Russia-Ukrainian War

[Xerxes]

The way I see it:

 

Everybody was off on the "Ukraine will fold within a week" back in 2022. They surprised every body and above else, they surprised themselves.

 

The late spring and summer 2022 could have turned differently, was it not for Western intelligence support, SpaceX, sanctions against Russia. West did not provide any major h/w back then, but it provided a moral legitimacy to the conflict, if that was not already clear.

 

Fall of 2022 was about when Kremlin taking a step back, as it geared and re-directed its economy and industrial base for the long conflict. In the meantime, while manpower was being raised, they needed to "fix" Ukraine attention somewhere, both giving themselves time and bleeding the enemy. Enter the mercenaries. Ukraine slowly wisen up to Bakhmut, and even it start using its 'lower quality' troops for Bakhmut. In parallel, General Surovikin was tasked to wage a defensive war, hold the line and to decimate the country' infrastructure.

 

Winter 2023. Ministry of defense takes formal command from General Surovikin and everything gets to subordinated to Gerasimov, including Surovikin. And that is where we are now.

 

I don't know how the 2023 Russian offensive will unfold. But I would say that the "shock" that Russian military felt in 2022, it was the same "shock" Ukraine felt in 2014. So in many ways, Ukraine was more prepared as it had many many years to get ready. It had no choice.

 

So do not assume, Russian cannot learn. They got their "shock" 8 years later than Ukrainian. But they can adapt. After all, Ukrainian and Russian ruled the Soviet Union side by side for decades. They both know a thing or two, once they put their mind to it.  

 

 

 

 

[mcliu]

Democrats

 

[Spekulatius]

Almost unbelievable , but this simple drone hit a target 50 miles south of Moscow:

The Russian air defense is a joke. I think Ukraine should be able to do way more to hit the Russian supply lines pretty much everywhere they want inside Russia.

[Dinar]

27 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

Almost unbelievable , but this simple drone hit a target 50 miles south of Moscow:

The Russian air defense is a joke. I think Ukraine should be able to do way more to hit the Russian supply lines pretty much everywhere they want inside Russia.

Why are you surprised?  Mathias Rust 1987 rings a bell?

[Spekulatius]

45 minutes ago, Dinar said:

Why are you surprised?  Mathias Rust 1987 rings a bell?

Yes, I recall that flight with a Cessna, but back then he was supposedly discovered and tracked fairly early, the military bureaucracy just couldn’t decide what to do with him. They could have shot him down, but didn’t.

 

These drones however are slower than WW1 planes, there no stealth whatsoever and they can penetrate Russian air space 500 km deep apparently.

[Dinar]

1 hour ago, Spekulatius said:

Yes, I recall that flight with a Cessna, but back then he was supposedly discovered and tracked fairly early, the military bureaucracy just couldn’t decide what to do with him. They could have shot him down, but didn’t.

 

These drones however are slower than WW1 planes, there no stealth whatsoever and they can penetrate Russian air space 500 km deep apparently.

My biggest worry, and the one I have had since Russian initial attacks failed, is that in the long run, Russia holds massive advantage.  The question is how can it be neutralized or Russia induced to end the war.   Russian incompetence will eventually end - Finnish war and WWII are good examples.  

[ValueArb]

11 hours ago, Dinar said:

My biggest worry, and the one I have had since Russian initial attacks failed, is that in the long run, Russia holds massive advantage.  The question is how can it be neutralized or Russia induced to end the war.   Russian incompetence will eventually end - Finnish war and WWII are good examples.  

 

Putin doesn't have the control that Stalin had in order to push out the changes the Russian military needs, and this is only an existential battle for him and his cronies, not for the troops, officers and country.

 

Russian "soldiers" are untrained, poorly equipped and don't want to be there. Ukrainian soldiers are battle tested and fighting for their homeland and freedom. I think the massive advantage is on the other foot.

[james22]

"Morale is to material as three is to one," you know.

[Dinar]

1 hour ago, ValueArb said:

 

Putin doesn't have the control that Stalin had in order to push out the changes the Russian military needs, and this is only an existential battle for him and his cronies, not for the troops, officers and country.

 

Russian "soldiers" are untrained, poorly equipped and don't want to be there. Ukrainian soldiers are battle tested and fighting for their homeland and freedom. I think the massive advantage is on the other foot.

What makes you think that Soviet soldiers wanted to fight in Finland?  You underestimate the power of propaganda.  As for being poorly trained and equipped, that can change.   @james22, Russian population is/was more than 3.3x Ukraine's, and millions of Ukrainians have fled.  Russia also has apparently access to mercenaries.  There was an article in Jerusalem Post yesterday claiming that Russia is aggressively recruiting in Lebanon and Syria - including people with experience in fighting Syrian civil war.

 

I hope that you two are right but...

 

[ValueArb]

41 minutes ago, Dinar said:

What makes you think that Soviet soldiers wanted to fight in Finland?  You underestimate the power of propaganda.  As for being poorly trained and equipped, that can change.   @james22, Russian population is/was more than 3.3x Ukraine's, and millions of Ukrainians have fled.  Russia also has apparently access to mercenaries.  There was an article in Jerusalem Post yesterday claiming that Russia is aggressively recruiting in Lebanon and Syria - including people with experience in fighting Syrian civil war.

 

I hope that you two are right but...

 

 

Russia has been recruiting in Syria since last summer, it's not helping. Russia is much larger than Ukraine, but it's more and more isolated every day. Russia's GDP was smaller than Italy before the war started, now with sanctions it's likely far smaller. 

 

Before the war started their only aircraft carrier has been out of service for 6 years due to a series of mind numbing accidents and lack of resources. Their new "wonder weapons" like the Armata tanks and SU-57 super fighters only existed in a handful of copies despite decades of development. They started the war lacking precision guided munitions and used almost all of their stock within the first few months. Their space program is falling apart with nearly a dozen serious accidents or failures in the last five years. They have 10,000 tanks in storage but few of them are usable, most stripped and parts sold, and all of them well out of date.

 

They can get more light weapons from China, more ammunition from North Korea, more drones from Iran, but they lack the manufacturing and technical ability to restore the stocks of their most advanced anti tank weapons, precision guided munitions, planes, helicopters and SAM systems. They were using western processors they've been cut off from and now they scavange chips out of washing machines.

 

Russia will continue to feed poorly trained and equipped troops into the meat grinder as long as Putin remains in power. But without the abilty to stop HIMARS and other precision long range strikes, they'll be perpetually short of ammo and rolled up quickly once they expended their maximum efforts.

 

I've said from the beginning this war would go on for years, the only way for Russia to "win" is for the US and Europe to let down Ukraine but so far we've done the bare minimum to keep them in the fight.  

 

Once Ukraine gets heavy western tanks and Bradleys in volume, they'll have the battlefield edge, and begin retaking more territory. Note the influx of new long range precision strike weapons, esp. hititng Mariupol. If Ukraine pushes through to Mariupol and we supply them with ATACMS or they built their own local weapon with similar range, Crimea becomes untenable for Russia. The bridge will be kept permanently out of action, the fleet will have to leave or be sunk at their moorings. They'll have no ability to supply their troops in Crimea with any significant volume.

Edited March 2, 2023 by ValueArb

[no_free_lunch]

Ukraine has foreign volunteers too. More and more.  You have to actually be selected, require combat experience.  They are ok for now on manpower.

 

Conventional munitions are still an issue.  Russia is out producing substantially and I read that it matters.  For now.

 

Nato needs to really push on smart but CHEAP munitions. Need the equivalent of Moores law on that stuff.   Drones with basic sensors and autonomous can be built for $1000-3000, that kind of thing in scale is needed. 

Edited March 3, 2023 by no_free_lunch

[shhughes1116]

5 hours ago, no_free_lunch said:

Conventional munitions are still an issue.  Russia is out producing substantially and I read that it matters.  For now.

you are suggesting that Russia is out-producing conventional munitions?  As in, they are producing more than the West?

 

Please provide a source for that statement, because it contradicts what is and has been widely known about the Russian munitions industry.  
 

At this point, most Russian munition production is “re-processing” of existing munitions that have reached the end of their usable life.  Their ability to produce new munitions is pretty limited, especially 152mm and 122mm shells.  Producing artillery shells is deceivingly hard. 

 

 

[cubsfan]

^^^ I find this very difficult to believe. We have no control over Russia's means of production of munitions. How do we in the West even know what is going on with Putin's armament industry??

It seems implausible that the industry is not ramped up to 100%.  If Putin wants to win this

war - it's his only hope.

 

And there in lies the problem - if you can not take out his means of production - by going 

into Russia - then 100% victory becomes very difficult.  By that I mean, 100% victory defined as the recapture of Crimea and the occupied territories.

[shhughes1116]

1 hour ago, cubsfan said:

^^^ I find this very difficult to believe. We have no control over Russia's means of production of munitions. How do we in the West even know what is going on with Putin's armament industry??

It seems implausible that the industry is not ramped up to 100%.  If Putin wants to win this

war - it's his only hope.

 

And there in lies the problem - if you can not take out his means of production - by going 

into Russia - then 100% victory becomes very difficult.  By that I mean, 100% victory defined as the recapture of Crimea and the occupied territories.

 

 

We can get a good sense from the battlefield.  What markings do we see on the cases?  How many fires do we see on FIRMS?  What types of artillery do we see on the battlefield?  Reported shelling.  And so on.  

 

You are painting the munitions industry with a broad stroke, instead of acknowledging that different munitions have different lead times and different complexities of production.  
 

It is easy to produce small arms ammunition.  It is not easy to produce artillery shells.  The Soviet Union produced VAST quantities of 152 and 122 artillery munitions in the Cold War.  After the Cold War, most of those munition operations were shut down - they couldn’t justify producing more when they had huge stockpiles.  To paint a picture, they had so much that they literally had to store rows and rows of 155 and 122 artillery shells outside, exposed to the elements, for years.  This is a big part of why they’ve had multiple catastrophic explosions at munition depots in the last decade. 
 

When they closed those munition operations, they lost the skillset also.   Making artillery shells is not menial labor - it actually requires some skill, in addition to the infrastructure and machinery.

 

We are having a similar problem in the United States with ramping up 155mm production.  But we have more existing facilities that do this work, and other Western countries also have similar facilities.  

 

 

[cubsfan]

^^ Well , that's what I'd be worried about - production.

 

I'd be surprised if the Soviets aren't all full steam with production.

 

What about the West?  You worried about them?  Are we just drawing down are inventories and storage of munitions?   Is the West on full production mode?

 

If the Western Allies are worried about Russia AND China - who gets the production?

[no_free_lunch]

6 hours ago, shhughes1116 said:

you are suggesting that Russia is out-producing conventional munitions?  As in, they are producing more than the West?

 

Please provide a source for that statement, because it contradicts what is and has been widely known about the Russian munitions industry.  
 

At this point, most Russian munition production is “re-processing” of existing munitions that have reached the end of their usable life.  Their ability to produce new munitions is pretty limited, especially 152mm and 122mm shells.  Producing artillery shells is deceivingly hard. 

 

 

 

It's widely reported, even by Ukrainian sources. The ones I follow on telegram.  However here is one link, not sure of the source,  just a Google result. 

 

https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-03-01/ukraine-outgunned-10-to-1-in-massive-artillery-battle-with-russia.html

 

I will restate though and say that Russia is outfiring Ukraine.   It's possible they are drawing down inventory.  I can't say for certain it's all production.

 

One more link:

 

According to Estonia’s math, a sevenfold increase is needed in output capacity among European suppliers to reach a production rate of 175,000 shells per month, up from 20,000-25,000 now. That would put Ukraine on a path within six months to replace the estimated 60,000-210,000 shells currently fired by its forces every month.

 

For comparison, Russian artillery averages 20,000-60,000 shells fired per day, according to the Estonian paper.

 

https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2023/03/02/eu-mulls-billions-in-funding-to-quicken-artillery-shell-production/

 

 

Edited March 3, 2023 by no_free_lunch

[Xerxes]

Some interesting parallels between the Crimean War of the 1850s and today. Few interesting excerpts on then different points of views, as seen from their capitals.  

 

First excerpt explains the overwhelming role the Tsar played most of all in the conflict. But not just him. Everybody played a role and wanted to have their pound of flesh. 
 

Think of then Turkey as Ukraine, both victims of Russia.
 

Think of today’s Russian oriented Donbas (Ukrainian territory) as then pro-Russian “Wallachia and Moldova” that were formally part of the Ottoman territories. Moscow coveted both then and now. 
 

 

The next except, is the rise of anti Russian political views, in London that started to shape its foreign policy. It was the epoch of the “Great Game”. 
 

 

The Queen point of view that Britain foreign policy was being held hostage by a blank check provided to the Ottoman court by the British Parliament. 
 

 

Even after the earlier Russian defeat in the Balkans, the “war party” needed to have its war. The full course. 
 

Invasion of Crimea was launched soon after. 
 

 

 

Ref: https://www.amazon.ca/Crimean-War-History-Orlando-Figes-ebook/dp/B004QGY3YI/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?crid=21MWP0FQRPBO1&keywords=crimean+war&qid=1678032962&sprefix=crimean+war%2Caps%2C118&sr=8-1

 

Disclaimer: This post is for entertainment purposes only, no need to reply that the two wars are actually different etc etc

 

 

Edited March 5, 2023 by Xerxes

[Xerxes]

From The Economist 

 

[no_free_lunch]

Im no expert but it appears to be a big problem xerxes.  Nothing new either as the article suggests. I know in the Korean War they had a lot of issues as there was no investment in conventional weapons.  Everyone assumed any future war would be nuclear, it wasn't.  Up until last year the west assumed it will be only limited conflicts with smaller countries.  

 

I would really like to see a comparison of US defense spending relative to China or Russia that factors in relative cost. I have to think these countries,  China in particular get a lot more bang for the buck.  Higher wages in the US affect everything, the cost of personnel to production wages.

 

This issue is really hitting the social media space the last day or so.  Hopefully it triggers people. I'm trying to trigger people. Complacency will lead to loss. If we , the west, go around assuming that we are just the best we will be defeated. Guaranteed. 

Edited March 5, 2023 by no_free_lunch

[Spekulatius]

On 3/3/2023 at 4:42 PM, cubsfan said:

^^ Well , that's what I'd be worried about - production.

 

I'd be surprised if the Soviets aren't all full steam with production.

 

What about the West?  You worried about them?  Are we just drawing down are inventories and storage of munitions?   Is the West on full production mode?

 

If the Western Allies are worried about Russia AND China - who gets the production?

I think Germany for once is ramping up ammunition production significantly. Rheinmetal alone builds two new plants - one in Hungary and one in Germany if I recall correctly.

I don’t think producing artillery shells is that hard. It’s the more complex stuff like smart ammo (Excalibur) that has complex supply chains and takes longer.

[nafregnum]

It seems both sides are running low on ammo...

 

https://www.economist.com/china/2023/03/02/chinese-arms-could-revive-russias-failing-war

 

"For decades Russia pumped arms to China. On average it sent $2bn-worth every year between 2001 and 2010, with a bonanza $7bn deal in 2015. Now the tables have turned. Russia has lost over 9,400 pieces of equipment, including more than 1,500 tanks, during its botched invasion of Ukraine. It is desperately short of ammunition. America says it has intelligence suggesting that China is considering whether to supply Russia with weapons. That could change the course of the war. It would also trigger a deeper crisis in China’s relationship with America and Europe."

Edited March 5, 2023 by nafregnum

[cubsfan]

^^  The Economist article you guys have referenced is great. If it is an accurate picture - what I get out of it is:

 

- Russian armaments industry is running round the clock producing munitions.

- USA/Europe are shipping to Ukraine & drawing down domestic supplies quickly.

- USA/Europe have the capability to outproduce, but are delayed while they bicker/negotiate (whatever term you like) to replenish dwindling supplies.

- I'm seeing the reference that new production might not hit until 2024 !

- China has pretty massive stockpiles that are untouched.

 

Seems to pose the problem of China in the future if Europe/USA decide to defend Taiwan - can production be ramped to supply 2 fronts?

 

Personally, looks like China is galvanizing support against themselves by pissing off Europe with any intention of supply Russia against Ukraine.

Edited March 5, 2023 by cubsfan

[Spekulatius]

In every  war in the last 100+ years, nations went into it unprepared and vastly underestimated  what they needed to produce and move to keep the front lines supplied. I think every war is entered with the assumption (spoken out or not) that it only last a few weeks or at most month and that just isn’t the case any more. Wars tend to last longer nowadays and they are typically won by those who can outproduce and get their material to the front lines (logistics) in time.

 

I think it was a General Bradley who said that the war in Europe was won by Victory cargo  ships , Jeeps and Mack trucks. Germany had none of these, stuff was moved often by railroad and horses, believe it or not in WW2.

[Spekulatius]

Interesting results from Nordstream leak investigating from credible sources:

Seems like a pro Ukrainian group was involved.

[Xerxes]

25 minutes ago, Spekulatius said:

In every  war in the last 100+ years, nations went into it unprepared and vastly underestimated  what they needed to produce and move to keep the front lines supplied. I think every war is entered with the assumption (spoken out or not) that it only last a few weeks or at most month and that just isn’t the case any more. Wars tend to last longer nowadays and they are typically won by those who can outproduce and get their material to the front lines (logistics) in time.

 

I think it was a General Bradley who said that the war in Europe was won by Victory cargo  ships , Jeeps and Mack trucks. Germany had none of these, stuff was moved often by railroad and horses, believe it or not in WW2.

 

Not just wars, also hardware and weapons. The first batches of F-4 phantoms, during the early age of air-to-air missiles did not have cannons, because it was said the age of cannon-equipped plane was over with F-86 being the last of that gun-equipped breed fighting in the Korean War. Sure enough subsequent batches of F-4s all had a 20mm guns. And is a standard feature on all fighters since, up to F-22 and F-35.

 

2022: oh no the age of tank is over. We will see perhaps Ukrainian using tanks correctly.

 

Not to argue with Bradley, the last of the rare breed that is a five-star general, but one can write different books about many thing that contributed to tip the balance in the second world war.

 

Given that Bradley was probably a 'logistics guy', it is probably reasonable comment by him.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 8, 2023 by Xerxes