.
.
unconfirmed update:
shooters were “russians” (tatchics) etnic/religious conflict … and 23 reported dead
How likely is it that these sort of internecine battles will continue, increase, erupt into full-blown mutiny against being sent into the war?
I have no special knowledge whatsoever, but the higher the pressure (and the more blatant the jump into the meatgrinder orders become) - the more we are going to see these type of these pre-and-post-trauma events …
I guess that is the other side of the medal when you hire a significant part of the prison population to work for you.
Both sides can be right. Putin can get Ukraine to cede all claims to Crimea, and promise not to join NATO, and “VICTORY!”.
Meanwhile Ukraine has control of all other Ukraine territory- Victory!
How many offensive wars have they won? The USSR tried to conquer Afghanistan and lost. They were the defender in WW2 (and won), In WW1 they were the aggressor, and lost badly. In the Russo-Japanese conflicts of the 1930, Russia was the defender and won. In the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-5, both sides were the aggressors, and Russia lost- badly. So I would call four of those “wars”, and Russia/USSR lost 3 of 4. Going back further is pointless.
When was that?
Good points,
Sheer numbers don’t necessarily mean much, when the gap in equipment capability and training is large.
The U.S. vs Iraq resulted in something like 3300 destroyed Iraqi tanks vs 4 disabled Abrams tanks. A huge differentiator was simply that the Abrams was able to shoot accurately while moving, and had optics that could see through smoke and at night.
Likewise, if Ukrainian artillery can out-range Russian artillery and is more accurate at extreme ranges, that’s a huge force multiplier. Intel is also critical, and Ukraine is getting support from the world in terms of satellite imagery and communication intercepts.
Russia has terrible communications. Their encrypted comm network doesn’t work well, and they have resorted to using commercial two-way radios which can be intercepted. In the meantime, Ukraine has been given Starlink, which so far has proven to be unjammable and secure. Ukrainian soldiers in the field have high-speed internet, and Russians are kept in the dark or try to use their cell phones on the Ukrainian cell system, which tends to get them targeted and their calls intercepted. Russian officers in rear command posts have been getting killed in large numbers because of the intel problems they have and Ukraine’s possession of long range, high accuracy HIMARS and other weapons.
But Russia has a giant wild card - nuclear weapons. The more trouble Putin is in with the conventional war, the more likely he will be to try a hail-Mary with nukes. That’s the frightening part.
Russia is certainly capable of winning an offensive war, though. In fact, had the west not interceded on Ukraine’s behalf, this war would already be over and a Putin stooge would be sitting in Kiev. Ukraine would have fought well for a while, then it would have exhausted its resources.
Excuse me - if Ukraine is using equipment abandoned by the Russians as they panic and run away that is NOT stealing.
Likewise, capturing enemy equipment after a battle is NOT stealing.
Ukraine has stolen NOTHING from Russia, whereas Russia has stolen land, lives, living children, and everything their soldiers could loot.
I would argue WWII might be an example. Certainly, the West didn’t object to the Soviets fighting the Nazis and it was awful bloody.
Both Stalin and Khrushchev stated that the USSR would have lost without the massive amount of lend-lease and other aid. Not to mention the USA, GB and others were also fighting the Nazis and Stalin also said he needed a second front opened by the other Allies. In no way shape or form did “the rest of the world takes a hands off approach and leaves Russia to bumble its way through to a bloody victory on its own terms.”
But is certainly was bloody.
The sticky wicket here is the Donbas, which Russia has now “annexed”. Ukraine does not want to cede that territory, that Russia now claims is part of Russia. Hence, you cannot have “both sides win” any more than Russia’s annexation of Crimea could be seen as an acceptable concession for Ukraine to have made 8 years ago. There is simply no middle ground here.
??
Hungary in 1956?
12 posts were split to a new topic: Starlink use in the Ukraine to support defense
Or WWI?
That’s what was going through my mind, yes. And keep in mind, I was initially responding to (and disagreeing with) DigitalC’s assertion that Russia has an imposing record of success in this sort of thing. I might also recall, post-USSR, parts of Georgia and Chechnya. Both of which saw the west taking a largely hands off wag-of-the-finger approach, not comparable to what we are seeing now.
I’ll also take this opportunity to note that on its face, the claim that Russia is capable of fielding forces an order of magnitude im excess of Ukraine is ultra-suspect, both for the reasons others have already given, but also just doing the basic comparison of population size: though it certainly looks like Russia ought to dwarf Ukraine, its population is only three times its size. Well below an order of magnitude.
And, again, I don’t see this as being a straight up war of attrition. This is a war of systems, and Russia’s is garbage. So long as Ukraine is backed by the west (and note that is very much a conditional proposition), it will have a better system to draw on for resupply and training.
Wasn’t much of a war. Just a failed revolt.
Russia actually has a really bad war record.
Which brings us full circle to the point: I am unimpressed by Russia’s record, and don’t see any reason to assume they will be able to turn this war around provided the west continues to support Ukraine materially (but then also maybe even if it doesn’t).
Russia seems to be in a real danger of going winchester (a term used to refer metaphorically to rapidly running out of ammunition, referencing the 19th century lever-gun often appearing in westerns, just going click click click click when the villain runs out of ammo at a critical moment and the hero draws down on him with his trusty six-shot).
Great points and I would add that while Russia often cites its butcher’s bill as supporting the notion that it defeated Germany single-handedly, we need to consider that a awful lot of that expense of blood was caused by its own incompetence and decision to play footsie with Hitler for the war’s first couple of years. Heck, on June 21, 1941, trains full of Russian goods and raw materials were still heading west to the factories of the Reich literally while German troops were moving to their jump-off positions for Operation Barbarossa.
Germany’s effort on the Eastern front was, of course, the majority of its land forces, but when you include the Med, the Atlantic Wall (and the eventual second front), the submarine war, navy blockade runners and surface raiders, and the effort to keep British and US bombers from wrecking its economy, the overall effort was much more even than many believe.
ETA: apologies if this goes a little far afield of the thread topic, but I think it’s worthwhile to assess Russia’s current war performance in the context of how it’s done in the past.
All this mention of Russian nukes, but no mention of chemical weapons, which are also WMDs but may rank lower in terms of psychological effect. Perhaps Putin would be tempted to do some nerve-gassing of Ukrainian civilians or troops and hope that won’t get the same NATO response as nukes.
I see a common theme:
.
“shops and hostels operate in some bomb shelters in Moscow …”
Modnote: AGAIN, DROP THE MUSK CRAP.
NOW IN ITS OWN THREAD.
I will hand out warnings going forward.