petit_bateau
Active Member
Some real estate is easier to give away than to regain. That is the problem.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Russia/Ukraine conflict
- Thread starter amolina
- Start date
RobStark
Well-Known Member
TMC General Staff says Russian Army will soon implode by lack of running trucks and logistics.
Western mainstream media has, for three months now, fed its audience a never-ending clown car parade of utterly clueless "expert military analysts" who have spun fairy tales of super-hero Ukrainian "freedom fighters" and comically inept Russian conscripts.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Weird how alternative media and reports from the scene show the exact same things. Or are you saying Russia really did take Ukraine in 3 days and isn't still fighting, it's all just a mirage?
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
So the Russian conscripts haven't been comically inept?
No, the Ukraine forces are.
“The situation is controllable but difficult,” Khrus said. “And when the heavy weapons are against us, we don’t have anything to work with. We are helpless.”
Behind their positions, Ukrainian forces have tanks, artillery and mortars to back Lapko’s men and other units along the front. But when the tanks or mortars are fired, the Russians respond with Grad rockets, often in areas where Lapko’s men are taking cover. In some cases, his troops have found themselves with no artillery support.
This is, in part, because Lapko has not been provided a radio, he said. So there’s no contact with his superiors in Lysychansk, preventing him from calling for help.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I see, the Russian forces are having difficulty with the comically inept Ukraine forces but are not themselves comically inept. Got it, makes total sense.
Some more on this...
I have referred to the Swedish author and blogger Lars Wilderäng previously in some posts (see link below). He has been updating daily on Putler's war since it began. He's married to a woman from Russia, and he also did Swedish basic conscript military service in some sort of mechanized infantry unit (I think that's the correct term) in his youth...
I ran some of what he's written today through Google translate and then corrected 'Google's' mistakes:
"…/ the retreats Ukraine have made have been tactical and operationally sensible and are not about Ukraine being defeated on the battlefield. And retreating Ukrainian troops from for example Lyman have not looked worn out, broken or defeated. Their fighting morale and their will to continue the fight seems to be absolutely unwavering. There is no point in itself to defend every square meter of Ukrainian land beyond the current main goal which is to inflict maximum Russian losses. After retreating the Ukrainians just choose a better defensive line and repeat until the Russian attacks have culminated. And given the increasingly weak Russian offensive – it works. /…/
The point is that you have to ask yourself why you should defend a certain object, and what you achieve tactically and operationally by defending said object. And if it is to be defended, how and at what price. It is about winning the war, not about winning the Battle of Lyman, for example. [My underline] /..."
Source:
Bekräftade civila ukrainska förluster nästan 9 000 - fjorton civila dödade igår - Ukraina har evakuerat Lyman och sprängt broar efter sig
De bekräftade civila dödade på befriad mark eller mark som Ryssland aldrig ockuperat har nått 8 691 personer. Enbart igår dödades fjorton personer i omfattande terrorbombningar mot civila mål, däribland en femmånaders bebis. Ukraina kan bekräftats evakuerat Lyman och ska ha sprängt broar över Donetscornucopia.se
The part of the Donbas where the fighting is going on now is very difficult to defend. Nobody was able to hold it against a determined enemy in the 1940s and the Ukrainians can't hold it now. The part of the Donbas that can be defended is static.
Giving up ground and allowing the enemy to move when you have a lot of ambush assets is a good strategy. You pick off the enemy when they try to move. That makes retaking the ground again easier because the enemy has fewer troops with poorer morale.
In Donbas it's more WW I tactics.
Trent Telenko predicted the Russians would run low on military trucks by sometime in April and would run out of civilian truck replacements around now. They have been managing around it by running short line rail links in occupied areas that aren't connected to the main rail network. The Ukrainians have been hunting for the depots.
He also talked about Lanchester's Square Law and how it's going to bite the Russians hard at some point
Lanchester's laws - Wikipedia
He pointed out predicting exactly when the collapse happens is difficult, but predicting that it's happening is pretty easy for those who know the signs.
The Ukrainian forces have a lot of Territorial Defense Force units and other irregular militia who are mostly tasked with holding ground. Then they have a cadre of about 200,000 western trained pros who are the main assault troops. The western trained troops have Starlink uplinks, the best equipment, and know what they are doing.
The international legion are equipped the same as the pro military units. My partner has been following a number of those guys. Their morale is high and they get lots of results.
I have also seen videos of the western trained troops in action. They are completely professional and doing everything right.
So what sort of unit do this Khrus and Lapko belong to?
At best the Russians have less than 200,000 troops in the fight, almost all poorly trained and poorly led.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
I have read credentialed and armchair observers predict collapse of Russian Army after 1 month into the war.
I hope Trent et al are correct.
A war can be uneven.
But the facts are overal Ukraine has performed very well so far, considering the imbalance in military hardware at the start of the war.
Russia suffered a total and humilating defeat in the battle for Kyiv, despite overwhelming superiority in terms of equipment. At the start of the war, no one predicted that outcome. I did note that Ukraine seemed confident in their army at a time when few gave them any chance.
Since then, when Russia has had more heavy weapons in the field they have taken territory, often slowly and at considerable cost.
When Ukraine has counter-attacked, they have generally been successful.
Beyond that both sides have had a few stuff-ups. I saying I often use is "He who does nothing does nothing wrong". To be clear, doing nothing and achieving nothing is wasting you life.
Ukraine doesn't have a choice they need to defend and try to recapture their territory.
The choice for us is do we sit back and allow aggressors to fight wars of conquest when the only justification is expanding their territory? Most of us hoped that type of thinking stopped around 1950.
With the behefit of hindsight the world let the people of Syria down badly, and the Syrians have paid a heavy price for our lack of support.
All people of the world deserve to elect their own government in free and fair elections and to be free of the threat of invasion. Do you agree with this statement?
Last edited:
Isn't this basically how, until near the end, the Americans defeated the British in the American Revolution. Attack when you have the advantage and inflict maximum casualties and then retreat to save your army for another day. That deprived the superior British Army from a traditional battlefield battle until Washington had them cornered at Yorktown.
I did a bit of searching. The original article appears to be from the Washington Post, though it's been repeated in many places. The article mentions the 5th Separate Rifle Battalion. A battalion in most armies is 300-1000 troops, but the article says the strength is 120. That indicates an under strength unit.
That unit is also a TDF unit raised in far west Ukraine: Zakarpattia. They have been transferred from their home territory to the east where there are a bit out of their depth. The TDF units are intended to hold the territory where they were raised and protect it from Russian incursions while the regular army does the bulk of the fighting. By design the TDF units are given the bare minimum needed to do their job freeing up the bulk of supplies for the main army. The TDF units are militia who got minimal training.
Territorial Defense Forces [Teritorialna Oborona - TrO]
The commander who gave the interview to the Washington Post has been relieved of command and arrested
Commander of the Armed Forces of Ukraine arrested in Ukraine, who gave an interview to The Washington Post
That unit shouldn't be on the front line, but it is not an example of a first rate Ukrainian unit.
This is a similar situation to the American Revolution. The Ukrainians have the home field advantage, esprit de corps, and allies willing to give them what they need. But Russia is bigger and has more equipment.
petit_bateau
Active Member
I would like to hope this view is correct, but.....
The Russians are prioritising moves along railway axis, with flanks set on river features. This minimises their logistics problems and allows them to focus their offensive capability at the thrusts. Especially their heavy artillery.
Also they have de facto fully secured their sea flank, and seem to have local air control over the active front. At least air denial vs Ukraine.
This means that they can choose when and where to stop advancing, and dig in so as to be able to hold that area with fewer units in a defensive stance whilst refocusing on another sector/thrust.
This dynamic in the East and South is in Rusdias favour. I expect them to offer a ceasefire when they reach good defensive positions on the Donbas front, plus perhaps further pushes beyond Kherson and continued pressure on Kharkiv. And I expect the normal Friends Of Putin to split the West and pressurise Ukraine to agree. This would of course be fatal and Ukraine knows that.
Only if or when Ukraine can show it has full spectrum manoeuvre warfare capability at approx divisional level with - imho as a minimum - equivalent artillery (or substitute) to the Russians, will Ukraine be in a position to attempt to take back ground in this situation.
If that were to happen then it is possible that the Russian forces in the East or South would fracture open along one of the vulnerable axis. But the Ukraine is not even yrying to do this yet , which indicates that Ukraine does not yet (and may never) have the necessary minimum preconditions. Ie uncommitted trained and equipped manpower, heavy weaponry on the full range, and the corresponding logistics tail and stockpiles.
Don't get me wrong. I want Ukraine to fully retake all of its territories and recover all its population. But I am simply observing the facts as I see them.
At present it seems like the war will grind on.
Ukraine is probably still assembling the resources for any counter attacks.
But IMO they can thwart Russia by simply not agreeing to a cease fire.
The war then essentially becomes a long running economic battle, Ukraine should still get enough resupply to stay in the fight. The captured territory is of little economic benefit to Russia.
I am not suggesting what Ukraine should do, merely indicating what I think they will do.
I doubt that there would be a ceasefire.
The reality is this is a war that stretches back to 2014.
