. Russia thought it was going to a picnic?, it hasn't been the first time in military history. It seems that now it's playing to win, probably it should have done that from the very beginning, but that is more expensive, even if cheaper at the end. My point is that I don't think we have information about what is actually going on, Ukraine was talking talking about Russian casualties, they were retreating, but the Russians could actually count the corpses in the field; every destroyed tank is a Soviet era tank, can we check the owner's papers?
Do we think that Ukraine is going to launch an actual offensive to recover the south? and the Donbas too?, with american weapons? and the supply of ammo for how long a war? Arab-Israeli wars were fought with American and Soviet weapons, and somebody was saying that Russia cannot build computer-chips?, how quickly can US build a hundred Abrams? Both countries have huge armies and a huge presence in the weapons market, but this is not WWII.

Some time ago I was reading that Russia wanted the south of Ukraine as a land corridor between Panama and the Donbas, sorry, Crimea. It didn't make sense to me, too much territory, not enough Russians... I was completely wrong, the Sea of Azov is a Russian Sea now, but let's forget the NATO saying in the 90's that there would be no expansion to the East, let's forget that US din't want Soviet missiles in Cuba, or NATO missiles in Ukraine?

Maybe in 50 years...
History is written with the lies of the winners, or something like that.

PS: If anybody doesn't like my reference to any country, feel free to replace it by Rome, Numantia or Carthage.
 
The more warfare changes, the more it stays the same.

The problems facing the Russians are the same that plagued the US (for example) in WW2.
 
The problems facing the Russians are the same that plagued the US (for example) in WW2.
@Nemesis

If you wouldn't mind, could you elaborate on what you see as the problems the Russians are facing, and here I'm assuming your referencing the current conflict, right?

Thanks and cheers !
 
@Nemesis

If you wouldn't mind, could you elaborate on what you see as the problems the Russians are facing, and here I'm assuming your referencing the current conflict, right?

Thanks and cheers !

Per the video, they are shorthanded a lot of infantry just as the US and UK were in WW2. Now they are scrambling to find more. In WW2, the US canceled its ASTP (Advanced Specialized Training Program) program. ASTP consisted of the best and brightest soldiers (many certified geniuses from an IQ standpoint) who were sent to college. The intent was that they would all eventually become officers in technical areas. Instead, they were thrown into the infantry.

The Russians have a whole series of other issues, to be sure. But I still think it possible that the Russians will either win or negotiate a very favorable settlement.

History keeps repeating itself. The Russians always get off to a terrible start. Everyone always mocks them. Then they become competent and start crushing their opponents.

How many times has this happened? What would Napoleon and Hitler say?
 
Per the video, they are shorthanded a lot of infantry just as the US and UK were in WW2. Now they are scrambling to find more. In WW2, the US canceled its ASTP (Advanced Specialized Training Program) program. ASTP consisted of the best and brightest soldiers (many certified geniuses from an IQ standpoint) who were sent to college. The intent was that they would all eventually become officers in technical areas. Instead, they were thrown into the infantry.

The Russians have a whole series of other issues, to be sure. But I still think it possible that the Russians will either win or negotiate a very favorable settlement.

History keeps repeating itself. The Russians always get off to a terrible start. Everyone always mocks them. Then they become competent and start crushing their opponents.

How many times has this happened? What would Napoleon and Hitler say?
@Nemesis

I obviously have no way of knowing for sure, but I would find more favour with the argument that ever since Russia changing its tactics to now conducting a largely long distance howitzer barrage attack from what was initially perhaps a more amour / line solider approach that it only stands to reason that they would have dramatically reduce their causality rate vs a vis the damage they are instead able to inflict on the UDK who are reportedly severely outgunned in this type of conflict, with some estimates of being up to a 15 to 1 disadvantage and their own spokesperson admitting they are running dangerously low on ammunition.

In addition, looking at the most current maps for the line of contact, I again would surmise that as these pending encirclements of UDK troops occur, the battlefield becomes increasing constricted and less troops are required to cover the line so by default more troops can be withdrawn for rest & refit and / or further deployment. At the present time Russia is controlling the tempo / momentum of the battle.

So I'm not yet buying this argument that Russia is low on manpower to the extent it would impact the current campaign. Go back a few months and read all the MSM reports about Russian losses, running out of ammunition, short of food, Generals are dying by the minute, Putin will be gone, the ruble will be rubble, no one has any under-ware (O.K. I made that one up) and now they are running out of soldiers. Yet ever time I look at the map, they have advanced, they have taken another town, another port, another strategic center, they are threatening here and there... you get the point. End of the day, its a lot easier to replace a shell than it is a soldier.

But hey, time will tell.

Cheers !
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top