Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

[dilute micro]

Maybe this NYT analysis is just feigning concern too, but it seems to agree with me that Ukraine's gains in territory are tiny and it actually reckons that Russia has made a net gain this year.

Who’s Gaining Ground in Ukraine? This Year, No One. (Published 2023)

Although both sides have launched ambitious offensives, the front line has barely shifted. After 18 months of war, a breakthrough looks more difficult than ever.

www.nytimes.com

View attachment 395170

View attachment 395171

Part of your problem is that you think the measure of success in the fight is simply the amount of territory gained. That's overly simplistic and wrong. Another issue with you is that you're not going to budge from the overly simplistic. You think you're right, and you don't need to learn the busy little details which don't interest you. Fighting a war isn't solely about gaining ground, which your link isn't even claiming. It's not one objective like arm wrestling or "a sudden and significant breakthrough". Ukraine has switched to an attritional war, and that can be boring if you're wanting so much for them to displace the Russians before your next post. I know you're so worried about Ukraine, but you'll have to wait like the rest of us. This is going to be a longer war than we were told by the media.

 

[existentialist]

Maybe this NYT analysis is just feigning concern too, but it seems to agree with me that Ukraine's gains in territory are tiny and it actually reckons that Russia has made a net gain this year.

Who’s Gaining Ground in Ukraine? This Year, No One. (Published 2023)

Although both sides have launched ambitious offensives, the front line has barely shifted. After 18 months of war, a breakthrough looks more difficult than ever.

www.nytimes.com

View attachment 395170

View attachment 395171

I think the situation is far more complex than mere real estate, TBH. But I think you know this.

 

[existentialist]

Part of your problem is that you think the measure of success in the fight is simply the amount of territory gained. That's overly simplistic and wrong. Another issue with you is that you're not going to budge from the overly simplistic. You think you're right, and you don't need to learn the busy little details which don't interest you. Fighting a war isn't solely about gaining ground, which your link isn't even claiming. It's not one objective like arm wrestling or "a sudden and significant breakthrough". Ukraine has switched to an attritional war, and that can be boring if you're wanting so much for them to displace the Russians before your next post. I know you're so worried about Ukraine, but you'll have to wait like the rest of us. This is going to be a longer war than we were told by the media.

"Attritional" always sounds a bit nihilistic, but I guess Ukraine is betting on Russian logistics and recruitment not being able to replace materials and men sufficiently to make their calculus work out.

And, so far, we can only assume they're right - evidence does seem to suggest that they're hollowing out the Russian lines rather more than their own losses.

 

[dilute micro]

"Attritional" always sounds a bit nihilistic, but I guess Ukraine is betting on Russian logistics and recruitment not being able to replace materials and men sufficiently to make their calculus work out.

And, so far, we can only assume they're right - evidence does seem to suggest that they're hollowing out the Russian lines rather more than their own losses.

I wouldn't be surprised if they're waiting for the F16s for the next phase. Not having all the tools at the same time has forced them to adjust some things. In true Russian fashion, spetznaz are manning trenches, not dropping behind the lines. Maybe their parachutes were sold on the black market.

 

[Pickman's model]

Part of your problem is that you think the measure of success in the fight is simply the amount of territory gained. That's overly simplistic and wrong. Another issue with you is that you're not going to budge from the overly simplistic. You think you're right, and you don't need to learn the busy little details which don't interest you. Fighting a war isn't solely about gaining ground, which your link isn't even claiming. It's not one objective like arm wrestling or "a sudden and significant breakthrough". Ukraine has switched to an attritional war, and that can be boring if you're wanting so much for them to displace the Russians before your next post. I know you're so worried about Ukraine, but you'll have to wait like the rest of us. This is going to be a longer war than we were told by the media.

I'm not sure offensives have been about attritional warfare for some time given the traditional military calculation that you need rather more men to attack than you do to defend

 

[teuchter]

I think the situation is far more complex than mere real estate, TBH. But I think you know this.

Of course I know this. But I have been responding specifically to the idea that Ukraine is currently making slow but significant twrritorial advances. I think it's a misrepresentation of what's actually happening at the moment. It seems that some have decided I've got some sort of sinister agenda in taking this view.

This is related to the repeated statements about the Russian side being degraded to being on the point of collapse, unable to hold the line. We've been hearing that for months and months now, but for now, they are holding the line and Ukraine are not managing to reclaim territory other than tiny pockets here and there. Of course maybe they are on the point of collapse and tomorrow or next week is when it's all going to happen. Or maybe both armies are going to carry on shooting and bombing each other for months or years yet with little change in the territory controlled.

 

[dilute micro]

I'm not sure offensives have been about attritional warfare for some time given the traditional military calculation that you need rather more men to attack than you do to defend

Right, normally that's true. It's expected by US calculations that the attacker of defended positions will lose 3 times what the defending force will. But the Russians are so shit, they're losing more than the Ukrainians.

 

[Pickman's model]

Right, normally that's true. It's expected by US calculations that the attacker of defended positions will lose 3 times what the defending force will. But the Russians are so shit, they're losing more than the Ukrainians.

Could you share the source of your surprisingly accurate casualty ratios?

 

[dilute micro]

Could you share the source of your surprisingly accurate casualty ratios?

You're telling on yourself. This subject has been out there for a long while. You've paid no attention to this. Rate of loss is important, you know. You'll remember Ukraine curiously rejected NATO's suggestion that they find a spot and punch right through. Ukraine said no. They stayed at their lines. This was because they were making gains in another crucial area. They were out-killing Russians even when Russians were in the trenches, hardware too, particularly artillery. And much of this was before cluster munitions, which greatly helps Russians go back home to their families.

Anyway, one banana tallier are these folks. There are others out there. Estimating troop losses on both sides in the Russia-Ukraine war

Alexandr Burilkov points out that Putin is under pressure from the ultranationalist forces to continue and escalate the war. But the number of Russian personnel losses and comparable equipment losses is paradoxically high. This reflects a narrative of poorly equipped Russian soldiers and ineffective supply lines. Perhaps those in Putin’s inner circle who are pro-negotiation are better informed about actual losses and the under-equipment of their forces.

The second winter of the Russia-Ukraine war will soon be upon us. With high losses, underequipped forces, and ineffective supply lines, Putin may need to reconsider his choices and move towards a peace plan. Inaccurate reports of how the war is going may bolster popular support, but are an ineffective long-term war strategy.

 

[ska invita]

Any of the daily update YouTube videos will tell you the same; Russians tried to close the salient near Avdiivka and this was countered by Ukraine.

I didn't realise that such precise information was available to the public.... "today it was 900+ dead, 40 odd tanks and APC's. Day before was 800 dead and 90 APC's destroyed" <that suggests very accurate knowledge and immediate dissemination. I'm not aware of daily update YouTube videos - where are the people making these videos getting these figures from?

The link posted in the post above uses estimates based on formula on how biased official figures are presumed to be. Thats still reliant on the official figures though. Are the daily videos based on official figures? I'm genuinely curious as I wasnt aware of such daily figures, for either side.

 

[Pickman's model]

You're telling on yourself. This subject has been out there for a long while. You've paid no attention to this. Rate of loss is important, you know. You'll remember Ukraine curiously rejected NATO's suggestion that they find a spot and punch right through. Ukraine said no. They stayed at their lines. This was because they were making gains in another crucial area. They were out-killing Russians even when Russians were in the trenches, hardware too, particularly artillery. And much of this was before cluster munitions, which greatly helps Russians go back home to their families.

Anyway, one banana tallier are these folks. There are others out there. Estimating troop losses on both sides in the Russia-Ukraine war

That's a very long no really

 

[jeff_leigh]

Could you share the source of your surprisingly accurate casualty ratios?

Trust me Bro

 

[strung out]

There won't be any accurate casualty figures for the counter offensive, but the most recent estimate for equipment losses since the southern counter offensive started (based on verifiable open source intelligence) have the number of vehicles lost by each side to be about even. More from the Ukrainian side if you discount drones and trucks.

 

[Artaxerxes]

I didn't realise that such precise information was available to the public.... "today it was 900+ dead, 40 odd tanks and APC's. Day before was 800 dead and 90 APC's destroyed" <that suggests very accurate knowledge and immediate dissemination. I'm not aware of daily update YouTube videos - where are the people making these videos getting these figures from?

The link posted in the post above uses estimates based on formula on how biased official figures are presumed to be. Thats still reliant on the official figures though. Are the daily videos based on official figures? I'm genuinely curious as I wasnt aware of such daily figures, for either side.

There are people and teams spending days watching and matching Drone footage and counting spot fires, literally racking everything together and comparing things.

 

[RedRedRose]

I didn't realise that such precise information was available to the public.... "today it was 900+ dead, 40 odd tanks and APC's. Day before was 800 dead and 90 APC's destroyed" <that suggests very accurate knowledge and immediate dissemination. I'm not aware of daily update YouTube videos - where are the people making these videos getting these figures from?

The link posted in the post above uses estimates based on formula on how biased official figures are presumed to be. Thats still reliant on the official figures though. Are the daily videos based on official figures? I'm genuinely curious as I wasnt aware of such daily figures, for either side.

Both sides have been releasing details from the start of the conflict. While the Russian side are clearly fantasy, numerous commentators have put the Ukrainian side as being close to the mark.

The ATP channel tries to validate the claims made by both sides, and he discusses the Russian encirclement in the video below. Lot of convoy footage from about 11minutes onwards.

 

[ska invita]

Both sides have been releasing details from the start of the conflict. While the Russian side are clearly fantasy, numerous commentators have put the Ukrainian side as being close to the mark.

The ATP channel tries to validate the claims made by both sides, and he discusses the Russian encirclement in the video below. Lot of convoy footage from about 11minutes onwards.

Interesting watch....the man in the video does try to explain the methodology there but it isnt really clear to me what the evidence really is. Similiar to the link above from The Loop it seems predicated on factoring in what isn't known.

So there's some video footage available that can confirm a casualty, but then theres lots of video footage that "hasn't been uploaded" but is presumed to exist, and is counted as such? What I dont get is how much of counted losses are based on video evidence and how much is unevidenced. Any idea on that?

 

[strung out]

Interesting watch....the man in the video does try to explain the methodology there but it isnt really clear to me what the evidence really is. Similiar to the link above from The Loop it seems predicated on factoring in what isn't known.

So there's some video footage available that can confirm a casualty, but then theres lots of video footage that "hasn't been uploaded" but is presumed to exist, and is counted as such? What I dont get is how much of counted losses are based on video evidence and how much is unevidenced. Any idea on that?

The most definitive list of vehicle/artillery losses for both sides is on the Oryx blog, which posts a link to the original source for each confirmed loss, either a picture or video, often posted to twitter, but often on open and closed telegram channels or instagram.

Attack On Europe: Documenting Ukrainian Equipment Losses During The Russian Invasion Of Ukraine

www.oryxspioenkop.com

Attack On Europe: Documenting Russian Equipment Losses During The Russian Invasion Of Ukraine

www.oryxspioenkop.com

Ukraine has got more documented losses from the start of the counter offensive, but clearly it doesn't include stuff there isn't any evidence for, which might be substantial (or might not).

 

[ska invita]

The most definitive list of vehicle/artillery losses for both sides is on the Oryx blog, which posts a link to the original source for each confirmed loss, either a picture or video, often posted to twitter, but often on open and closed telegram channels or instagram.

Attack On Europe: Documenting Ukrainian Equipment Losses During The Russian Invasion Of Ukraine

www.oryxspioenkop.com

Attack On Europe: Documenting Russian Equipment Losses During The Russian Invasion Of Ukraine

www.oryxspioenkop.com

Ukraine has got more documented losses from the start of the counter offensive, but clearly it doesn't include stuff there isn't any evidence for, which might be substantial (or might not).

those links are from early last year - is that still being updated?

 

[DownwardDog]

Part of your problem is that you think the measure of success in the fight is simply the amount of territory gained.

Well, ultimately it is.

Success for Russia is getting the four oblasts plus Crimea when the fighting stops. Regime change in Kiev is a stretch goal and they might get that anyway.

Success for Ukraine is pushing Russia back to the January 2022 borders, Crimea being a lost cause at this point.

Neither of them looks remotely likely to get their preferred outcome.

By all means, rub one out over a Google sheet of largely fabricated numbers of destroyed tanks but meanwhile nobody is taking any significant amount of territory.

 

[Pickman's model]

Part of your problem is that you think the measure of success in the fight is simply the amount of territory gained. That's overly simplistic and wrong. Another issue with you is that you're not going to budge from the overly simplistic. You think you're right, and you don't need to learn the busy little details which don't interest you. Fighting a war isn't solely about gaining ground, which your link isn't even claiming. It's not one objective like arm wrestling or "a sudden and significant breakthrough". Ukraine has switched to an attritional war, and that can be boring if you're wanting so much for them to displace the Russians before your next post. I know you're so worried about Ukraine, but you'll have to wait like the rest of us. This is going to be a longer war than we were told by the media.

Isn't the stated war aim of Ukraine to expel the russians and restore the status quo ante, the borders from 2013? If that is the case, then capturing land from the russians is a very tangible measure of success: or failure. If you have information about the Ukrainians seeking a different goal from the fighting why not share it?

 

[JimW]

Russian defence spending up to 6 percent of GDP in upcoming budget, which these commentators see as a sign of them sticking with the war: https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/90753

 

[strung out]

those links are from early last year - is that still being updated?

Yes, updated daily by this guy: https://twitter.com/Rebel44CZ

The dates on the articles above are from the first day of the war.

 

[dilute micro]

Well, ultimately it is.

Success for Russia is getting the four oblasts plus Crimea when the fighting stops. Regime change in Kiev is a stretch goal and they might get that anyway.

Success for Ukraine is pushing Russia back to the January 2022 borders, Crimea being a lost cause at this point.

Neither of them looks remotely likely to get their preferred outcome.

By all means, rub one out over a Google sheet of largely fabricated numbers of destroyed tanks but meanwhile nobody is taking any significant amount of territory.

"Ultimately" isn't how wars are fought. And it's this lack of conceptual grasp of the subject that has some of you hung up. There are many other smaller objectives based on varying strategies that can and need to be done before you reach the end objective. So when someone who has no concept of this clicks on a map of Ukraine and judges success or failure based only on the red and blue areas indicating which side holds what land, they think they can assess that Ukraine isn't getting the job done. There will be a time to make that final judgement, but it isn't now.

 

[existentialist]

By all means, rub one out over a Google sheet of largely fabricated numbers of destroyed tanks but meanwhile nobody is taking any significant amount of territory.

I get kind of narked when people say this kind of thing. Sure, the Internet is full of "war fans", only there for the Big Bangs and the carnage. But there is precious little evidence of that going on here, and I think you devalue your own points with comments like this.

 

[existentialist]

A take on the whole business of counting the dead.

 

[Pickman's model]

"Ultimately" isn't how wars are fought. And it's this lack of conceptual grasp of the subject that has some of you hung up. There are many other smaller objectives based on varying strategies that can and need to be done before you reach the end objective. So when someone who has no concept of this clicks on a map of Ukraine and judges success or failure based only on the red and blue areas indicating which side holds what land, they think they can assess that Ukraine isn't getting the job done. There will be a time to make that final judgement, but it isn't now.

the strategy is how you get to the end objective and tactics are short-term steps towards that. and you're by no means the first to point out that success or failure is only judged properly when the referee blows the final whistle

 

[teuchter]

"Ultimately" isn't how wars are fought. And it's this lack of conceptual grasp of the subject that has some of you hung up. There are many other smaller objectives based on varying strategies that can and need to be done before you reach the end objective. So when someone who has no concept of this clicks on a map of Ukraine and judges success or failure based only on the red and blue areas indicating which side holds what land, they think they can assess that Ukraine isn't getting the job done. There will be a time to make that final judgement, but it isn't now.

This is what you said yesterday:

For one thing, the Russians are not holding the current position (for the sake of your point). The Ukrainians are advancing, albeit slowly. The Russians are having to relocate units from one part of the line to another part. That's the first evidence of degradation. That's because some units no longer exist or have lost so many members to be effective.

And that's what I was responding to. The specific claim that the Ukrainians are currently "advancing". Based on the evidence we have, yes they are making small advances here and there. But Russia is making small advances here and there too. And in both cases the advances are very very small, in relation to the area of the occupied territory. The NYT article I posted, with the red and blue areas, seems to support my general impression with some actual numbers.

To say "the Russians are not holding the current position" is, I think, misleading. For all intents and purposes, that is what they are managing to do, at the moment.

 

[dilute micro]

the strategy is how you get to the end objective and tactics are short-term steps towards that. and you're by no means the first to point out that success or failure is only judged properly when the referee blows the final whistle

No, now you're doing it. You're oversimplifying the subject. There is no singular "the strategy" especially in Ukraine. There are multiple strategies employed for multiple situations, as we've seen since the beginning of the war. Even now, on the line, we see several strategies at work from the north to the south. And again, especially in Ukraine because of the uncertainty of resources. Usually when making plans, a general staff know what capabilities they have. Ukraine, otoh, might have particular sorts of weaponry at a particular time, at a particular volume or might not have them at all. That makes it exceedingly difficult to plan short term and long term. That's why Ukraine have done an exceptional job fighting an enormous army right next door. Have a look at this link and become familiar with battlefield strategies.

strategies...and more strategies

 

[Pickman's model]

No, now you're doing it. You're oversimplifying the subject. There is no singular "the strategy" especially in Ukraine. There are multiple strategies employed for multiple situations, as we've seen since the beginning of the war. Even now, on the line, we see several strategies at work from the north to the south. And again, especially in Ukraine because of the uncertainty of resources. Usually when making plans, a general staff know what capabilities they have. Ukraine, otoh, might have particular sorts of weaponry at a particular time, at a particular volume or might not have them at all. That makes it exceedingly difficult to plan short term and long term. That's why Ukraine have done an exceptional job fighting an enormous army right next door. Have a look at this link and become familiar with battlefield strategies.

strategies...and more strategies

you don't have a fucking clue. you link to something where some of the terms are explicitly described as maneuvers, and there's no way on god's green earth that a maneuver is a strategy. tell you what, have a look at something like an annotated guide to tactics or b.a. friedman's 'on tactics' and find out about the things which currently confuse you. sure, there will be different plans for different sections of the front but they will be coordinated by the ukrainian general staff, it's not like general a goes off to one section and general b goes to another and they work without any communication or general plan guiding them.

 

[The39thStep]

Whatever happened to @clusterface?