Topic: Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress] - page 107. (Read 73622 times)

Some current news on the subject. Funny that republicans just want to separate Ukraine funding so it could be voted on separately instead of lumping it together with US budget, but of course it's being spun differently.  Think we all know that Ukrainian aid will pass in some form this time around, but of course its only a start and will have to repeat again in November/December and then every few months leading closer and closer to US presidential election


There are also elections in Slovakia


And now to Serbia


Of course there is also Africa, Armenia etc...



Soviet Union collapsed because they overestimated their strength, and had no mechanism to scale down, so the west just opened as many fronts as they could to smartly overextend the Soviets. Ironically i believe this is exactly what we're seeing now.

You're the one making the claim, enlighten us.

If you want to split hairs, when battle of Bakhmut ended, and when counteroffensive started?

At this moment, several of the proxy indicators for the intensity of combat and even the official figures from both sides seem to indicate that Ukraine is pressing ahead stronger that in the last month. There is also media quietness in general, so only a few unofficial sources indicate that more armoured means are being used in the Verbove / Robotina section of the Zapo front, but also that there is movement in the banks of the dnipro.

Meanwhile, the usual youtube Kremlin propagandists speak of "meatgrinders", "massive losses" without mention to Ukrainian advances, which is a clear indication on who is got the initiative.

Oh... good luck trying to get anything resembling truth from any of this guys.

From the start of the year. This presumably includes the "capture" of Bakhmut, the last significant Russian advance. Since the start of the Ukrainian counteroffensive in mid-2023 the gains have been mostly one way.



So let's try again:


Not true, is it?

Well, your link says Ukraine 143 square MILES, Russia 331

If you have trouble calculating, try this link

https://www.google.com/search?q=square+miles+to+km

That's a peculiar claim since NYT's most recent article on territorial gains doesn't have such numbers. I don't suppose you have a link?

According to New York Times (famous for its pro-Russia stance) since Ukraine counteroffensive started, Russia took 860 square kilometers, and
Ukraine took 370 square kilometers.
At that rate, what your math says, when will Ukraine take back all territory?

This is me questioning why people do not seem to understand the concept of "example" within a theoretical discussion and if BA's latest answer is an very effective attempt to win the "poorest math award" on this thread

You keep fighting a straw man that you yourself created. Numerical majority doesn't matter AS LONG AS your kill ratio is higher than opponents numerical majority ratio. And you're in trouble on the battlefield if your kill ratio doesn't compensate for your lower numerical force. The logic of “It is better to be on hand with ten men than absent with ten thousand.” is because ten men on hand can do more damage (have higher kill ratio) than absent with ten thousand. You "attrite and degrade" opponent on a battlefield by reducing their manpower (or their equipment which ultimately directly leads to loss in manpower). Of course you can also push propaganda to destroy the morale (willingness to fight) enough in hopes for a political change but that wouldn't be a battlefield victory, and all current polls indicate it's extremely unlikely to occur.

As stated by others look at the map and you'll see that Kerch bridge is not the only supply route and not a single point of failure that you're making it out to be. There are other alternatives including land bridge, ferries, (even airdrops might be at least a temporary stopgap solution as has been done few times in history). In fact as i'm sure you're well aware, Kerch bridge was only opened in 2018-2019 good 4 years after Russia took Crimea, so Crimea was somehow taken and then supplied for four years before the bridge was built and without alternative land corridor in place now. Regardless, the point of taking out supply routes, is to reduce combat effectiveness of the enemy so to cause unbearable losses to the opponent. Or of course just to push propaganda that opponents lines will collapse because now they'll get melted ice cream with their rations because supplies are going over longer/more dangerous alternative supply routes. The illusion that Russian will just withdraw while having lower losses in % of population, is just that, an illusion pushed by dishonest propagandist, who ironically at the same time attempt to claim that Russia doesn't care for their soldiers lives, which of course is mutually exclusive. The only point of that would be a huge morale booster for your own troops/population, to keep them hopelessly fighting even longer.

I don't want to piss in your Cheerios, but when the 'Ukrainians' went full al-Qaeda and did the suicide truck bombing back in 2022 it stopped rail traffic for a whole two days or something IIRC.  Vehicle traffic was inconvenienced by having to share a span while the collapsed one was re-built.

Supposedly there was a later British attack with Storm Shadow missiles, but info on that is sparse at best.  May even be just another 'Institute for the Study War' (familiar neo-con Jewish clans working their American gimps) fantasy.

In any event if/when necessary there are ferry boats that can work the straights as they have for about 100 years.  But even then, why bother?  The alternate route through now-Russian Federation properties adjacent to Crimea and all the way over and up into the Motherland are not much more dangerous than any highway in the West.

Ukraine does not need a x5 advantage, that is just a number you made up and keep repeating. Is false logic and sad math but also unrelated to the dynamics of modern warfare. Nor any warfare.

(born in 1336)

To gain territory you need to attrite and degrade the enemy response. This does not require massive number nor a "x5". A basic example: you blow up the Kerch bridge, all supplies to Crimea have to make a dangerous route of hundreds of kilometres more. You have killed 0 people, but the frontline is not getting ammo and they are forced to retreat.

Once you understand these dynamics, you will be able to understand why the "kill ratio" is not the limiting factor for a victory.

 

Yes yes lets concentrate on how this one sniper is so great and killed 100s, just don't talk about overall state of affairs, and lets pretend as if i'm arguing that simple numerical majority is what wins wars. You're picking some specific UA weapon/system and claim how great it is. That might even be true but regardless of how great these miracle systems might be, it's simply impossible for them to be so great that they make up for all other casualties and bring OVERALL kill ratio (meaning all kills including planes, choppers, ships, submarines, drones, tanks, missiles, mines, handguns, knifes etc etc etc...) to over 5x in Ukraine's advantage. And without that Ukraine just can't win on the battlefield. From your example US actually did achieve 10x+ casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan. But even the most craziest UA propagandists make up casualty numbers at maximum 3x over RU, so even if we consider those ridiculous numbers, that would still mean that UA is loosing 2x faster of its relative population to RU, which is clearly not sustainable. The grim reality is that if RU casualties are less than 5x of UA (which is globally acknowledged) this means that UA is loosing % of their population faster.

I am not sure, I would need to re-read all BA's posts because he may hold the record, and I am not ready for such a experience.

The Rude guy here draws conclusions with absolute disregard for caveats, wrong assumptions, logic flaws... I tend to answer just to the core of the issues, I just cannot go over all the seemly random assertions shamelessly dumped in walls an walls of text.

The core of this is if population size matters. The answer is yes, it matters, but it is just a factor because in modern war technology, good intel and good strategies eat the numbers for breakfast. Now, I am going back to the trench, I suspect a wall of text is going to be fired at me - with the accuracy of a Soviet WW II gun of course.

This gotta be the stupidest math in this thread so far, and that's a high (or is it low?) bar to clear.

You are thinking of Ruzzia as the Soviet Union, they are not even half of what it was during the soviet period. Gunshells sure... they can produce, basic artillery, low tech drones, a couple of hundred T90 per year, a couple of hundred of missiles (IF at all),... Certainly not at the rate they have to if trying to sustain a high intensity war.

But - planes such as the ILs destroyed by drones, S-400 systems like the two recently destroyed, ships like the ones they have lost or planes like the ones that they do not even dare to use in the frontline (yes... Sukoy, I am talking to you),... that is gone for quite a few years if they are ever to come back. Billions of technologically advanced products.

RE BRICS, well, you know...

https://www.reuters.com/world/india/russia-cannot-meet-arms-delivery-commitments-because-war-indian-air-force-says-2023-03-23/


Looks like production may not be ramping up in everything uh?

https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2023/9/8/g20-summit-is-india-breaking-up-with-russia

RE Brazil...


This is Lula da Silva speaking at the United Nations. It does not sound like in support of an illegal war from Ruzzia does it?

You forget one major thing regarding the F16s, In the past Russia had no reason to maintain a technologically competitive war force. But since the US is stubbornly pushing Nato's growth, and since the US won't back down regarding treaties to stop this, Russia is pushing its own growth in every way.

By now Russia's military growth acceleration has more than doubled; it might even have tripled since the beginning of the war. In the same time, the US and Nato, because of the way they gave their military toys to Ukraine only to lose them, are far behind Russia in rebuilding their military strength.

Russia doesn't want a major war. But she has been bolstering her relations with BRICS countries, and with the 41 (or so) countries who want to join BRICS. These countries should start by kicking the US military bases off their lands, and see what the US wants to do about it.

No I am comparing Ruzzia with Ruzzia. They shelled more, had more manpower, more equipment, better air forces and yet... they lost Kherson and the region. Is this real life enough for you?

Another of those funny syllogisms that you frequently fall into:"Ruzzia shells more, shells kill, ergo Ruzzia kills more". HIMARS has been a game changer, you speak about volume of shelling, but I will take a HIMARS rather than 30 pieces of Soviet equipment shooting with rusty barrels and likely to miss a target by 20 meters or more (which is actually the case in the front). The quality counts - the reports speak of more than 25 Ruzzian artillery pieces destroyed per day in artillery duels. Guess what is destroying them?

I think that many weapons have been a game changer (e.g. drone economics) and before you say anything about mines, notice that these do not fly and do not change anything... unless you are still WW II gaming.

But perhaps the clear proof of what is happening, and that is actually reality, is that Ruzzia has stopped any minimally significant gain while Ukraine is taking territory. That is what is happening "in real life".

Re recruiting, I have that information yes... but it is a duma decree, plus some sources...

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-recruiting-soldiers-mental-asylum-ukraine-war-1739963


F16 will also change the game. Those GBUs modified to "fly" may be just to risky to launch any longer.

All these things together are effectively game changers. Also for Ukraine, as attacking in large formations or with over abundance of mechanized means is no longer a good option.

Of course the estimates of losses are all over the place, but the consensus seems to be that artillery brings the most casualties in this conflict, and so far Russia has fired more artillery shells than Ukraine (there are reports that RU scaled back now but is either still outpacing Ukraine by a bit or both sides fire equal amounts of shells now). RU has also been firing exponentially more missiles to the rear, UA only now just started to fire on Crimea (which as you pointed out is considered breakthrough in UA), and UA is pretty much forbidden from attacking inside Russia elsewhere with provided missiles. Judging by videos and reports, drone attacks have been at par at first but Russia seems to have scaled up faster now. UA had more anti-tank weapons and lit up more thanks in the begging of the conflict.

To achieve higher kill rate, from your link, the US coalition strength was "Over 950,000 soldiers" and Iraq at "Over 650,000 soldiers" so they had overwhelming manpower, and a total control of airspace, both of which Ukraine lacks. Are you seriously trying to compare Ukraine to USA and Russia to Iraq, and claim that resourceful uber Ukrainian super soldiers (and ghosts of Kyiv) sustained an average kill rate of 5:1 for continuous 19 month? And will now increase that ratio even further to over 5 RU killed for every 1 UA loss, with some groundbreaking gamechanger weapon? I mean i saw anecdotal reports that Russians were attacking with shovels as Ukrainians are mowing them down with machine guns, but surely no one actually believed that right? Maybe Ukraine could achieve such odds against indigenous tribesman of amazon or Papua New Guinea, but the sober reality is that there's just no weapon in existence that would allow Ukraine to achieve such ratios against Russia. That's why no one really thought that Ukraine could defeat Russia on the battlefield. Objectively, UA's only realistic chance was for economical/political collapse inside RU, but we now see that China would not allow that to happen.


Now back to the real world,

Really? Women? Like in "women are not already fighting in Ukrainian army"? Sorry if I am breaking this to you, but they already are. There are particularly a couple of snipers out there with a good kill list - guns are quite democratic and gender agnostic.

As for you statement on "running short of troops", well, I guess we have to take your word??


what is your interpretation? In the first war, Iraqi army was like Ruzzia, in theory, really big in numbers. But T-72 do not react well to newer munitions. Oh, to add, technology is important, but in aviation is exponentially important. A 5th generation fighter can kill 10 or 20 4th generation and not even been seen.