OT: Putin's War in Ukraine

[pmulcahy11b]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/neutral-finland-sweden-warm-to-idea-of-nato-membership/ar-AAUxI92ocid=uxbndlbing

Sweden and Finland are seriously considering NATO membership, and NATO seems to be receptive.

Putin has already warned Finland about joining NATO.

Is Finland Putin's next target I don't think he has the troops or equipment to keep Ukraine nailed down and attack Finland, but I wouldn't put it past Putin to call for mass conscription and start pulling crappy old equipment out of storage.

[unipus]

It sure hasn't gone well for them in the past, and I don't see the advanced technology and high morale that Finland has now making that any easier.

Worth noting that there have been huge overhauls to the structure and doctrine of the Russian military over the past 10-15 years. It's quite possible we're seeing a lot of friction from that, of an army or just its officers who maybe haven't quite grasped the changes.

In particular, there was a disastrous attempt to privatize many of the Army's logistics services, which was aborted only a few years ago. I would not be surprised if lingering fallout from that, or organizational self-sabotage from within by invested parties, was behind a lot of the problems the Russians have had with fuel and maintenance particularly.

[unipus]

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...

All of these things are exactly the things that don't make sense to me. Sure, you don't want to risk your AWACS planes. But is there some better time to use them than during a war Is there some better time for DEAD operations than before you try to do airborne landings over enemy territory

And maybe they're just experimenting with how effective some of these weapons can be under circumstances, but it's documented that the Russians don't believe GPS/GLONASS will be available in the event of a war anyway, so much of their approach has been designed around simply not relying on it at all. A ballistic missile doesn't need it, anyway.

[swaghauler]

All of these things are exactly the things that don't make sense to me. Sure, you don't want to risk your AWACS planes. But is there some better time to use them than during a war Is there some better time for DEAD operations than before you try to do airborne landings over enemy territory

And maybe they're just experimenting with how effective some of these weapons can be under circumstances, but it's documented that the Russians don't believe GPS/GLONASS will be available in the event of a war anyway, so much of their approach has been designed around simply not relying on it at all. A ballistic missile doesn't need it, anyway.

Russia's perspective is different from ours (the West's). She is not "casualty adverse" like we are. Putin WILL sacrifice thousands of conscripts and Cold War equipment to exhaust an enemy's newest tech. However, when it comes to hard to replace tech like Russia's AWACS, he will hoard it until the point where he simply cannot do without it anymore.

[swaghauler]

Putin's Intentions Revealed [Accidentally by Belarus]

Well, I wonder if the President of Belarus who showed that Top Secret map with all the planned Russian moves... INCLUDING THE INVASION OF MOLDOVA, is still on Putin's Christmas list

[swaghauler]

Putin's Going "Old School" Again...

All of the news outlets are wondering what Putin is going to do with Kiyv. He is going to do EXACTLY what he did to Grozny in the Second Chechen War and Aleppo in Syria! Surround the city and shell it into oblivion with artillery. You can see the movements occurring right now on the conflict map. The media are claiming that "Putin suddenly went crazy," but this is a cold, calculated move. Not an act of passion. As Jen Psaki pointed out, the last time Putin invaded Ukraine (the Crimea) Biden was Vice President and oil was over $100 a barrel. Is it a coincidence that Russia gets aggressive when oil prices soar I don't think that's a coincidence.

It also appears that casualties on both sides are actually lighter than was earlier claimed. I STILL remember Ukraine's representative at the UN saying "HUNDREDS of our tanks have been destroyed..." when it appears that the total is around 200. A far cry from nearly a thousand claimed earlier. Although I do wonder how many of those were replaced by abandoned or stolen Russian equipment

[unipus]

I mostly don't think it's a coincidence that Putin took a break from aggressive moves during Trump's term... the getting was too good at too low a price, don't rock the boat.

[swaghauler]

I mostly don't think it's a coincidence that Putin took a break from aggressive moves during Trump's term... the getting was too good at too low a price, don't rock the boat.

Unlikely. Under Trump, oil prices fell to $50 a barrel. 52% of Russia's economy is oil and natural gas. Putin did not have the financial resources to invade Ukraine. Under Biden, US gas and oil production was slashed. I watched oil climb to $100 a barrel and gas in PA go from $2.30 per gallon under Trump to $4 a gallon under Biden.

In addition, Biden just projects weakness. Trump did not. In fact, Putin would have tip-toed around Trump knowing that pushing Trump's ego could result in a war.

Just look at Kim in NK for an example of this. The rhetoric began to spiral UNTIL... Beijing summoned Kim to China and most likely threatened to withdraw their support IF he started a war with the US... since that would have sabotaged China's 10 to 15 year plan to match the US military in the Pacific.

[OmahaJason]

Unlikely. Under Trump, oil prices fell to $50 a barrel. 52% of Russia's economy is oil and natural gas. Putin did not have the financial resources to invade Ukraine. Under Biden, US gas and oil production was slashed. I watched oil climb to $100 a barrel and gas in PA go from $2.30 per gallon under Trump to $4 a gallon under Biden.

In addition, Biden just projects weakness. Trump did not. In fact, Putin would have tip-toed around Trump knowing that pushing Trump's ego could result in a war.

Just look at Kim in NK for an example of this. The rhetoric began to spiral UNTIL... Beijing summoned Kim to China and most likely threatened to withdraw their support IF he started a war with the US... since that would have sabotaged China's 10 to 15 year plan to match the US military in the Pacific.

Trump withheld $400 milliom in military aid to Ukraine, and weskened NATO by threatening to withdraw.

By my reckoning, Biden has increased our national security by strengthening ties with NATO.

[Raellus]

Keep it APolitical

It can be hard not to weigh in here re US politics vis-a-vis recent developments in Ukraine but, in keeping with our forum guidelines, let's all try to keep this discussion apolitical.

Discussion of military matters pertaining to Ukraine, and/or Putin's villainy are totally in bounds, but arguments about which former and/or current US president is more to blame for this state of affairs is a can of worms we really don't need to open.

Thanks for being cool, everyone.

The Mod Team

-

[unipus]

Roger that. I'll just say I don't think it's coincidental in terms of timing, but also in how it mostly seems to be going, especially with regards to how unified the West now is in response. Putin may have expected differently in terms of comparison with, say, Obama and Merkel, but if that's what he was counting on then it seems like a significant miscalculation at best.

Meanwhile, the situation for your typical Russian citizen is getting very bad, though. Reports from the ground there about the repressive measures sound like they're getting pretty terrible. I have some friends there as well as some who are currently abroad and can't access their money, don't really want to go home but aren't sure if they might be expelled, and soon may not even be able to fly (at least within/over/to-from the US, presumably other countries as well).

There is always collateral damage in war but this economic aspect is much more far-reaching than at any time in the past. I can only hope that (a) the economic pressure keeps working but (b) we don't end up in a new red scare.

[Raellus]

Cheaper Alternatives

All of these things are exactly the things that don't make sense to me. Sure, you don't want to risk your AWACS planes. But is there some better time to use them than during a war Is there some better time for DEAD operations than before you try to do airborne landings over enemy territory

And maybe they're just experimenting with how effective some of these weapons can be under circumstances, but it's documented that the Russians don't believe GPS/GLONASS will be available in the event of a war anyway, so much of their approach has been designed around simply not relying on it at all. A ballistic missile doesn't need it, anyway.

The Russians might be trying out cheaper (in terms of sustainable aircraft losses) alternatives.

I posted the article in the Out of Mothballs thread, but Warzone (the Drive) reported that Russia might plan to use its fleet of AN-2 biplane transports as unmanned drones to trick the Ukrainians into revealing their air defense positions*. I suppose this gambit could also include provoking the Ukrainians into scrambling some of their last available fighter aircraft. Perhaps this tactic will obviate the need for AWACS.

*On a historical note, the Israelis Pioneered (pun intended) this tactic quite successfully against Syrian SAM sites in the Beqaa Valley during their 1982 invasion of Lebanon.

-

[bash]

With regards to the apparent performance of Russia's military in this invasion I think some points get glossed over too readily.

1. Russia's annual military expenditures come to $50-60b per year for an active duty force of a little over a million. That's only about $61k spent per active duty service member.
2. Combined arms operations are difficult in general. Jets move faster than APCs and don't get stuck in mud. AFVs can easily outrun their supply trains.
3. Maintaining equipment is expensive and time consuming. It's also something that needs to be ingrained in a military's culture. It's not a bolt-on after the fact feature.
4. Likewise logistics is hard. Like maintenance it's expensive and cultural. It's also not a bolt-on feature after the fact.
5. Russia, back through the late USSR, has famous amounts of graft throughout the ranks.

So an army that doesn't have a strong cultural of logistics, equipment maintenance, or even accurate accounting is going to be clown shoes against a peer force. It really looks like they've only made the progress they have through superior numbers and even then that's been limited by logistics and maintenance.

I don't think there's some grand strategy of throwing conscripts out as the top of the spear or something. I think it's more their army inherited the worst of the Soviet system. Everyone from the NCOs up through the general staff have been fudging readiness numbers for decades. Blowing up irregular forces in Syria and war criming through Chechnya and Georgia has given the general staff a serious overestimate of their abilities.

[Jason]

There are reports of senior Russian military commanders being KIA in Ukraine as they moved closer to the frontlines in order break the logjam and get their ground troops moving.

[pmulcahy11b]

I was listening to GEN (Ret) Wesley Clark, a former commander of NATO, on CNN the other day. (Yes, I know what some of you think of CNN; let's not go into that right now.) He said that while the troops and equipment are enough to make a wreck of Ukraine right now, to properly subjugate Ukraine, Russia would need on the order of 800,000 troops with attendant armor and vehicle to move the supply chain, and enough aircraft to gain air superiority over Ukraine.

The Russians don't have this right now. Mass conscription would be necessary, and the first task of the new troops would be to get currently POS vehicles running. While training for combat.

However, the invasion of Ukraine is going badly for the Russians. Even Russian commanders (secretly) acknowledge that they are overwhelmed at how badly the campaign is going. The war is also very unpopular in Russia herself, and conscription is going to go over like a lead balloon. You'll need loyal troops to provide armed guards over the conscripts to make sure they don't desert, and in general start a reign of terror over the conscripts.

You're also going to have a situation like in the 1960s-70s in the US, where conscripts "burn their draft cards" and generally don't show up when they are conscripted. They'll join the antiwar effort instead. Where they will be arrested, and then conscripted. There will be press gangs roaming Russia.

It's going to be a mess.