UKRAINE WAR - 1 YEAR AND GOING.

[Ralin]

People forget that, for the most part, the various Arab armies of the Middle East are in their own league of incompetence. For example, Iraq doesn't have anything considered a doctrine despite several major nations pouring a lot of money and resources into training them, individually they fight well, but once you get them into a group, you'll find that group-tactics tend to be well out of their reach. Saudi Arabia basically makes what happened during the Korean monarchy of the 1st Japanese invasion of Korea look tame (to put it bluntly, outside of their infantry corps, it's literally a place to put rich kids and nothing else; some of the stories of US trainers trying to train Saudi pilots are... eye-opening... ).

I could go on, but basically, in the military community, the term 'Arab Competence' is a snide remark on just how incompetent one can get.

That's still a pretty messed up and racist-sounding way of saying it.

[Gandalf]

To honour a visiting president who happens to be Jewish, whose country Putin is invading under the pretense of denazification, the Canadian parliament decided to bring in an old Nazi and give him an ovation.

Source.

Sorry, hard to get an article on my phone.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

People forget that, for the most part, the various Arab armies of the Middle East are in their own league of incompetence. For example, Iraq doesn't have anything considered a doctrine despite several major nations pouring a lot of money and resources into training them, individually they fight well, but once you get them into a group, you'll find that group-tactics tend to be well out of their reach. Saudi Arabia basically makes what happened during the Korean monarchy of the 1st Japanese invasion of Korea look tame (to put it bluntly, outside of their infantry corps, it's literally a place to put rich kids and nothing else; some of the stories of US trainers trying to train Saudi pilots are... eye-opening... ).

I could go on, but basically, in the military community, the term 'Arab Competence' is a snide remark on just how incompetent one can get.

That's still a pretty messed up and racist-sounding way of saying it.

Sadly, we're stuck with it; that and most of a specific 'ethnic group' does everything possible to prove it.

One of the aspects of the Ukrainian offensive that confuses many is that "basic tactical wisdom" suggests that when you make a breakthrough that that is where you concentrate your forces but "advanced strategic wisdom" is that if you're about to make a breakthrough somewhere you increase your tempo everywhere else to keep the pressure up and prevent your enemy form concentrating against you... which is almost exactly what Ukraine has been doing with this offensive.

The western issue, which is not entirely a western thing but it's where most of us are, is that "everyone trains to fight their last war" which with the previous success of USA/western air power leads to an air power heavy doctrine and everyone remembers seeing allied heavy armour annihilating the Iraqi army, twice, and forgetting that the Iraqi army was never truly a "peer adversary". It was telling that while many were on social media were up in arms as soon as destroyed Leopards and Bradleys were seen and yet actual western armoured officers were going "that's actually fair, we'd expect 50% casualties assaulting through a defended minefield".

The thing is that the world is getting far too complex for the average joe to understand, even when you try to 'dumb it down', so to speak. Hence, every reaction so far outside the military community.

It should be noted that the Iraqi Army... basically makes paper tigers look good. Most of them can't do anything outside of the individual to save their own lives... despite the oodles of treasure and training that various nations gave them.

[Ralin]

that and most of a specific 'ethnic group' does everything possible to prove it.

a pretty messed up and racist-sounding

You are not making things better.

[LadyTevar]

that and most of a specific 'ethnic group' does everything possible to prove it.

a pretty messed up and racist-sounding

You are not making things better.

No, it's not sounding any better. Let's move on and drop the subject yes?

[wautd]

For those who think that appeasing Russia will somehow will bring peace in Ukraine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkc9QQQ0NWk

Not supporting Ukraine enables Russia to commit genocide

[Highlord Laan]

For those who think that appeasing Russia will somehow will bring peace in Ukraine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkc9QQQ0NWk

Not supporting Ukraine enables Russia to commit genocide

That's a bonus as far as american conservatives are concerned.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

For those who think that appeasing Russia will somehow will bring peace in Ukraine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkc9QQQ0NWk

Not supporting Ukraine enables Russia to commit genocide

That's a bonus as far as american conservatives are concerned.

Looks like Slovakia has gone for a Pro Russian anti Ukrainian government.

[LadyTevar]

For those who think that appeasing Russia will somehow will bring peace in Ukraine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkc9QQQ0NWk

Not supporting Ukraine enables Russia to commit genocide

That's a bonus as far as american conservatives are concerned.

Which is just a WTF as the GOP used to be a big "RED SCARE/KILL THE COMMIES" party. I just don't get it.

[Gandalf]

Which is just a WTF as the GOP used to be a big "RED SCARE/KILL THE COMMIES" party. I just don't get it.

They haven't been "the commies" for three decades. Russia during the Putin period is a lot more GOP friendly.

[Solauren]

Which is just a WTF as the GOP used to be a big "RED SCARE/KILL THE COMMIES" party. I just don't get it.

They haven't been "the commies" for three decades. Russia during the Putin period is a lot more GOP friendly.

True. Putin's Russia at least appears enough like Capitalism and not Communism that the GOP gives him a pass.

[Rogue 9]

For those who think that appeasing Russia will somehow will bring peace in Ukraine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkc9QQQ0NWk

Not supporting Ukraine enables Russia to commit genocide

That's a bonus as far as american conservatives are concerned.

Which is just a WTF as the GOP used to be a big "RED SCARE/KILL THE COMMIES" party. I just don't get it.

Russia stopped being Communist. The old line still opposes Russia (see the plurality of the GOP House caucus that continues to support funding Ukraine) but the wave that came in with Trump follows his lead, and...

[Zwinmar]

Nevermind that Putin is literally a KGB operative, but hey, they have never been the greatest at being consistent other than being dicks.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

It should be noted that the GOP has gotten a lot of clandestine support from Russia for almost a decade. Steele blew the lid on it back in 2016...

[LadyTevar]

It should be noted that the GOP has gotten a lot of clandestine support from Russia for almost a decade. Steele blew the lid on it back in 2016...

Yeah.
And again, the older GOP would never have stood for it, because it's RUSSIA THE ENEMY.
Then again, there's a lot of things we see the new GOP rubbing shoulders with that the OldLine would never have considered -- Nazis, mainly. The OldLiners tolerated the KKK and other racists as long as they stayed in the background and weren't saying the quiet parts out loud.

[Solauren]

It should be noted that the GOP has gotten a lot of clandestine support from Russia for almost a decade. Steele blew the lid on it back in 2016...

Yeah.
And again, the older GOP would never have stood for it, because it's RUSSIA THE ENEMY.
Then again, there's a lot of things we see the new GOP rubbing shoulders with that the OldLine would never have considered -- Nazis, mainly. The OldLiners tolerated the KKK and other racists as long as they stayed in the background and weren't saying the quiet parts out loud.

I was always under the impression they tolerated the KKK et al because they didn't want those groups looked into to deeply, exposing that they had friends and family in them.

[KraytKing]

This is one thing western Generals (especially US) can't comprehend - the Ukrainians can't concentrate their forces and push with might.

1. Pushing through a minefield ist just stupid.
2. Western style warfare only works if you have air superiority and just delete any obstacles that slow you down.
3. If they concentrate, they allow the Russians to counter-concentrate.

They tried western tactics, for the first month, and then gave it up - remember how they had stupid losses in the beginning and then stopped- because mobile warfare doesn't work against trenches and minefields that span entire regions in unbroken lines. Not if you can't bomb everything into oblivion for a month or two before your ground troops even start to move anywhere.

Right now, Ukrainian forces are alternating pushing at 2 1/2 spots (Robotyne, Bakhmut and Kherson delta crossings), and the russians constantly have to shift troops from one area to the other to shore up defenses oagianst the latest breech.
This is intentional - because troops on the move are easily targetet, do not hit your troops, and are going to be less effective if they just arrived and are thrown into a battle. Meanwhile, you keep erasing artillery and air defense, and supply. Force Russia to deploy more and more of their reserves,while keeping yours fresh.

I don't see how Ukraine is exactly keeping its reserves fresh through this strategy. Reserves have already been thrown in--the 82nd was explicitly expected to be deployed AFTER taking Robotyne, and instead participated in its capture. While there is some good evidence that doing so has critically attrited some of the few remaining Russian assault formations, it does not indicate that Ukraine has fully intact reserves. Additionally, while there is strong evidence of lateral movement of Russian troops to the hot zones, I have not seen evidence of more than one such movement by a single unit, nor evidence of units being moved from one hot zone to another. It seems as though Russia DOES have enough front line units to cover all of the hot zones at once, to some extent.

There have also been no major breeches. The action in Robotyne and Verbove is promising, but it does not yet constitute the sort of breakthrough that necessitates retreat or desperate counterattack. There is simply not enough landmass. Ukraine has the potential to inflict a major defeat in the region, but whether that will take the form of catastrophic breakthrough or simply continued attrition is yet to be seen. For the sake of Western support, I hope it is the former.

This is why Ukraine is happily sitting inside salients, where conventional wisdom says you are getting beat up from all sides - they have much better equipment than Russia. While Russian troops always storm those salients and get ground up in horrific numbers, UA forces use them to bit Russians into counteroffenses (which is their doctrine - you loose a position - immidiately conter-attack with all available forces), who are then ground up. This is why they have still 3:1 losses in their favor, even while being the ones on the offence. Capturing a position, use that to kill as many in the counteroffensive as possible, fall back, repeat later. Until the Russians give up. Then go to the next one.

Slow? Yes. Effective? Yes.

The salient-sitting is a bit of a moot point, really. Two things can be true at once: it is true that Russian losses are disproportionately expanded by their tendency to counterattack too early, and it is also true that Ukraine would take fewer losses if they weren't exposed to such assault on all sides. They just don't have the firepower to make a wide-front advance at all of their active fronts.

I would like to see a citation for the 3:1 casualty figure. I know we're currently playing pretty fast and loose with proper academic rigor, but that figure is significantly different from any I have seen except artillery losses. The Ukrainian strategy seems to be a gamble that while Ukraine has lesser capacity for attrition in general than Russia, they have a greater capacity in high-quality assault units. So if both throw their best men into the meat grinder and get chewed up, at the end of the day Ukraine doesn't NEED disproportionate casualties to have stripped Russian reactive capability. If the losses are even, it might still be a victory. To my knowledge, the losses are currently close to even, except in the Russian assault in the north.

"But wouldn't that go faster if you concentrate your forces all in there?"

Nope.
This is a "can 9 women deliver a baby in 1 month" question.
Putting more men into that salient makes things worse, not better. You give the Russians more targets, and you can't all get all these people to the frontline, anyway - you already have the maximum number you can supply with food and material deployed there. And then some who only go in there occasionally for selected offensives, and then leave once they are done. Crowding doesn't help.

That supposes that we are currently seeing assaults at full capacity, which is a bit of a leap. You aren't wrong conceptually, I just don't think it is prudent to assume that any of the salients are at their entire capacity for assault units. We just don't have the data for that. Additionally, if there were more Ukrainian assault troops, or if they had greater firepower (more tanks, more artillery, air support), then each of these offensive zones could be played across a wider front of more than a couple kilometers. Giving Russia more targets is bad, until the Russians come against the limits of what their artillery can engage, at which point some of your troops can afford to pop out of cover for more than fifteen minutes at a time. In this case, I think 9 women really could deliver a baby faster.

Calling this the "Counteroffensive" is kind of wrong - this is still the shaping operation. Designed to grind down the reserves until Russia will have to start making "goodwill gestures" because the frontline gets too thin. Just like in Kherson, but this time it is harder because the supply is not just relying on one single bridge. Even if there is one important one. You still got roads, rail, harbors. There is nothing but the grind. But sooner or later, something is going to break, and we will see movement. And once this starts, it will become a rout. Not a big one, but the necessary 5 or 10 more kilometers (of 20 total) to get through this defense fortification into open terrain.

And that's is what the reserve is held back for - Western mobile assault warfare will commence once the gates are opened

Not the only thing. An attritional strategy like this requires attrition. Both sides need reserves not just to exploit breakthrough, but to replace units that get worn down to nothing. Which is what we have seen so far.

This time, the rain will not save Russia - Ukraine does not use Tanks for their offensive, and drones and artillery do not care about mud. And worse of all, Russian troops in the trenches will still need supplies - which they can barely get now when the roads are still traverseable. Comes rain, we will see them sit in their mudholes, soaked and starving. Comes winter, they tanks and assaults come back, along with more hunger, and frostbite.

It's the same as with any game - no one loves the grind - they all want to immediately initiate the Zerg rush.
Patience.

I think the rain will have an adverse effect. It's a bit of a blanket statement to say Ukraine does not use tanks--there are some serious losses, well documented in the open source space, that indicate otherwise. Drones and artillery don't care about mud, but they do care about clouds, wind, and rain. Infantry assaults care about mud. Supply cares about mud. I expect the Russian assault to be much more strongly affected than the Ukrainian assault, given the history of both sides, but rains will definitely be a negative for both. Additionally, what you stated earlier--that this is the shaping operation for a coming blitz--is reliant on armored mobility. If there is to be a catastrophic Russian defeat, it will be this month or it will be in winter.

Overall, I think we pretty closely agree. At least neither of us are pro-Russian. I'm just a little more pessimistic. I'd love to continue the discussion if you have the time and interest, being proven wrong would ease up some stress I think.

[Prannon]

Yeah.
And again, the older GOP would never have stood for it, because it's RUSSIA THE ENEMY.
Then again, there's a lot of things we see the new GOP rubbing shoulders with that the OldLine would never have considered -- Nazis, mainly. The OldLiners tolerated the KKK and other racists as long as they stayed in the background and weren't saying the quiet parts out loud.

Russia under Putin is attractive for the Republican Party because he was able to do in Russia what they wish they could do in the US.

Putin utterly crushed liberal civil society in Russia. All those _annoying_ pesky gays and academics and students and entitled do-nothing feminist, weak, unmuscled, can't-wrestle-bears, whining losers all shut the fuck up and got back to work under his rule. Universities? Crushed, and under control. Churches? At the top of society, where they belong. LGBT folks? In the closet (or dead, or fled), where _they_ belong.

It's all wish fulfillment fantasy, same as with Erdogan in Turkey and Orban in Hungary. He is a model for what they wish they could do to the whiners here that just... fucking.... ANNOY them so much.

[Juubi Karakuchi]

For those who think that appeasing Russia will somehow will bring peace in Ukraine:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkc9QQQ0NWk

Not supporting Ukraine enables Russia to commit genocide

That's a bonus as far as american conservatives are concerned.

Looks like Slovakia has gone for a Pro Russian anti Ukrainian government.

Not yet. Slovakia uses a PR voting system. Fico's Smer-SD party is only the single largest, with 23% of the vote. It needs at least two, more like three coalition partners to form a majority. At least one of those will likely be the more moderate Hlas party; which wants to continue supporting Ukraine in order to protect Slovakian jobs.

Fico also has a reputation for talking the talk, but not walking the walk. The situation above is probably at least one reason why.

[LaCroix]

[quote=KraytKing post_id=4132303 time=1696343952 user_id=33163
Overall, I think we pretty closely agree. At least neither of us are pro-Russian. I'm just a little more pessimistic. I'd love to continue the discussion if you have the time and interest, being proven wrong would ease up some stress I think.
[/quote]

I don't have a lot of time right now, but I don't want to let you hanging here - the answer to most of these things is Minefields.

Russia has heavily mined these areas, and is still doing so as we speak.

This means that UA forces can only advance in places they know to be cleared (where the russian counterattacks are coming from) or wher they cleared a route.

Both means that Russia always knows exactly where they are coming from and limits the max combat width the UA forces can employ. This means they always have to soften up any target for days and weeks until they can afford to advance, for they will run into a killzone.

Russian officers, on the other hand do not hesitate to send their troops into said zones. Including tanks.

UA forces are using their tank usually in a long range artillery sniper role, firing at 2-3 km, only using them close-up in the ultimate pushes when they are staorming a fortification. Also, most of their losses are due to mines and At fire in combat, while russians are mostly lost due to drones and drone supported artillery en route to the attack.

Independend picture analysis sees russian losses at currently roughly 2 times the ukrainian losses, which is hillarious, as the russians had 3-4 times higher losses while they were attacking, which is normal. so the UA is having 1:2 losses when they should have 3:1.

Killing artillery is the most important thing UA can do, as russian artillery is pretty much the source of most combat losses - their remaining guns are crap, but they have a lot and just blanket the UA positions. Not sustainable, but it has an effect.

Right now, the biggest thing that is happening is seeing that the Russian air defense is pretty much going extinct - sewastopol is completely open to attacks, and th but soon. This will make a huge difference to the way the UA forces can deploy airplanes. Bombs can do sooo much than just artillery. Not all the way there, yet, but once the F16 are there, they will have pretty open skies they can operate in.

Mud is going to be not much of a problem - it limits movement, but these days - 800m a day is a lightning advance.

The Ukrainian drone army is very well suited to this - the russians won't be able to get supplies and hevy equipment moved easily, so their combat eff. is going to drop.
No leafy canopy to hide stuff under - better for UA with more drones and better artillery.

Also, the Ruskys can't just drive trucks into fields and drop mines everywhere if the trucks get stuck. Slower mining.
Stuck trucks on the roads - good targets for UA drones, which are now EVERYWHERE.

Drones&artillery can still take out russian trenches (which will be flooded, on top), but now the russians can't just fall back quickly and then counterattack in huge masses. Slowly advancing Ukrainian small detachments, otoh, will not get bogged down as much, and will be able to occupy those trenches (mostly at night, when the remaining russians are pretty much blind, too.) Also - younger, fitter, better trained Ukranians vs. older, untrained and poorly euipped russian conscripts in bad weather, mud, flooded trenches and worse than usual supply (which is currently good on Ua side and bad on Russian side, already)

Childs play? No. Favoring Ukraine? Yes.

[LadyTevar]

Good analysis, LaCriox.

It sounds like Ukraine is doing extremely well for itself in what's going to be more like the Battle of the Bulge than anything modern US/NATO forces are used to and trained for.

[GrosseAdmiralFox]

Good analysis, LaCriox.

It sounds like Ukraine is doing extremely well for itself in what's going to be more like the Battle of the Bulge than anything modern US/NATO forces are used to and trained for.

The thing is, the US/NATO's experience so far has been something akin to '3rd World Country of the Week' sort of deals. Where incompetence tends to be the order of the day to 'coup proof' the various militaries. While Russia is incompetent, it isn't Arab levels of incompetence... yet.

[Gandalf]

While Russia is incompetent, it isn't Arab levels of incompetence... yet.

The hell?

[Broomstick]

That's a meme I've seen off and on for years, about how corrupt and inept Arab militaries are. I am not qualified to assess the veracity of such assertions. I mean, sure, some Arab militaries have been complete shit shows in the past century but I don't think that's because they're Arabs, it has to do with entrenched corruption, nepotism, and incompetence.

I like to think there's another way to express the central notion without sounding racist or bigoted.

[KraytKing]

UA forces are using their tank usually in a long range artillery sniper role, firing at 2-3 km, only using them close-up in the ultimate pushes when they are staorming a fortification. Also, most of their losses are due to mines and At fire in combat, while russians are mostly lost due to drones and drone supported artillery en route to the attack.

Independend picture analysis sees russian losses at currently roughly 2 times the ukrainian losses, which is hillarious, as the russians had 3-4 times higher losses while they were attacking, which is normal. so the UA is having 1:2 losses when they should have 3:1.

Killing artillery is the most important thing UA can do, as russian artillery is pretty much the source of most combat losses - their remaining guns are crap, but they have a lot and just blanket the UA positions. Not sustainable, but it has an effect.

Right, exactly. Ukraine is using tanks, drones, and drone spotting to inflict serious losses--all of which is impeded by foul weather. Military aircraft these days are pretty good at all-weather flying, but a six hundred dollar quadcopter is not going to have a good time in a storm. Rain interferes with control signals as well as aerodynamics, making drone spotting less useful. High-altitude observation is less viable with heavy cloud and rain interference, so the big drones that can survive the weather will still be lost more frequently. Getting a tank to 2-3 km from the target is harder through mud four feet deep, and is still well within enemy artillery range the whole time. Does it mean that those tools are all useless? Of course not. Rain season will have dry days, winds won't be typhoon strength, tanks can still slog through mud. It just means all of those things will be marginally more difficult. My only point.

Russia will have more difficulty in such conditions with conducting mechanized counterassaults. The closer you have to drive your truck, the worse it is if it gets stuck. But, that might actually be counterproductive--put simply, if the whole point is to destroy mechanized capability, and the enemy can't use their mechanized troops, then you can't achieve your objective.

Right now, the biggest thing that is happening is seeing that the Russian air defense is pretty much going extinct - sewastopol is completely open to attacks, and th but soon. This will make a huge difference to the way the UA forces can deploy airplanes. Bombs can do sooo much than just artillery. Not all the way there, yet, but once the F16 are there, they will have pretty open skies they can operate in.

Agreed about the degradation and relocation of Russian air defense. Doesn't mean open skies for F-16, though, the Russians still have an air force. Little victories, though. More Ukrainian cruise missiles sneaking through, more JDAMs slung from behind the line, and maybe a little more fear of interception during Russian CAS missions can only be good. Emphasis on the missiles getting through.

Mud is going to be not much of a problem - it limits movement, but these days - 800m a day is a lightning advance.

The Ukrainian drone army is very well suited to this - the russians won't be able to get supplies and hevy equipment moved easily, so their combat eff. is going to drop.
No leafy canopy to hide stuff under - better for UA with more drones and better artillery.

Also, the Ruskys can't just drive trucks into fields and drop mines everywhere if the trucks get stuck. Slower mining.
Stuck trucks on the roads - good targets for UA drones, which are now EVERYWHERE.

Drones&artillery can still take out russian trenches (which will be flooded, on top), but now the russians can't just fall back quickly and then counterattack in huge masses. Slowly advancing Ukrainian small detachments, otoh, will not get bogged down as much, and will be able to occupy those trenches (mostly at night, when the remaining russians are pretty much blind, too.) Also - younger, fitter, better trained Ukranians vs. older, untrained and poorly euipped russian conscripts in bad weather, mud, flooded trenches and worse than usual supply (which is currently good on Ua side and bad on Russian side, already)

Childs play? No. Favoring Ukraine? Yes.

800 meters a day is fast for the front, but still not that fast. It still leaves time to get reserves into place, send communications around, call in artillery and air strikes, and set up new fighting positions. There will not be a catastrophic breakthrough like Kharkiv at 800m per day. Mining is slower, but mines also have lots of deployment methods these days that aren't bothered by mud, so mining is far from stopped. And as I mentioned, if Russia can't counterattack, then Ukraine can't attrit them disproportionately.

Interested in the repeated coastal landings in Crimea. I wonder if this is the endgame, or if there is some further along strategy. They've already done a pretty good job of tearing shit up, so I could see simply "more of the same" being the final goal.

T-90M losses have spiked recently. Only up a few points, but it's significant. Reinforces the notion that high-quality Russian units are being used up in the counterattacks. Alternatively, could indicate an economic trend--the gap between tank refurbishment and new construction is narrowing, either because of depleting stockpiles or an emphasis on quality over quantity. But that isn't particularly well supported yet by other indicators.

The material ability of both sides to support the war is waning, though this is an early indicator. Russian tank production and refurbishment combined is a fraction of their loss rate, but it would likely be years before Russia starts running out of tanks on the front. More likely, the rate of tank production will drop as the refurbishments grow more extensive and the sanctions grow more effective, and as priorities shift given losses in other fields. This calculus is broadly true of other equipment categories, excepting small arms. Artillery ammunition, artillery pieces, trucks, IFVs, all of it is being consumed far faster than it can be produced--but so far, only trucks are experiencing critical shortages across more than just localities. Unfortunately, American hardliners are threatening to hold up Ukrainian aid temporarily. If those hardliners expand their power in the next election, which I do not find likely, then a big chunk of aid disappears. European countries are experiencing their own troubles.

Russia seems to have innovated a bit. Glide bomb strikes have EXPLODED in frequency in the last month, as has use of the Tornado-S. Nothing new conceptually, its just new to the war and it sucks. Ukraine will need more air defense.