2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

TommiR

TommiR

PatrThom said:
There is definitely sympathy for Ukraine from the rest of the world, but I feel like another motivation that is just as strong is the desire to hand Russia a solid defeat at the hands of someone Russia views as a (much) smaller/weaker power in order to gaslight Russia into the idea that their military is impotent and so should therefore abandon any other expansion ideas they might’ve had waiting in the wings and worry more about retaining what they already have.
Click to expand...
Another aspect some might find troubling is the general impact on the collective security mechanisms currently in operation for peace and order in the world. Link.
AshburnerX said:
1.) Russia's military industry actually relies massively on imported parts from other countries. It does not have the parts on hand to say... make it's aging nuclear arsenal reach it's full distance or produce guided anti-tank rockets enmass. This was by design: the entire Russian economy is run like a mafia and putting people with the knowledge and know-how to produce weapons that can defeat Russia's enemies also puts rivals in the power chain that could also defeat Putin. As such, most of it's high tech goods are produced outside the country, including important parts for tanks, planes, and long range artillery. Don't expect Russia's allies to keep supporting them forever ether... they don't have the resources to both fight their now emboldened enemies AND help out Russia.
Click to expand...
This is why stricter sanctions on their supply chains are important. So far it seems that Russian arms deliveries to their customers around the world have not been majorly impacted, indicating they can deal with it for now, though the issue might change if the conflict is prolonged. Link.
2.) It's actually both an issue of supply AND logisics. Russia has proven time and time again it can't effectively supply it's units more than 5 miles away from a supply point... if they do a convoy, the convoy gets destroyed. Without control of the roads or the rails, Russia has no means to support it's army past a certain distance.
Click to expand...
Mmm. Not so easy to find reliable details on Russian supply distances, though their system seems to be a modification of the Soviet system of logistics. Certainly the conflict has brought to light significant errors in supply planning. But 5 miles from the front line is in the ballpark of where you normally would expect to find a Soviet battalion level supply depot (edit: on the offensive), though the distance is naturally influenced by a myriad of factors.

Here is an article discussing the impacts of Russian logistics as applied in Ukraine on operations in the Baltics. Here is some info on us logistics planning for large scale combat operations, for comparison.
 
Last edited:
Bubble181

Bubble181

A carbomb took out most of the Crimea Bridge today. This was the only physical connection of the Crimea to mainland Russia (along with occupied UA territory at the moment, of course).
Supply lines through UA territory have long been unstable and targets of guerrilla activity (or terrorism, or resistance, or whatever your political leanings suggest as the right term); the bridge was the main supply line for all Russian troops in the Crimea and Cherson Oblast.
This is both a morale hit for Russia - remember, up until less than a month ago Russians were still going holidaying on the beaches of the Crimea as they were being told these were perfectly safe, Russian lands! - and a serious logistics setback. Russia has been moving troops first from Cherson to Kharkiv, and lately, the other way around in an attempt to maintain the southern lines. Intelligence suggests that quite a lot of the Russian elite units (including most experienced Wagner forces and the Kadyrovksi) are currently in Cherson - if these fall without support, logistics and supplies that could conceivably mean UA forces might be able to clear large parts of Cherson the same way they did Kharkiv before winter.
 
D

Dubyamn

TommiR said:
If one takes stock of the areas where it is easiest to establish relative strength in conventional warfare, then Russia is superior in manpower (as you mentioned), in the size of their defence budget, and in their possession of a formidable full-spectrum arms industry.

In terms of equipment numbers, the pre-war relative situation was overwhelmingly in favor of the Russians in all categories. The extent of that in the current situation is more difficult to establish, since both sides of the conflict seem to be in the habit of extensively misreporting their own losses, and those suffered by the enemy. But even if we take the Ukrainian numbers as accurate, Russia should still have disheartening amounts left, even with the supplies by third countries into the Ukraine. There have been reports of Russia facing equipment shortages, though it is much more difficult to determine if these mean absolute shortages (the stuff does not exist), or if it a question of logistics (the stuff exists, but is not where you need it to be).

Ukraine no doubt enjoys an advantage in morale, which seems to be an area the Russians are struggling with. There are also reports of Ukraine enjoying an advantage in military leadership, made all the more potent by the Russian failure to appoint a single individual as theater commander until April, violating the principle of unity of command. Ukraine also seems to have better intelligence, in large part provided by third-ciuntry assets, whereas tactical recon is not the Russians' strong point.

Third-country aid in military materiel certainly needs to be taken into account. Particularly the provision of HIMARS systems to the Ukraine in June appears to have made an impact. After the initial Russian parade ground invasion got a bloody nose, the Russians fell back to their usual tactic of massed artillery, with good reason: it works. The period saw the greatest gains in ground by the Russians during the invasion. But HIMARS began to make a difference by targeting the Russian supply depots, causing periodic shell shortages to Russian artillery.

And that is the problem as I see it.

According to Finnish military open sources, Russia appears to be settling in for a long war. According to their assessment, Russian reinforcements from last month's partial mobilisation haven't yet reached Ukraine, and that it would be advantageous for the current Ukrainian offensive to be maintained as long as possible (edit: other sources estimate perhaps until late October before the offensive begins to lose steam) in order to regain as much lost ground and defensible positions as can be before they do. Link, only in Finnish I'm afraid.

If they are correct about Russian intentions and preparation for a long war, then the Ukrainian ability to resist Russia in the long run is dependent on the continued willingness of third countries to keep supplying them with advanced (and expensive) military hardware, in sufficient quantities, for the foreseeable future. Now, nobody knows about the future, but it seems to me that this is not necessarily a given, in a world of elections, budget cuts, and policy changes. How far is the natural sympathy felt by much of the world going to carry things?

To be sure, my personal sympathies and hopes rest with the Ukrainians. Their best chance, as I see it, is for military materiel support to keep on coming from the outside, with ever stricter sanctions targeting, among other things, component supply chains to the Russian arms industry. I'm just not at all sure if we collectively have what it takes to keep doing what needs to be done in order to make things work.
Click to expand...
If we’re saying that the superior military power is the one that can lose bodies by the thousands until the US gets bored and wanders off I don’t see how you can argue that Vietnam and the Taliban weren’t militarily superior to the US.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

TommiR said:
Another aspect some might find troubling is the general impact on the collective security mechanisms currently in operation for peace and order in the world. Link.
Click to expand...
I am sure that this has not gone unnoticed by the strategists of the world, especially the ones for whom this is their job.
GasBandit said:
Click to expand...
The most uncomfortable thing about this is that I do not (and CAN not!) know which specific "recent events" are being referred to.

--Patrick
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
The bridge may have been taken out by an underwater drone bomb. The video shows the explosion going up, not down.
 
PatrThom

PatrThom

Dave said:
The bridge may have been taken out by an underwater drone bomb. The video shows the explosion going up, not down.
Click to expand...
I'm imagining a small boat/barge converted into an IED floated down under the bridge on the current and detonated remotely or by proximity (e.g., fixed length of rope). An underwater explosion would waste too much of the explosion displacing the water rob a lot of energy that wouldn't make it to the structure of the bridge. Unless they were specifically targeting one of the bridge's pilings and just missed by a bit.

--Patrick
 
ThatNickGuy

ThatNickGuy

So, I'm not a legal expert, but isn't this illegal in some way? Maybe not treason, but interfering in foreign affairs or something?

 
Last edited:
Shawn

Shawn

ThatNickGuy said:
So, I'm not a legal expert, but isn't this illegal in some way? Maybe not treason, but interfering in foreign affairs or something?

Click to expand...
There's probably good arguments for and good arguments against. Just talking to Putin isn't a crime, but it's possible Musk made things far worse and that could be a problem, though that probably won't be enough to make a case. But if he provided Putin with any national secrets he's definitely up for treason.
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

He may be the wealthiest person on Earth (by some measurements) and he likes to think of himself as some sort of Grand Lord (or, at the very least, the guy who Won the Game), but...he's still a regular citizen. As long as you're not passing on intelligence or information that woudl endanger the country, I don't see how talking to anyone is a crime.

I mean, is it bad? Yes. But I don't think '"talking to someone on the other side" in itself can constitute treason.
 
mikerc

mikerc

Closest I can see after googling would be the Logan Act, which a) in 220 years only 2 people have been charged over, neither convicted & b) exactly how would you define "in dispute"?

Although between this & his call for China to take over Taiwan I do wonder what is up with his bootlicking of authoritarian regimes?
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

mikerc said:
Closest I can see after googling would be the Logan Act, which a) in 220 years only 2 people have been charged over, neither convicted & b) exactly how would you define "in dispute"?

Although between this & his call for China to take over Taiwan I do wonder what is up with his bootlicking of authoritarian regimes?
Click to expand...
He wants China to take over Taiwan because he wants to keep his factories in China working, pumping out his goods at the cheapest possible rate there is and such a statement is the price of China's co-operation in regards to keeping the workers from striking.
 
ScytheRexx

ScytheRexx

Bubble181 said:
I mean, is it bad? Yes. But I don't think '"talking to someone on the other side" in itself can constitute treason.
Click to expand...
The issue is that the US government paid a lot of money to get Starlink, Musk's internet service, setup in Ukraine to help the UA with communicating it's defensive and offensive efforts and keep the internet running without Russia being able to knock it out.

In the last few days Starlink has been acting up in the region and Musk himself said he will stop it from even working in Crimea, meaning should the UA forces cross into that region they will lose part of their communication apparatus. That's why his sudden pro Russia stance and communications with Putin are concerning.
 
Krisken

Krisken

ScytheRexx said:
The issue is that the US government paid a lot of money to get Starlink, Musk's internet service, setup in Ukraine to help the UA with communicating it's defensive and offensive efforts and keep the internet running without Russia being able to knock it out.

In the last few days Starlink has been acting up in the region and Musk himself said he will stop it from even working in Crimea, meaning should the UA forces cross into that region they will lose part of their communication apparatus. That's why his sudden pro Russia stance and communications with Putin are concerning.
Click to expand...
That's a fast way to suddenly be investigated by every bureau the Feds have. I think he believes his money protects him more than it does.
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

Ravenpoe said:
I mean, it's pretty simple. Billionaires (and late stage capitalism by extent) exist through exploitation, so of course they lean towards fascism.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure you even need to go that far.
Practically every rich person - especially the very wealthy - live in a world where they've convinced themselves of their exceptionalism, because being $LOLrich by your own qualities makes sense, while being $Ridiculouslyrich mostly through luck or outside factors is morally and intellectually problematic (see also: lottery winners). Ascribing to "everyone can make it"' and "I come from poor upbringings" and all that is a coping mechanism.
In a world like that, authoritarians are just other player characters who have risen to great fame and power through their own qualities - which means they must be "important people" too - as opposed to the completely unimportant grey masses of NPCs.
 
Bubble181

Bubble181

It's ironic that Musk touted his "giving"of Starlink access to Ukraine (most of it payed by the US government) as a show that he and other entrepreneurs were Big and Important and Making History and the coming of a new world... And it's been barely six months and it's already being made obvious what the problem with this kind of world is.
The USA may not be considered the most trustworthy of allies, since Trump came along, but at least you can sort of map out a direction every four years. Individuals with more money than your average country are fickle and easily manipulated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top