Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

[teuchter]

Why would you suggest it's faith to assess the war for what it is? The naysayers here are the ones who seem to have less interest in the details and just stick to believing the might of Russia will win. It's true they still could, but they also could have won in Afghanistan.

There does however sometimes seem to be a bit of a tendency to say that Ukraine are doing really well if you consider how difficult Russia has been making things for them, by doing mean stuff like laying mines.

 

[StoneRoad]

For the umpteenth time ...

The Ukrainians are pushing across areas that are heavily mined - with densities such as FIVE mines per square metre.
Of course progress is slow, it takes time for sappers to clear such a density, especially as they are often under fire at the time.
And there are plenty of other obstacles ...

Progress is slow, yes, I don't disagree with that, but advances are still happening.

I have been reminded of two points
i) that the start of the Kherson Counter-Offensive seemed really slow for some time, it wasn't until the UKR attacks on the enemies logistics had degraded the supply chain sufficiently that the UKR forces were able to make rapid advances ...
ii) the wait for sufficient supplies of western armour and munitions meant that the invading forces have had ample time to construct defences in depth [whether the invaders have enough combat effective forces ready to continue defending those lines is yet to be determined]

 

[Pickman's model]

That Ukraine intends to continue to fight during the bad weather has been in the media for a good while now. How have you missed it?

Do you know, that they intend to continue fighting despite adverse conditions was in StoneRoad's post. So no, their intention is something I'm aware of. However, an intention to fight during times of adverse weather, and an ability to do the same are two rather different things. I don't know how much winter gear Ukraine (or for that matter russia) possesses, how much they're handing out to the troops, how they'll find bradleys and other vehicles work in the winter. So yeh - the senior leaders may have good intentions. But we all know what those pave.

 

[Pickman's model]

That Ukraine intends to continue to fight during the bad weather has been in the media for a good while now. How have you missed it?

There are also possible issues round small arms as this article points out for the m4 Army Issues Tips for Operating Weapons in Extreme Cold

 

[StoneRoad]

Do you know, that they intend to continue fighting despite adverse conditions was in StoneRoad's post. So no, their intention is something I'm aware of. However, an intention to fight during times of adverse weather, and an ability to do the same are two rather different things. I don't know how much winter gear Ukraine (or for that matter russia) possesses, how much they're handing out to the troops, how they'll find bradleys and other vehicles work in the winter. So yeh - the senior leaders may have good intentions. But we all know what those pave.

Historically, at least, both sides have experience of warfare during continental winter weather.
Might be worth checking what happened last winter ...

 

[spitfire]

I was reading about this yesterday but couldn't remember where, ISW now posting about a possible breakthrough to the rear defences.

Could be a timely development.

Spoiler: tweet

Thread by @TheStudyofWar on Thread Reader App

@TheStudyofWar: NEW: ISW is now prepared to assess that Ukrainian forces have broken through Russian field fortifications west of #Verbove in western #Zaporizhia Oblast. 🧵(1/7) Latest campaign assessment: isw.pub/Uk...…

threadreaderapp.com

 

[Pickman's model]

Historically, at least, both sides have experience of warfare during continental winter weather.
Might be worth checking what happened last winter ...

Yeh. Both sides have experience - but the extent to which this has been transferred to the actual soldiers might differ. Snow will cause Ukraine a lot of problems should the russians lay more mines. Not to mention the human factors, both in those prepared and those unprepared for combat in the cold and muddy. Here's a view from Australia which doesn't seem too outlandish Napoleon and Hitler battled the Marshall Mud. Could it be Putin's undoing?

 

[LDC]

The 'fighting season' stuff is over-egged isn't it, especially on here. Doesn't it come more from Afghanistan due to the poppy harvest than anywhere else, it's not like the fighting is going to stop or grind to a halt over the winter, it just makes some things more difficult.

There's no real issues around small arms usage that will impact the general level of what happens on the wider battlefield, that's just advice to remind soldiers to clean and lubricate their weapons correctly in cold conditions.

 

[Artaxerxes]

The 'fighting season' stuff is over-egged isn't it, especially on here. Doesn't it come more from Afghanistan due to the poppy harvest than anywhere else, it's not like the fighting is going to stop or grind to a halt over the winter, it just makes some things more difficult.

There's no real issues around small arms usage that will impact the general level of what happens on the wider battlefield, that's just advice to remind soldiers to clean and lubricate their weapons correctly in cold conditions.

Traditionally armies have always wound down offensives in the winter, once it was for harvest reasons and logistics reasons, but especially in that part of the world just because fighting and moving in winter is hard due to snow and mud and rain and cold.

Fighting never stops but big bold offensives are rarer because it becomes harder to sustain them.

Some armies can manage it and some try and fuck right up, like say the time you try to capture Kyiv in three days and end up fighting a war of attrition 2 years later

 

[Pickman's model]

The 'fighting season' stuff is over-egged isn't it, especially on here. Doesn't it come more from Afghanistan due to the poppy harvest than anywhere else, it's not like the fighting is going to stop or grind to a halt over the winter, it just makes some things more difficult.

There's no real issues around small arms usage that will impact the general level of what happens on the wider battlefield, that's just advice to remind soldiers to clean and lubricate their weapons correctly in cold conditions.

I see you're of the all quiet on the western front school - the last few sentences of the book. If the American army need reminding about that - perhaps the best trained and certainly best equipped in the world - how much more so the two armies facing each other in Ukraine. Let's hope that information's shared with the Ukrainians equipped with the m4, eh.

 

[strung out]

The 'fighting season' stuff is over-egged isn't it, especially on here.

Yep. Especially given any offensive action will be happening in the south where it doesn't get anywhere near as cold or muddy as other parts of Ukraine.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yep. Especially given any offensive action will be happening in the south where it doesn't get anywhere near as cold or muddy as other parts of Ukraine.

The thing is, the offensive action does not happen in isolation from everything else so perfect conditions for attack in crimea, say, rely on conditions along the lines of supply and communication.

 

[dilute micro]

No one wins in Afghanistan. And no one wins in Ukraine. Can you see any outcome which can really be described as victory for any side?

Yes, but victory has to be understood through the eyes of both sides. For Putin and Russia, they want control of the Ukrainian "territory". Russia was defeated in the 3 day takeover attempt. They switched from trying to take Kyiv to holding the coastal ports, which are vital for Ukraine's economy. This lets Russia to go the long rout and crush Ukraine's economy, and this can go on for years if Russia wants. It gives Russia a foothold for another attempt at Kyiv when Russia has built its military back up. This has been said over and over. Putin will take that if that's all he can get.

Ukraine has to get Russia out of the country. Ukraine loses if they don't. Russia is having enormous problems with materiel and reinforcements. They're running out of artillery shells. Cosplay soldiers aren't soldiers. Soldiers with no training other than shooting 30 bullets at a target are just meat in a trench. What you're seeing now is Ukraine having to go at the pace it has to in order to provide cover for their troops because of not having air superiority. But they're still doing it. They've just crossed the 2nd Surovikin line. They're flanking Bakhmut. They're establishing multiple beachheads in the south along the river. They're dismantling Crimean air defences and taking out whatever high value targets they want there, and forcing the Russian navy to move or begin to move. They're taking out Russian command and control. They've been hitting Russian ammo depots. They've snuffed entire units. And they've been destroying Russian tanks and artillery to the point that they're running out of those as well and aren't able to keep up the fight like they did earlier this year. Cosplay soldiers don't make an army and barrier troops don't make people believe in fighting or that they've eaten something when they haven't. Start conscripting people from Moscow or St Petersburg instead of the poor country folk and see how it goes. Ukraine wins by grinding Russia down to the point that they can't stay, whether that's because a place like Crimea is too hard to keep or the people in Russia don't want any part of the war any longer.

Actually there's an interesting youtube video out recently on this very subject.

Ukraine's Alternate Win Condition: Inside the Gamble on the War of Attrition

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes, but victory has to be understood through the eyes of both sides. For Putin and Russia, they want control of the Ukrainian "territory". Russia was defeated in the 3 day takeover attempt. They switched from trying to take Kyiv to holding the coastal ports, which are vital for Ukraine's economy. This lets Russia to go the long rout and crush Ukraine's economy, and this can go on for years if Russia wants. It gives Russia a foothold for another attempt at Kyiv when Russia has built its military back up. This has been said over and over. Putin will take that if that's all he can get.

Ukraine has to get Russia out of the country. Ukraine loses if they don't. Russia is having enormous problems with materiel and reinforcements. They're running out of artillery shells. Cosplay soldiers aren't soldiers. Soldiers with no training other than shooting 30 bullets at a target are just meat in a trench. What you're seeing now is Ukraine having to go at the pace it has to in order to provide cover for their troops because of not having air superiority. But they're still doing it. They've just crossed the 2nd Surovikin line. They're flanking Bakhmut. They're establishing multiple beachheads in the south along the river. They're dismantling Crimean air defences and taking out whatever high value targets they want there, and forcing the Russian navy to move or begin to move. They're taking out Russian command and control. They've been hitting Russian ammo depots. They've snuffed entire units. And they've been destroying Russian tanks and artillery to the point that they're running out of those as well and aren't able to keep up the fight like they did earlier this year. Cosplay soldiers don't make an army and barrier troops don't make people believe in fighting or that they've eaten something when they haven't. Start conscripting people from Moscow or St Petersburg instead of the poor country folk and see how it goes. Ukraine wins by grinding Russia down to the point that they can't stay, whether that's because a place like Crimea is too hard to keep or the people in Russia don't want any part of the war any longer.

Actually there's an interesting youtube video out recently on this very subject.

Ukraine's Alternate Win Condition: Inside the Gamble on the War of Attrition

You seem to ignore that there are more than two players in this game, and ukraine's ability to continue depends on the willingness of nato countries continuing to offer weapons at the rate they have been over the past 500+ days. This is by no means certain to continue indefinitely, as I and others have said.

But however the conflict ends, it's very hard to see any party to the war winning. Russia has lost scores of thousands dead and faces economic and quite possibly social turmoil for the foreseeable future after the cessation of actual fighting. Ukraine is in the shitter socially, economically and environmentally. The only people likely to do well out of this war are the people who've lent Ukraine money or built weapons subsequently supplied to them.

 

[dilute micro]

There does however sometimes seem to be a bit of a tendency to say that Ukraine are doing really well if you consider how difficult Russia has been making things for them, by doing mean stuff like laying mines.

Really well considering how difficult the West, NATO, and Russia has made things for them.

 

[dilute micro]

You seem to ignore that there are more than two players in this game, and ukraine's ability to continue depends on the willingness of nato countries continuing to offer weapons at the rate they have been over the past 500+ days. This is by no means certain to continue indefinitely, as I and others have said.

But however the conflict ends, it's very hard to see any party to the war winning. Russia has lost scores of thousands dead and faces economic and quite possibly social turmoil for the foreseeable future after the cessation of actual fighting. Ukraine is in the shitter socially, economically and environmentally. The only people likely to do well out of this war are the people who've lent Ukraine money or built weapons subsequently supplied to them.

In what wars fought for the existence of a country has it not been terrible?

 

[Pickman's model]

In what wars fought for the existence of a country has it not been terrible?

the platitude is the last refuge of the scoundrel

 

[dilute micro]

the platitude is the last refuge of the scoundrel

And yet there you are, still.

 

[Pickman's model]

And yet there you are, still.

You're all 'war is terrible' and people don't get more platitudinous than that

 

[dilute micro]

You're all 'war is terrible' and people don't get more platitudinous than that

Do you remember writing this? It was your post before the one on platitudes.

"But however the conflict ends, it's very hard to see any party to the war winning. Russia has lost scores of thousands dead and faces economic and quite possibly social turmoil for the foreseeable future after the cessation of actual fighting. Ukraine is in the shitter socially, economically and environmentally. The only people likely to do well out of this war are the people who've lent Ukraine money or built weapons subsequently supplied to them."

You write this sort of thing all the time. The Ukrainians understand the costs better than anyone. They believe in something you apparently don't think matters as much, and they're willing to fight and accept the death and destruction for it. The thing about that is, in order to see Ukrainian self-governance and self-determination, free elections and all that as not being worth fighting for, it would take seeing Ukrainians in the same sort of light as the Russians see them, that they're not worth it. There's also a little bit of arrogance to think you know better than themselves what's good for them.

Ukraine may lose. They may not get any more weapons a year from now. They're not stupid. They know this. But this fight is their decision to make, and they will do it without NATO if need be. They believe that a peace agreement will not last. I don't know why anyone would be foolish enough to think it would. Even if it did, Ukraine can't do without their economy and the ports needed to keep trade going.

 

[Pickman's model]

.

 

[Pickman's model]

Do you remember writing this? It was your post before the one on platitudes.



You write this sort of thing all the time. The Ukrainians understand the costs better than anyone. They believe in something you apparently don't think matters as much, and they're willing to fight and accept the death and destruction for it. The thing about that is, in order to see Ukrainian self-governance and self-determination, free elections and all that as not being worth fighting for, it would take seeing Ukrainians in the same sort of light as the Russians see them, that they're not worth it. There's also a little bit of arrogance to think you know better than themselves what's good for them.

Ukraine may lose. They may not get any more weapons a year from now. They're not stupid. They know this. But this fight is their decision to make, and they will do it without NATO if need be. They believe that a peace agreement will not last. I don't know why anyone would be foolish enough to think it would. Even if it did, Ukraine can't do without their economy and the ports needed to keep trade going.

You seem to have read a different post from the one I wrote. I'm certainly not arrogant enough to declare as you do that 'the Ukrainians' are OK with the death and destruction. The Ukrainians who've fled rather than fight and those who've bribed their way out of serving would likely disagree with you. But then you'd likely call them unukrainian. But let's be clear. What happens in Ukraine after the war will see the country, whether it's the 2013 borders, the 2015 borders, or the current de facto borders,sold off. I'm sure you've followed the talk of privatisations. I'm sure you've seen this from February. https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/new-report-take-over-ukrainian-agricultural-land. Add in death and destruction and endemic corruption and revenge and chaos and the bankruptcy of the state plus environmental catastrophe and mines and so on - even if you're right and the russians are ejected, it'll be a very hollow victory.

 

[Chz]

even if you're right and the russians are ejected, it'll be a very hollow victory.

If "gosh, doesn't war really create a lot of devastation" is the benchmark, what victory isn't hollow?

 

[dilute micro]

You seem to have read a different post from the one I wrote. I'm certainly not arrogant enough to declare as you do that 'the Ukrainians' are OK with the death and destruction. The Ukrainians who've fled rather than fight and those who've bribed their way out of serving would likely disagree with you. But then you'd likely call them unukrainian. But let's be clear. What happens in Ukraine after the war will see the country, whether it's the 2013 borders, the 2015 borders, or the current de facto borders,sold off. I'm sure you've followed the talk of privatisations. I'm sure you've seen this from February. https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/new-report-take-over-ukrainian-agricultural-land. Add in death and destruction and endemic corruption and revenge and chaos and the bankruptcy of the state plus environmental catastrophe and mines and so on - even if you're right and the russians are ejected, it'll be a very hollow victory.

Didn't say the Ukrainians were "ok" with the death and destruction. I said they accept it and are willing to fight anyway. Ukraine will have to do a lot of work on corruption. Yes, I saw about the farmland takeover. I hope they can do something to stop it.

 

[Pickman's model]

If "gosh, doesn't war really create a lot of devastation" is the benchmark, what victory isn't hollow?

Find someone who says that's the benchmark and ask them

 

[Pickman's model]

Didn't say the Ukrainians were "ok" with the death and destruction. I said they accept it and are willing to fight anyway.

Unleash your inner pedant

 

[The39thStep]

Oh Dear

Canada's House Speaker apologises for praising Ukrainian who fought for Nazis

The House of Commons Speaker apologises for honouring a Ukrainian who served in the Waffen-SS.

www.bbc.com

 

[StoneRoad]

For the umpteenth time ...

The Ukrainians are pushing across areas that are heavily mined - with densities such as FIVE mines per square metre.
Of course progress is slow, it takes time for sappers to clear such a density, especially as they are often under fire at the time.
And there are plenty of other obstacles ...

Progress is slow, yes, I don't disagree with that, but advances are still happening.

and some info on training sappers in clearing minefields

Ukraine war: Training to clear the world's most heavily mined country

How British military bomb disposal teams are helping Ukrainian engineers clear Russian minefields.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[teuchter]

Really well considering how difficult the West, NATO, and Russia has made things for them.

But "doing really well considering the circumstances" is very different from "achieving the desired results" and so the former is somewhat irrelevant to arguments about whether the latter is possible.

 

[Rimbaud]

But "doing really well considering the circumstances" is very different from "achieving the desired results" and so the former is somewhat irrelevant to arguments about whether the latter is possible.

I think it is almost certain that the Ukrainians have forced Putin to dramatically scale back his original goals, which were the total annexation or dismemberment of Ukraine as a country, to merely annexation and control of Kherson, Zaporozhia, Donetsk and Luhansk. I don't think taking Kyiv will be back on the agenda for the foreseeable.

That in itself is a major success. Driving the Russians out of Ukraine entirely is still a distinct possibility, and they don't have to progress much further in order to be able to cut off Crimea and the Russian occupation west of Melitopol.