OT: Putin's War in Ukraine

[Raellus]

One thing that I've found really curious about the video clips of shot-up Russian vehicle columns circulating widely is the lack of bodies on the scene. I'll post the link when I have a chance to find it, but there's one where a guy walks through a column of at least a dozen gutted Russian APCs and trucks and there's not a body visible in any frame. There's another clip showing Ukrainian troops rummaging through four or five shot-up Tigr LAV 4x4s and, again, there are no bodies, blood pools, or anything suggesting human casualties in sight.

This is very different than the "Highway of Death" images broadcast from Kuwait, 1991, where images of carbonized corpses abounded (a bit of a PR issue for the military back then, IIRC).

Either the Ukrainians are really good at sanitizing the scene, or the majority of the Russian crews abandoned their vehicles before the "ambush", or at the first sign of trouble.

In the Ukraine-Russia conflict, the Russians had 1300 MBTs staged and may have less than 500 left after just 1 WEEK of fighting. The Ukrainian Army had 1500 MBTs and are down around the same strength. That a loss of over 100 tanks a day. This rate of loss would literally WIPE OUT the armored forces of 9 out of 10 Armed Forces on the planet. The losses in Aircraft are even more significant. Ukraine is down to about a dozen operational jets in a week.

Source, please

Assuming the above figures are accurate, I wonder how many of those losses are hard kills and how many are attrition due to mechanical break-down (i.e. how many of those losses are not recoverable v how many are).

-

[unipus]

I'm assuming that low morale within the Russian ranks, and possibly even a hesitancy at command levels, is playing a major factor.

Unlike in, say, Iraq, it doesn't seem like there was any major effort to psych up the troops to go do their illegal war. The result seems to be that, far from feeling urraaaaaah about it, they are more than happy to find any excuse not to fight.

(It is however increasingly a myth that all/most Russian troops are conscripts. They've had a hybrid conscript/contract structure for years now, and it's been revised significantly again within the last decade)

I'm not calling any victors at this point, though. It took the US three weeks to take Baghdad, after all. Some people have been eager to say that the failure to take Kyiv in five days means the war is lost, and I just don't think that's remotely true. Or that taking Kyiv means the situation necessarily changes dramatically, anyway.

On the operational level, though, some stuff just doesn't make sense from my Western eyes. The real lack of attempt to secure air superiority, for instance. I know Russia probably has a shortage of precision weapons and might be concerned about their ability to replace them. But this aspect still puzzles me. My best guess is either they were concerned they'd take excessive losses, or they just simply absolutely lack the thinking/capability. Integration between the forces certainly isn't up to US levels, but this seems like barely even trying.

It also seems likely that even if/when the conventional phase of this war is over, many Ukrainians are now fully invested in defending their country, and a long insurgency could most definitely follow. It's a big country, it's well armed (and only getting more so), and you need morale to police an insurgency as well.

[.45cultist]

I don't think it's beyond the realms of possibility that he could be removed by the Russian security services or the military. Personal loyalty only goes so far, particularly if the mood of the Russian populace continues to turn against the current course of action.

In the old USSR, leaders "got the flu", Soviet flu came in two strains, 9X18MM or cyanide.

[Bestbrian]

It also seems likely that even if/when the conventional phase of this war is over, many Ukrainians are now fully invested in defending their country, and a long insurgency could most definitely follow. It's a big country, it's well armed (and only getting more so), and you need morale to police an insurgency as well.

This. Anyway you slice it, this looks like the most enduring outcome. The Russians have bought themselves a long term occupation in a radicalized and hostile country the size of France with an aggrieved neighbor in Poland that is more than willing to throw gas on the fire. The only strategic outcome that makes sense (keep in mind, btw, that none of this makes sense) is that the two client states are enlarged at Ukraine's expense, and a puppet regime is emplaced to govern a rump Ukraine according to orders from Moscow; there's no way to achieve those goals that doesn't entail suppressing an insurgency/civil war. Good luck, Ivan.

[Heffe]

Just to throw some thoughts out there for discussion:

1. I'm really curious to see what the analysis will look like on Ukraine's stellar propaganda looks like. So far they've been crushing it with almost all discussion online heavily favoring them, even despite Russia's best efforts to stop it.

2. On that same note, this is the first major war where everyone and their mother had cell phones with video capability. I'm curious to know how all of the abundance of footage has helped shape perception around the world. Will people be more adverse to getting into wars in the future based on this Or even just the near future

3. I'm still concerned that the worst may yet be to come. While we all sound aligned on Russia's performance so far, it definitely seems like they've avoided using their strategic assets and have been attempting to catch Ukraine intact (probably in order to set up a client state). As the Russians become mired down, will Putin escalate further than he already has in order to continue making forward progress

[unipus]

When he starts vocalizing those thoughts is when you have to hope someone else nearby is willing to take action.

I will agree that Ukraine's propaganda has been outstanding. I assume they're getting the full support of... well, basically the entire world.

Russian propaganda seems very suppressed, to the point that if they're even claiming tactical victories, I'm not hearing about it. And other than a small number of people (of questionable critical thinking capacity) repeating the "but... Ukrainian Nazis!" line, I don't see signs of anyone really buying any of it.

[Raellus]

History Rhymes

The Russians have bought themselves a long term occupation in a radicalized and hostile country the size of France with an aggrieved neighbor in Poland that is more than willing to throw gas on the fire. The only strategic outcome that makes sense (keep in mind, btw, that none of this makes sense) is that the two client states are enlarged at Ukraine's expense, and a puppet regime is emplaced to govern a rump Ukraine according to orders from Moscow; there's no way to achieve those goals that doesn't entail suppressing an insurgency/civil war. Good luck, Ivan.

Agreed. Russia will most likely defeat Ukraine's conventional forces, seize the capital, and install a puppet government. It's probably only a matter of time. As you pointed out, however, after that, Putin will almost certainly be saddled with an anti-Russian insurgency that could drag on for months, if not years.

What then This could play out in a number of ways. Here are a few.

A. Putin declares victory before Ukraine is decisively defeated, and withdraws Russian troops from all but the disputed eastern regions. "Mission accomplished!" Putin crows, "That was the plan all along." He saves some face, and staunches the bleeding. Ukraine is weakened; NATO is put on notice. Russia has a small buffer (the Donbass) and a greatly weakened neighbor that has been intimidated to the point where it will no longer seek NATO membership.

B. The war drags on and on, from a largely conventional conflict, to a low intensity insurgency. Russia continues to bleed, militarily and economically. These losses become unsustainable.

C. Fed up with B, the Russian military ousts Putin in a coup.

D. Fed up with B, ordinary Russians launch a popular uprising (a la Maidan, 2014) and oust Putin.

E. Putin sees the writing on the wall. Before either C or D can transpire, he escalates the war (perhaps by attacking the Baltics), and draws NATO into a wider conflict which he frames as an existential struggle for Russia's very survival.

---

I don't think this will play out the way Putin hoped (a quick victory, regime change, and a puppet, buffer state Ukraine). Given Ukraine's courage and tenacity- which I think came as quite a surprise to Putin- and materiel support to Ukraine from the West- the best that he can hope for now is probably Option A (in part- I don't think Ukraine will ever be cowed, after the heart they've shown). I'm kind of surprised that Putin hasn't already declared victory and begun the withdrawal. If he hasn't already, very soon he'll pass the point of no return and become locked in to a potentially much longer, much more costly struggle for control of Ukraine. After that, Option B is inevitable, and Options C, D, and E all become more likely endgames.

-

[Targan]

Where does Ukraine's application for EU membership fit in

[Raellus]

Where does Ukraine's application for EU membership fit in

From what I've read, it could take years to be accepted, if at all. Apparently, Ukraine's high level of corruption is a sticking point for numerous EU nations. The Russian invasion considerably complicates matters further.

-

[swaghauler]

One thing that I've found really curious about the video clips of shot-up Russian vehicle columns circulating widely is the lack of bodies on the scene. I'll post the link when I have a chance to find it, but there's one where a guy walks through a column of at least a dozen gutted Russian APCs and trucks and there's not a body visible in any frame. There's another clip showing Ukrainian troops rummaging through four or five shot-up Tigr LAV 4x4s and, again, there are no bodies, blood pools, or anything suggesting human casualties in sight.

This is very different than the "Highway of Death" images broadcast from Kuwait, 1991, where images of carbonized corpses abounded (a bit of a PR issue for the military back then, IIRC).

Either the Ukrainians are really good at sanitizing the scene, or the majority of the Russian crews abandoned their vehicles before the "ambush", or at the first sign of trouble.



Source, please

Assuming the above figures are accurate, I wonder how many of those losses are hard kills and how many are attrition due to mechanical break-down (i.e. how many of those losses are not recoverable v how many are).

-

Sources...

DW News

Funker Tactical = who actually uploaded the pictures of that Ukrainian convoy which was smoked by Russian helos. That Kah-52 Alligator that got shot down was hit by a dual barreled 23mm mounted on a 5-Ton truck. I guess it came in too low. The pilot put it down and just walked away like a boss.

Radio Free America = The looting video came from them.

Some pictures from VOX News

The statement from Ukraine's security minister at the EU or UN emergency meeting where HE CLAIMED 600+ tanks destroyed. Most of the good video shots are being reused by every major network. How accurate these reports are is still in question.

My guess is that Ukraine's losses are "hard losses" mostly inflicted by bombing, helos, and the destruction of munitions depots.

The posted thermobaric explosion of the ammo depot outside Kyiv/Kiev reportedly claimed 100 AFVs that were rearming. I would guess that's accurate. It was a huge explosion and afterward, you can hear the "crackle" of munitions lighting off.

The Russian losses appear to be mostly mechanical issues OR running out of fuel. These are occurring mainly in the North where the conscript units are massed. As you already stated, the troops just up and abandon their equipment when the fuel and ammo are gone. The Ukrainian troops there are attacking the convoys from Belarus and the tanks are older T72s. Those troops have very poor discipline and some funny incidents have occurred... like a farmer stealing an unattended AFV with his tractor as the driver runs up and tries to stop him. And I thought the kids in Somalia were bad!

https://youtu.be/FHkST5SdS98

Sadly this is also where that young Ukrainian Engineer sacrificed himself to blow up that bridge to Kyiv. That probably slowed up the Russians too.

As far as I can tell, the Donetsk region seems to be suffering hard losses. That is where the Ukrainians are using those Turkish drones to designate for laser-guided munitions to the front and rear of a convoy where they stop it by destroying those vehicles. The Artillery then opens up on the remaining trapped vehicles, destroying them. I have seen a video of one column destroyed this way with the bodies under brown tarps. The other video is off a bunch of Hinds strafing a Russian column with rockets and missiles. Sadly, there are videos of the Ukrainians getting pasted here as badly as the Russians are. I think the difference here is that the Russian troops are blooded veterans working with the rebels from the area. They seem to have T80s and T90s... And of course, Kah-52 helo gunships.

The Crimea where the Russian Amphibs landed has those upgraded T55s that the Russian Marines use rolling across the country. Ukraine met them with T64s but the Russians seemed to have prevailed. The Russians are in pretty complete control in the South.

[swaghauler]

I'm assuming that low morale within the Russian ranks, and possibly even a hesitancy at command levels, is playing a major factor.

Unlike in, say, Iraq, it doesn't seem like there was any major effort to psych up the troops to go do their illegal war. The result seems to be that, far from feeling urraaaaaah about it, they are more than happy to find any excuse not to fight.

(It is however increasingly a myth that all/most Russian troops are conscripts. They've had a hybrid conscript/contract structure for years now, and it's been revised significantly again within the last decade)

I'm not calling any victors at this point, though. It took the US three weeks to take Baghdad, after all. Some people have been eager to say that the failure to take Kyiv in five days means the war is lost, and I just don't think that's remotely true. Or that taking Kyiv means the situation necessarily changes dramatically, anyway.

On the operational level, though, some stuff just doesn't make sense from my Western eyes. The real lack of attempt to secure air superiority, for instance. I know Russia probably has a shortage of precision weapons and might be concerned about their ability to replace them. But this aspect still puzzles me. My best guess is either they were concerned they'd take excessive losses, or they just simply absolutely lack the thinking/capability. Integration between the forces certainly isn't up to US levels, but this seems like barely even trying.

It also seems likely that even if/when the conventional phase of this war is over, many Ukrainians are now fully invested in defending their country, and a long insurgency could most definitely follow. It's a big country, it's well armed (and only getting more so), and you need morale to police an insurgency as well.

Combat Air CONTROL (CAC) is problematic for the Russians. Without the equivalent of an AWACS over the battlefield, directing the fighters where to go is very difficult. You cannot have an effective CAP (Combat Air Patrol) without the CAC directing things. The Russians have ONE AWACS per THEATER (6 planes total) and are probably afraid of losing the only one they have in the Black sea area. Their ships CAN direct aircraft but the range of ground-based radar makes CAC problematic. In addition, they failed to suppress the Ukraine's SAM defenses in the North and West, making overflights there dangerous. Add to that the sheer number of MANPADS the West gave Ukraine, and we can see why the skies are still contested.

Another thing I have noticed about some of the footage is just how "inaccurate" some of the cruise and ballistic missiles are. In some instances, missing their target by half a block. I wonder IF we might be screwing with their GLASNOSK/GPS system...

[swaghauler]

Cappy's take!

https://youtu.be/K5BAZ2bBUzM

[OmahaJason]

Norway is sending 2,000 anti-tank missles to Ukraine, while the U.S. is sending "hundreds" of stinger missles, and Ukraine is taking possesion of more Turkish drones capable of making airstrikes.

[Ursus Maior]

Again, I wish it were otherwise, but it looks like all that talk about rearming the Ukrainian air force was just that- talk.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44514/su-27-returning-from-romania-will-likely-be-last-fighter-ukraine-will-get-for-some-time

-

The Polish government denied that these planes will be delivered or flown out of Poland. But their wording was very sketchy, leaving room for interpretation that these planes might be re-routed or taken via trailer to Ukraine.

Not sure, what will come of this.

[pmulcahy11b]

Is there a GoFundMe or something like that for the troops in the Ukraine

See, I feel a little guilty. I ordered three T-Shirts from an outfit in Kyiv (ClothingMonster.com -- their shirts are great) about two weeks ago. Given what's going on there, I didn't think I'd ever get them, and I was fine with that.

But last night I got a package with the three shirts in the mail. And I'm thinking -- three quality shirts and international shipping -- that could have paid for a box of ammo. Any the Ukrainians are critically short on everything.

So I wonder, is there somewhere reputable where I can give to the cause