Armchair General's DonbAss Derailed Discussion Thread (Topics Include History, Traps, and the Ongoing Slavic Civil War plus much much more)

[Agent23]

Maybe Russia should worry about its own far larger neo nazi problem, I mean the LPDR is openly fascist although Zhirinovsky can be entertaining.

Um, the guy is a joke, with very little support.
The only reason IMHO he got into power was because he was an entertaining buffoon.
Also, I think technically he is jewish and he does most of what he does because of Daddy issues.
The neonazis in Ukraine on the other hand, have real power.

 

[Carrot of Truth]

Um, the guy is a joke, with very little support.
The only reason IMHO he got into power was because he was an entertaining buffoon.
Also, I think technically he is jewish and he does most of what he does because of Daddy issues.
The neonazis in Ukraine on the other hand, have real power.

Lets stop pretending Putin gives a shit about a few larpers. He wants a buffer state against NATO and US influence his flimsy justification was a feeble attempt to drum up domestic support for this invasion by appealing to WW2 nostalgia.

 

[The Original Sixth]

Lets stop pretending Putin gives a shit about a few larpers. He wants a buffer state against NATO and US influence his flimsy justification was a feeble attempt to drum up domestic support for this invasion by appealing to WW2 nostalgia.

I mean, they're hardly larpers. We're talking about a thousand strong neo-nazis that were formally absorbed into Ukraine's national guard. If Ukraine somehow makes it out of this, that is going to have consequences. The US Congress took them seriously enough to cut funding from time to time. If Ukraine is so heavily reliant upon this thousand-strong army of neo-nazis that it refused to cut ties and disarm them, it speaks volumes of how much power they actually have. That said, Putin is absolutely using it as a cover and he is absolutely overemphasizing how much power they have within the government of Ukraine.

The real reason Russia is doing this is because it cannot accept the current trajectory of Ukraine. Russia is a declining power. It does not have the strength or the gray matter to keep up with the US at this point. A Ukraine that is in NATO's back pocket would offer the US the option of unprecedented leverage against Russia; the ability to cut off access to the Black Sea, the ability to directly attack Russia's wheat fields, the ability to sever Russia's connection to the caucuses, and a direct invasion route to Moscow.

Russia was fine with Ukraine being a buffer state. When the Ukrainians shifted towards the West in 2014, that's when the Kremlin took a glove off and annexed Crimea. From the looks of it, he should have taken both gloves off.

 

[Vaermina]

Most of the Ukrainian military is in no state to fight a war, and their military facilities and industry got smashed.

No?

Russia has to win at this point.

The problem with that being of course that short of Nukes Russia can't win.

 

[The Original Sixth]

The problem with that being of course that short of Nukes Russia can't win.

You mind explaining?

 

[Carrot of Truth]

I guess Russia hasn't failed this badly.

 

[sillygoose]

Also allegedly in Mariupol.

Red Cross convoy to Mariupol turns back, to renew attempts Saturday

A Red Cross convoy travelling to the besieged Ukrainian port of Mariupol turned around because it had become impossible to proceed with its mission to begin evacuating civilians on Friday, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said.

www.reuters.com

Red Cross says Russia barring evacuation buses and aid for Mariupol, seizing food

Russian forces seized 14 tons of food and medical supplies bound for Mariupol, according to Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Iryna Vereshchuk.

nypost.com

Would Ukraine let a Russian aid convoy into the Donbass if it had cities surrounded in 2014?

 

[Vaermina]

You mind explaining?

The numbers just don't support it.

With their current lose ratio Russia would need something like a 5 to 1 advantage over Ukraine to win. But Russia doesn't have those numbers in either working equipment or trained troops. And even if they did, that would leave them with functionally no army left by the time the dust settles.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Would Ukraine let a Russian aid convoy into the Donbass if it had cities surrounded in 2014?

What If posts and topics should go into the Alternate History forum.

Alternate History

Discussions of the Never-Weres and Might-Have-Beens

www.the-sietch.com

 

[sillygoose]

What If posts and topics should go into the Alternate History forum.

Alternate History

Discussions of the Never-Weres and Might-Have-Beens

www.the-sietch.com

Don't be snarky.
I'm just pointing out that no nation in the midst of military operations is going to let a convoy they haven't participating in running into an active war zone.

 

[Husky_Khan]

I'm just pointing out that no nation in the midst of military operations is going to let a convoy they haven't participating in running into an active war zone.

No you proposed a What If scenario involving hypothetical Whataboutism. If you wanted to say what you just said now, you would've said it in the first place.

 

[The Original Sixth]

I guess Russia hasn't failed this badly.

To be fair, it's hard to excel the Austrians in military incompetence.

The numbers just don't support it.

With their current lose ratio Russia would need something like a 5 to 1 advantage over Ukraine to win. But Russia doesn't have those numbers in either working equipment or trained troops. And even if they did, that would leave them with functionally no army left by the time the dust settles.

Your opinion seems contrary to what most political analysts suggest. Where are you drawing your conclusion from?

EDIT -- No seriously what are your sources for that ratio? The largest claim for Russian loss was by a member of NATO, citing the 3 to 1 issue for a defender, and going off Ukraine's losses of 7,000 to 15,000 troops to equate to roughly 30,000 and 40,000 troops. I believe this was sometime last week. Ukraine claims to have killed less than 20,000 troops. That would fit roughly well with Ukraine's lower end estimate of 20,000 troops. The only way you could get 5 to 1 is if you took the higher end of an estimated Russian loss of 40,000 and assumed that the UAF had only suffered 7,000 in losses, which goes against the entire rationality of the estimation. The Russian leak/claimed hack itself, possibly the most accurate numbers for Russian losses last week, only claimed 10,000 losses.

And although that was last week, with Russians suffering heavy reversals this week, that's probably a far more accurate number. 10,000 losses to Ukraine's 7,000 to 15,000 losses is probably what you'd expect from an attacker with superior firepower, air power, and mobility. Assuming the rate of Russian losses is the same as it has been for the past month, the Russians are probably hovering at around 12,500 in losses. Possibly more because of the recent reversals.

 

[TheRejectionist]

Um, the guy is a joke, with very little support.
The only reason IMHO he got into power was because he was an entertaining buffoon.
Also, I think technically he is jewish and he does most of what he does because of Daddy issues.
The neonazis in Ukraine on the other hand, have real power.

Zhirinovsky is not (Entirely) joke-ish in my opinion.

On Jewish part of him. He is not halaichally Jewish, because he is son of a Russian Jewish guy who abandoned him and his mother in Soviet Russia to fuck off to Israel.

He actually met his half brother after his father has died.

killed less than 20,000 troops.

I was seeing reports of 6000 kills during the FIRST FEW DAYS. So probably overcounting on the part of the Ukranians.
An hypothesis could be they count ALL CASUALTIES as kills.

 

[Vaermina]

Your opinion seems contrary to what most political analysts suggest. Where are you drawing your conclusion from?

EDIT -- No seriously what are your sources for that ratio? The largest claim for Russian loss was by a member of NATO, citing the 3 to 1 issue for a defender, and going off Ukraine's losses of 7,000 to 15,000 troops to equate to roughly 30,000 and 40,000 troops. I believe this was sometime last week. Ukraine claims to have killed less than 20,000 troops. That would fit roughly well with Ukraine's lower end estimate of 20,000 troops. The only way you could get 5 to 1 is if you took the higher end of an estimated Russian loss of 40,000 and assumed that the UAF had only suffered 7,000 in losses, which goes against the entire rationality of the estimation. The Russian leak/claimed hack itself, possibly the most accurate numbers for Russian losses last week, only claimed 10,000 losses.

And although that was last week, with Russians suffering heavy reversals this week, that's probably a far more accurate number. 10,000 losses to Ukraine's 7,000 to 15,000 losses is probably what you'd expect from an attacker with superior firepower, air power, and mobility. Assuming the rate of Russian losses is the same as it has been for the past month, the Russians are probably hovering at around 12,500 in losses. Possibly more because of the recent reversals.

We aren't just talking troops, we're talking a combination of troops, modern vehicles, and modern equipment.

Because it doesn't matter how many troops Russia has if they don't have the modern vehicles and equipment to actually make use of them.

Side note, it was 10,000+ troops KIA and 30,000+ troops WIA.

 

[D4rk0w1]

Me. I wonder if this was a temporary hole that NATO noticed in time or if the US/NATO is trying to sabotage peace talks? Even if I'm 70% sure the Russians don't actually intend to settle for half the country at this point.

I don't really know but it has high possibility since my casual trawling of the internet about the peace talks only US have seems to have poor opinion and worried about it having a headway because EU especially Germany wants his dealer back for one more hit of gas. Why did they abandoned Nuclear Energy when they allow American to station their nukes in Germany?

 

[WyldCard4]

Carpet bombing, shock and awe, whatever you call it when a city gets bombed back into the stone age, a la US military operation.

My point is that carpet bombing doesn't actually work even when you're trying it hard. See, Vietnam, Nazi Germany, both rounds of Afghanistan. It's horrible return on investment. I doubt if they'd been able to go all in on bombing campaigns they'd be in a much different position. Artillery is another matter, but also seems to be reliant on actually conquering the territory, which Russia can't do.

Oh, they aren't. Ukraine has already lost. What form that takes is really up to what happens next. If they surrender soon, they'll be able to "enjoy" being a puppet state of Russia. If they continue to struggle, one of two things will probably happen. Either Russia eventually grinds them into the dirt, turning a large portion of the country into a burning hole that will produce terrorists for the next generation or so--or Russia is unable to conquer the entire country and will take up to the Dnieper River, possibly hold the south, and simply bomb the rest of the country into the stone age.

Either way, expect massive civilian casualties from bombs, bullets, starvation, disease, and exposure to the elements (coming next winter!).

Russia has to win at this point. The costs thus far have been too high for Russia to just take the L. It would basically mean the end of Putin and his allies. That simply is not going to happen while Putin breathes. Instead, I fear that this will only make the Russians angrier and crueler. If Putin wasn't ordering his soldiers to shell the shit out of Ukraine before, he will now. The loss of face this past week is simply not going to be acceptable.

I'm increasingly unsure if Russia actually has the capacity to bomb Ukraine into the stone age without nuclear weapons.

Russia devoted most of its forces, something like 75% total and all of its first rate forces into the battle already, and they have accomplished very little besides conquering the parts of Ukraine their trucks could get to by road from their railways without refueling. The Russian air force has been virtually absent, and given the treatment of places like Mariupol with artillery I really doubt this is "holding back" as opposed to "actually can't use air power much better than they have been."

With a lot of their forces stranded, poorly dug in, or vulnerable to Ukrainian attack, especially the non-infantry forces, the logistics so fucked up, and the organization so bad I'm legitimately unsure how Russia turns this around even if they "need" the win. Use nukes? That makes you vulnerable to NATO going ballistic and guessing that you're going to use nukes on them anyway so might as well start the war on NATO's terms. Somehow win with 25% of your old army after a retooling where you lost maybe 40% of your old total combat power? Maybe possible, but seems really unlikely to me. Arm everyone with reserve equipment poorly maintained from the USSR and try to go zombie apocalypse on Ukraine? Putin's administration is strong, but probably not that strong domestically.

There seems to be a strain of argument that Russia's just not taking this seriously enough and could always have won if it took things more seriously. I'm not sure how that's possible when the troop deployment was so large in the beginning. I think it looks increasingly like they shot their wad and flat out can't achieve their goals with that wad, and now Ukraine is actually killing their troops and pushing them back.

My confidence is very low. I predicted a Russian stomp when this started. But it seems increasingly like Russia fucked this up too much to recover from early on and will have to eat something that looks a lot like an actual loss.

 

[SchrodingersWehraboo]

Russia devoted most of its forces, something like 75% total and all of its first rate forces into the battle already, and they have accomplished very little besides conquering the parts of Ukraine their trucks could get to by road from their railways without refueling.

With a lot of their forces stranded, poorly dug in, or vulnerable to Ukrainian attack, especially the non-infantry forces, the logistics so fucked up, and the organization so bad I'm legitimately unsure how Russia turns this around even if they "need" the win. Use nukes? That makes you vulnerable to NATO going ballistic and guessing that you're going to use nukes on them anyway so might as well start the war on NATO's terms. Somehow win with 25% of your old army after a retooling where you lost maybe 40% of your old total combat power?

Where the fuck do these stats come from? 40%? I saw a “US official” cited as saying Russia’s invasion force was still 90% intact little over a week ago.

 

[Zachowon]

Where the fuck do these stats come from? 40%? I saw a “US official” cited as saying Russia’s invasion force was still 90% intact little over a week ago.

You do know fighting force is diffrent from overall right?
Fighting force is a lot lower then the overall force and fighting force is definitely weaker and a lot less then they used to be

 

[WyldCard4]

Where the fuck do these stats come from? 40%? I saw a “US official” cited as saying Russia’s invasion force was still 90% intact little over a week ago.

My 40% number is not meant as "they are now at 40% casualties." I meant "after the currently deployed forces are used up and the army is rearmed and sent back in with what they salvaged from the current mess" which is my impression of what it means for Russia to "not take the loss due to political reasons" and keep going after extensive military defeat of the current forces.

I may have misunderstood the argument being made, but I think 40% of total Russian firepower being lost is a reasonable guess based on materiel exhausted, abandoned, and destroyed by Ukrainians in the general war we are currently seeing. I am mostly assuming forces like tanks, artillery, and aircraft continue their attrition rates rather than mass slaughters, though I am agnostic on how well the infantry will do if the Ukrainians do manage an encirclement or something.

 

[SchrodingersWehraboo]

Time will tell, but all I can say for now is that this

Now, based on the information bubble of mainstream corporate/liberal media, Reddit, and SpaceBattles

media sphere is playing host to the most intense information warfare targeting the public in a while, and it’s even going strong in “conservative” media, so if the Russians are losing, it’s certainly not in the way journalist hacks say.