Russia/Ukraine conflict

[navguy12]

When you look at how the war is going, a lot of this makes sense.

If you are afraid to report things truthfully up the chain of command, the leaders will have a really unrealistic view of the situation.

As Finns would say, this whole thing has been "ryssitty". Roughly could translate as Russianising the operation. "Ryssiä" is a term used for when you really fubar it. No, it's not in any dictionary.

“Russianising” reminded me of an old Soviet joke that was written into the screenplay for an HBO series called, “Chernobyl”:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/bx8mo7

 

[Xdama]

Freshly translated by my wife. “Belarus Deputy Defence Minister resigns” bit difficult to translate as it’s Belarusian not Russian but bottom line is he couldn’t manage to get a full battalion together to fight in Ukraine due to refusals from troops. He either resigned because he’s fallen on his sword for failure OR he’s resigned because he doesn’t support it. The former is more likely

 

[wdolson]

First, @wdolson , I want to say thank you for your very detailed posts regarding the Ukraine situation, I find them very valuable and look forward to reading them and reviewing the links you post.

Second, I'm wondering if Russia is not using it's best equipment (Planes, Missiles, tanks, etc) so they they dont 'show their hand' to the western countries and NATO. But the more I think about it though, I think everyone over estimated Russia's military capability and while they do have nukes, their conventional military is extremely lacking and outdated. It seems like Ukraine keeps finding military vehicles stripped of their important/valuable equipment but I am starting to wonder if they never had much of it in the first place. Maybe AA missile tubes filled 1/3 of the capacity, high tech radar never installed, not using digital encrypted communications, etc.

Did I miss answering this? The Russians did bring their best. They didn't initially deploy their best ground attack aircraft, the Su-34, but their best tank has been often seen on the battlefield (usually disabled or abandoned), they have been using their best ballistic missiles, and pretty much their entire corps of trucks.

The Russians are way behind western militaries in a lot of areas. The Germans inherited a lot of Russian aircraft from East Germany when the two countries recombined and the Germans quickly either sold or put on limited duty all the Russian aircraft. NATO doctrine is to train pilots well and give them a lot of decision making control. Often they are given a task and it's up to the individual pilots or the leader of the mission to come up with the best way to do it. Western aircraft have direct access to a lot of information that might help them.

The Russian doctrine had far more control from their base. A controller would direct everything and all information passed through the ground controller before going to the pilot.

In the west, infantry on the ground can call in air support. Normal operating procedure is to have fighter bombers on call orbiting behind the battle line. When infantry needed air support, they could make a call and they direct the pilot individually to the target. The US started this in WW II, though there was usually a pilot off flying duty embedded with the troops then.

With Russian doctrine, if air support is available at all the call has to go up the chain of command and back down again.

The Germans found the Russian fighters could be modified for some western systems, but not others. As soon as they could, Germany got rid of all their Russian aircraft. Some of those Mig-29s knocking around the eastern European countries may be cast offs from Germany. I'm not sure what happens to the old planes the Germans inherited, I expect some are in museum collections now. About the time the USSR collapsed warbird collectors in the US got a lot of Russian aircraft.

There was a video I think was posted here, or it may have been somewhere else about Russian logistics called "The Failed Logistics of Russia's Invasion of Ukraine". The Russian military is really built around defending Russia. It is very dependent on their rail network, which was a major factor in their victory in WW II. They are fairly efficient at moving troops and supply by rail, but basically it all goes pear shaped as soon as they move away from the rail network.

Russia invested all their money in a strong front and never bothered to complete the back. They have a massive array of tanks, most have been sitting idle in the Siberian winter for 30 years. They are dusting those off and sending them into Ukraine now. It's about as useful as sending tanks to a naval battle though. This is not an armored conflict.

Conquering and holding a country is about how much infantry you put into the fight. The magic ratio is 20 troops per 1000 population. To capture and hold Ukraine the Russians need 800,000 troops, and most of those infantry. And that's if they can overwhelm the Ukrainian defenses quick enough. At this point they need to defeat an army of 700,000 and growing before they get to the occupation phase.

The US made the same mistake in Iraq. When Donald Rumsfeld asked for an estimate for taking and holding Iraq he was given a number around 1 million. He wanted less than 100,000. After arguments with the Pentagon they settled on something like 150,000. In that case there were enough troops to take the country quickly. The Iraqis didn't want to fight. But when the Iraqis didn't like how the US was doing the occupation and the insurgency started, the US was playing whack a mole with a lot of moles and very few hammers. General Shinsecki got forced out for suggesting 1 million troops, but he was right in the end.

[back a long time ago this stuff was my specialist subject, before I came into energy, and the principles have not changed].

Re missiles : Missiles of any type are not a perfect weapon, especially not MANPADS. A lot of MANPAD shots can be defeated by the targeted aircraft. It takes good operators to use MANPADS effectively. MANPADS are most dangerous against low and slow flyers, which is why the Su-25 Frogfoot and the helicopters are getting hit. That in turn is why the Russians are having to turn to the Su-34 Fullback in order to get reasonable accuracy from >1000-feet using dumb bombs, as that is the most viable aircraft with trained crews that the Russians have in their fleet. However the Su-34 cannot fly too high as it then becomes vulnerable to the Ukrainian Bukhs (which though they are the older Bukhs are still obviously capable), or vulnerable to the remnant Ukrainian airforce. It is because of that Ukrainian remnant airforce that the Russians are having to operate their medium/high-level missile systems such as the S-300 / S-400 (and their Bukhs), and there is quite a lot of anecdotal reporting that the Russians are having problems deconflicting their own missiles from their own aircraft. So basically the Russians are trying to attrite the Ukrainian air force enough that they can in time switch off the Russian missile systems, switch to medium-altitude bombing, and get out of range of the MANPAD threat, and accept the bombing accuracy loss, i.e. their tactics in Syria and Chechnya (Grozny). Hence the Ukrainians trying to get their hands on more aircraft - and I hope a way is found to enable that. One needs a heck of a lot of MANPADS to give widespread coverage as the practical engagement ranges/zones are very limited. The Ukrainians are doing a very good job in the circumstances with the resources they have. A very real issue is that the S300/400 and the Russian airbases are physically located in Russia and/or Belarus, so the Russians can big up the Ukrainian attacks on those sites as being aggressive in nature. (the same would be a big issue if NATO were to start dismantling the Russian IADS).

Re Budapest memorandum : Technically the UK and USA are fulfilling their obligations. Obviously the Russians are in breach. Morally the UK and USA (and France) have a duty to do a lot to assist, and one can make a case that just about enough is being done. Opinions on that vary. It is a very fine line.

Re no-fly zones : I perfectly understand why NATO does not wish to declare a no-fly zone, as that would make NATO a party to the conflict. And in the absence of a UN Security Council resolution it is difficult for NATO to act in this way, and of course Russia can (and has) vetoed a UN Secrity Council resolution. It would be possible for (say) UK/FR/USA to declare a no-fly zone but they would need agreement of (say) RO, HU, GR, TK to do so as they would need overfly rights to get their aircraft from their bases to Ukraine. So in practical terms declaring a no-fly zone that way inevitably snowballs and drags in all of NATO. Very difficult - as the Swedes and Fins are rapidly learning you cannot be under the NATO umbrella unless you are actually in NATO. Expect referendums in both those countries fairly soon after the dust settles. The security guarantuees that British politicians were giving to the Swedes a few days ago are of no more use than the Budapest memorandum imho.

Re peace negotiations and cease fires : we must be really careful about letting apparently reasonable demands be put forward that leave the Ukrainians in an untenable situation. And basically any occupation of Crimea, Donbass, etc is untenable, let along more territory. Complete and utter withdrawal is the minimum requirement. Also note that it is not just Ukraine in play here - the Russians have effectively already annexed Belarus, and are very obviously trying to create a situation where they also control Moldova as well as Ukraine.

Nobody has unlimited time and resources here. But be aware that the weather plays a part. From a Ukrainian perspective the worst thing would be for a warm dry Spring that dries the fields out and lets the Russian tracked vehicles cross the fields. At the moment the open landscape war is a tactical fight for - and very much constrained to only be along - the road and rail network. Lots of good soaking rain/sleet/warm-snow is best for the Ukrainians at the moment.

I don't think it will drag on for too long - worth reading this :

https://twitter.com/x/status/1500301348780199937

Good analysis. You've been inside the beast and know this sort of thing from the inside.

I agree, a long wet spring favors the defender, but there is the other factor that the Russians have a critically poor fuel situation. The Ukrainians are fighting smart and going from Russia's Achilles heel, they are seeking out Russian supply and hitting it hard. Especially fuel trucks. The Russians are running low on fuel trucks and it's getting increasingly difficult to move supply on Ukrainian roads.

A modern army takes a lot of fuel to stay in combat. I had a figure fr a WW II US armored division at one time, but I can't find it now. I did find a requirement for a Gulf War I US armored division (this is per day): 5000 tons of ammunition, 555,000 gallons of fuel, 300,000 gallons of water, and 80,000 meals. I'm sure the supply situation for Russian units is cut to the bone at this point, but they are trying to keep something like 180,000 troops in the field with a dwindling supply of support vehicles. All those main battle tanks are sucking resources without much benefit.

I think by the time the fields dry out most of the Russian army is going to be immobile and starving. This is turning into Guadalcanal with the Japanese played by the Russians without the tropical diseases taking the toll they did.

As for the Russian air defense unable to tell friend from foe. A week ago I would have been surprised, but here is another area where the Russians didn't deal with a real battlefield problem. The US had IFF systems in WW II! The Russians have been unable to tackle a problem the US was addressing almost 80 years ago.

The Russians remind me of the Kzin in Larry Niven's Known Universe books. The Kzin were an alien species of sentient cats that rivaled humans for a while. They were fierce fighters, but dismissed a lot of non-combat related things and they often ended up paying for it.

The Japanese had some of these problems in WW II also. They neglected anti submarine warfare (ASW) until too late in the war because it wasn't a frontline combat kind of job. Their ASW ships tended to have poor quality crews with poor commanders who had essentially washed out of the more glamorous front line navy. They had somewhat shoddy equipment until late 1944. The Japanese finally started putting some effort into ASW when the US subs had sunk enough of their merchant marine to strangle the economy back home.

The British first and the Americans second poured a lot of resources into ASW technology and by 1943 both navies had very lethal ASW capabilities. The US put so much tech into their small ships some got dangerously top heavy by 1944. The destroyers lost in Halsey's Typhoon were among the oldest with the fast carriers and were smaller than the Fletcher class. They were sunk because they had dumped ballast just before the storm to refuel, then they capsized because of all the new equipment topside for air and ASW defense. A couple of the class survived, but were badly damaged.

The Japanese had ship-born radar before the US did, but never expended it to the fleet until late in the war and never got proficient at it. The Japanese didn't think radar was an honorable way to fight. The USN had some resistance to radar initially, but as soon as its effectiveness got proven everyone relied on it. The USN installed it on every ship as radar sets became available.

In Russia it doesn't seem to be about honor or a warrior code, it's more about having a military that looks as fierce as possible, but really has a lot of serious problems that got brushed under the rug because they were not important to the front they were putting up. Now those oversights are coming back to haunt them.

 

[BornToFly]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this. On the news they are reporting that Putin is now saying that a country carrying out sanctions against Russia is committing an act of war. The problem with him saying this is that NATO countries have no gotten move involved in order to avoid "WW3." If sanctions = WW3, then there is no longer a reason for everyone else to not join the fight and end this quickly.

Hopefully the international community has learned a lot in the last few months. The next time a country is ramping up to invade another there will hopefully be a better response before the invasion actually happens.

 

[Lloyd]

I think the Ukrainians will fight against the Russian front until the Russians run out of money. The people of Ukraine have spoken and overwhelmingly voted in a pro western democracy president and would like to join Nato if given the chance.

If you want a video that does nothing but spit out facts, this I found to be a great one.

Russia will not run out of money until the US gets serious about limiting Russian oil. All of the sanctions we have imposed including SWIFT exempt Russin oil! If our government really had any backbone Russian oil sales would be banned.

 

[Singuy]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this. On the news they are reporting that Putin is now saying that a country carrying out sanctions against Russia is committing an act of war. The problem with him saying this is that NATO countries have no gotten move involved in order to avoid "WW3." If sanctions = WW3, then there is no longer a reason for everyone else to not join the fight and end this quickly.

Hopefully the international community has learned a lot in the last few months. The next time a country is ramping up to invade another there will hopefully be a better response before the invasion actually happens.

No one is talking about it because it's empty threats. You gonna bomb apple into selling you iPhone? The world wants to stop doing business with Russia so if they consider that an act of war then we dare them to send in a jet plane and attack.

They couldn't even handle Ukraine while his own country is collapsing within. And with places like Singapore imposing sanctions after Putin made that comment just tells you how little F anyone cares what putin had to say.

 

[elasalle]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1500257111770550273

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

Former US Ambassador to NATO Kurt Volker who proposes a 'limited' no fly zone. Starts at 04:00:

 

[samppa]

“Russianising” reminded me of an old Soviet joke that was written into the screenplay for an HBO series called, “Chernobyl”:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Jokes/comments/bx8mo7

what's wrong about a russian arse-vibrator?
- it won't fit in your arse, and it doesn't vibrate

... I'll see myself out

 

[adiggs]

I begin to wonder - even if Russia decided today to withdraw from Ukraine, do they have the logistics to do so? Even if Ukraine stood back and watched / allowed them to leave, can Russia actually physically withdraw? Its starting to sound to me like Russia will need Ukraine's help to pull back.

 

[nativewolf]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this. On the news they are reporting that Putin is now saying that a country carrying out sanctions against Russia is committing an act of war. The problem with him saying this is that NATO countries have no gotten move involved in order to avoid "WW3." If sanctions = WW3, then there is no longer a reason for everyone else to not join the fight and end this quickly.

Hopefully the international community has learned a lot in the last few months. The next time a country is ramping up to invade another there will hopefully be a better response before the invasion actually happens.

Yep, not smart. I feel much of putins reputation for smarts was just due to his lack of respect for morals, he pushed his army into near genocide in Chechnya ...he jailed enemies...he was president of a country with enourrmass natural resources and ran it like a mafia boss. None of which strikes me as a sign of intelligence.

 

[samppa]

I begin to wonder - even if Russia decided today to withdraw from Ukraine, do they have the logistics to do so? Even if Ukraine stood back and watched / allowed them to leave, can Russia actually physically withdraw? Its starting to sound to me like Russia will need Ukraine's help to pull back.

I am certain about one thing: whatever happens, that 64km long convoy will not have a part in it.
It's not going anywhere anymore, full of wrecked and broken down vehicles etc.. it's gonna take weeks to untangle that mess.
All it really does is deny access to that one key road into Kyiv.

 

[UkNorthampton]

Some other tidbits in the news.

The Ukrainians charged one of the peace negotiators Denys Kireev with treason for giving information to the Russians based on info fed to them by the Russian FSB. The FSB is leaking like a sieve. When authoritarians go bad, their underlings start leaking. He was executed.

It looks like the Russians pulled out of Kherson. The civilians were recorded walking up to the invading troops with their arms spread and the troops were retreating because they didn't want to shoot them.

In another city the Russians took they tried to do a photo op for the media back home by providing food for the locals. The locals just stood around and yelled at them.

I can't find it now, but it looks like the Russians also pulled out of one of the cities they held in the Donbas. The locals there were mildly pro-Russia before the war, but the invasion switched them hard for Ukraine. Remember just because somebody speaks Russian doesn't mean they are pro-Russia anymore than an Irish person speaking English makes them pro-English.

The Russian troop presence in the part of Donbas they held before the war is probably fairly thin, especially with the troop demands everywhere. The Russians were struggling in the south the first week of the war, but managed to pick up the pace the last week, that may have been due to a transfer of troops from Donbas. Now that the Donbas people are beginning to rebel, their choice is to pull out or get slaughtered in an insurgency campaign.

The Russians have also started using the OTR-21 Tochka which is an obsolete missile system that was in the process of being retired. Westerners have assumed Russia went into this war with about 500 modern short range rockets and they have probably used them up, so they are now using their obsolete inventory.

Here is the post about the train carrying civilian vehicles into the war

https://twitter.com/x/status/1500177643504910337

Those vehicles have the Russian military ID on them, the 'Z'. That's desperation.

Haven't been uparmoured with wooden logs to protect the radiators yet. Hope they brought a chainsaw. I think the russians are mostly short on fuel (but short of food, water, artillery ammo as well). I didn't see many tankers, so fuel will have to be in containers, leading to filling/decanting delays.

 

[adiggs]

Another random thought that I've been having - is the tank dead as a modern combat vehicle? What I see, simplistically, is that ~WW2 the balance of power was heavily in favor of a moving fortress that most infantry weapons (bullets) would bounce off (huge, huge simplification). With the readily portable AT and AA weapons available to modern infantry, mobile fortresses start looking more and more like mobile death traps that require a huge logistics tail.

If you were up against infantry without that equipment you still wouldn't want the tanks as that infantry will just go insurgent on you and eat the logistics tail, while the tanks can't meaningfully help with that.


Something I hadn't really put together with this idea before now - even modern sci-fi authors stoop to aliens to construct a scenario in which a modern full-on armored division with top line equipment and training have a meaningful opportunity to go into battle. Mostly ending with a significant tactical victory, a strategic loss of the formation, and the troops abandoning the vehicles and going insurgent.

Outside of alternate history novels I don't see a WW2 style fight breaking out anywhere, strictly for these combat power reasons. Ignoring the political and social constraints.

And what we're seeing in Ukraine is just reinforcing this notion for me.

 

[TheTalkingMule]

Not a peep yet out of PepsiCo, Coke, McDonald's, or Yum Brands who do tons of business in Russia.

Pepsi/Yum are huge there. I wonder if we'll ever hear anything from their execs?

 

[samppa]

Another random thought that I've been having - is the tank dead as a modern combat vehicle? What I see, simplistically, is that ~WW2 the balance of power was heavily in favor of a moving fortress that most infantry weapons (bullets) would bounce off (huge, huge simplification). With the readily portable AT and AA weapons available to modern infantry, mobile fortresses start looking more and more like mobile death traps that require a huge logistics tail.

If you were up against infantry without that equipment you still wouldn't want the tanks as that infantry will just go insurgent on you and eat the logistics tail, while the tanks can't meaningfully help with that.


Something I hadn't really put together with this idea before now - even modern sci-fi authors stoop to aliens to construct a scenario in which a modern full-on armored division with top line equipment and training have a meaningful opportunity to go into battle. Mostly ending with a significant tactical victory, a strategic loss of the formation, and the troops abandoning the vehicles and going insurgent.

Outside of alternate history novels I don't see a WW2 style fight breaking out anywhere, strictly for these combat power reasons. Ignoring the political and social constraints.

And what we're seeing in Ukraine is just reinforcing this notion for me.

Pretty much. If Ukrainians had taken a direct stance against Russian columns, they'd have lost the war already.

Old saying: supply trucks come sometime behind the tanks, take those out, tanks won't move. They've really entertained it.

Also seems the ukrainian intel in Russians movements is really good, wonder where all that is coming from..

Regarding tanks, would you rather be firing a javelin some 3km away from the tank, or sitting inside that can of sardines..

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

Not a peep yet out of PepsiCo, Coke, McDonald's, or Yum Brands who do tons of business in Russia.

Pepsi/Yum are huge there. I wonder if we'll ever hear anything from their execs?

Start a social media campaign. A couple of days ago it was on the news here in Sweden that IKEA and H&M were still open in Russia. I think the backlash here in Sweden was MASSIVE. H&M closed later that evening. And IKEA the next day. I as an example e-mailed and online-chatted with representatives from both companies...

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

McDonald's, Pepsi, others should consider pausing Russia operations -NY pension fund

Major global brands, including McDonald's Corp , PepsiCo Inc and the Estee Lauder Cos Inc , should consider pausing their operations in Russia, New York state's pension fund chief wrote in letters to several companies on Friday.

www.reuters.com

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

Ukraine invasion: Attention turns to McDonald's and crypto exchanges, yet to take a stand against Russia

Crypto, in particular, represents a big threat to sanctions, allowing oligarchs to move money around more easily.

news.sky.com

 

[elasalle]

Blinken says NATO countries have "green light" to send fighter jets to Ukraine

The secretary of state says the U.S. is considering providing fighter jets to Poland if the country sends its own to Ukraine.

www.cbsnews.com