How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Battlefront.com]

5 hours ago, Khalerick said:

We don't have any idea of the casualties on either side and presumably will not for years. But I'm impressed by your certainty that Russia is eating something like 15,000 KIA a month, accounting for almost 165,000+ dead already which would constitute virtually the entire starting invasion force. 

They've invested more manpower into Ukraine than they originally allocated to the invasion, correct.  The first few months they moved just about every military unit stationed anywhere in Russia and deployed it to Ukraine.  Straight up combat units were obvious ones, but also added to the mix were units actively involved in "peace keeping" and garrison duties.  Add to this all the personnel of the original units left in garrison (i.e. 3rd Battalions), hastily raised volunteer battalions (BARS), Wagner, the portion of the partial mobilization that were deployed, and the huge campaign to secure new Contractors straight from civil society. 

We've also seen anecdotal evidence that a wide array of normally non-combat personnel have been transferred to the front.  My favorite example was the junior officer (IIRC 2nd LT) who was a meteorologist with some Arctic scientific unit.  He was killed while manning a rifle unit somewhere in the south early in the war.  His personal papers told the story.

Anyway, it's been a long time since I've crunched the numbers.  But even months ago they had rotated in more men than they started with.  Yet the overall Russian force size does not to be noticeably bigger.  It is, instead, noticeably not the force it started with.  Whether 165,000 is the right number or not, it is certainly six figures in size.

Steve

[sburke]

10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

They've invested more manpower into Ukraine than they originally allocated to the invasion, correct.  The first few months they moved just about every military unit stationed anywhere in Russia and deployed it to Ukraine.  Straight up combat units were obvious ones, but also added to the mix were units actively involved in "peace keeping" and garrison duties.  Add to this all the personnel of the original units left in garrison (i.e. 3rd Battalions), hastily raised volunteer battalions (BARS), Wagner, the portion of the partial mobilization that were deployed, and the huge campaign to secure new Contractors straight from civil society. 

Steve

not to mention the original force was a considerable portion of their logistical base which was particularly savaged to the point they had to start commandeering civilian vehicles en masse.

[FlemFire]

 

I'm quite aware Russia's incompetence has led to significant military losses. I was one of many sitting back and watching the tapes. When the war started, I remarked about having observed the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008, and watching drunken Russians stumble around in the middle of the road while driving an AFV into a berm. It's obvious to anyone who pays attention that for all its resources, the Russian military is not what one might call "professional." As even Battlefront's lovely games showcase, certain doctrines baked into their military structure are also not what one might call "flexible." Mix the two together, throw it against some resistance, and abracadabra. Where have we seen this before except in virtually every conflict they ever partake in.

 

However, we actually do NOT know the full extent of Russia's stockpile. You have to pull a lot of data from the end of the Cold War to recent times to estimate it. As you near the end of the Cold War, those estimations have to be safeguarded against with the knowledge that the West has to elevate the threat to justify its own defense budgets. As you near modern times, you have to start safeguarding against assertions that Russia is a broken nation with nothing. In between you gotta figure out what % you're willing to shave off to things like corruption and waste. I'll say this about Russia's military: it has been a focus for them. This is not the decaying creature that it seemed to be in the early 00s. Anyone who plainly asserts that the Russian military is vanishing or isn't "relevant" is making an assumption. We don't actually know. We just know the stockpiles are very, very likely to be quite vast. How Russia is able to marshal those forces is another question entirely.

 

27 minutes ago, kevinkin said:

PS: somewhere I read the official channels between the US and Russia have never been so busy. I will try to find the source again. 

You wouldn't have to source it at all, I'd fully believe it as read.

 

 

16 minutes ago, dan/california said:

 

 

Urals oil is currently being priced about thirty dollars per barrel below Brent Crude. That is actually a devastatingly effective sanctions program in the medium to long term. Brent at ~~85 per barrel is well within historical norms. And Russian oil is expensive to extract. At $55 per barrel Russia is not making a lot of money. Certainly not relative to the vast expenses of the war.

Russia has the economy about the size of Italy's. This is not quite the pin in the doll as you might think. It has to go lower. Also, Russia trades at losses to some nations in exchange for other goods. Be wary of taking raw numbers when staring at a speculative "legal" black market like oil trade. I'm sure you're already aware that the oil market is a whole bag of hammers and trickery all on its own.

 

16 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Because you are dismissive of the depth of discussion that goes on here.  We do not just take a quote from one guy and say that is sufficient to prove everything else said as wrong.

Not at vanished, not relevant.  Again, this is a discussion that has been had many times before and with greater nuance than bean counting.  Which is the exact sort of thing that underlies the horrific predictions made by "experts" on Russia before and during this war.

Numbers are only a part of the story.  The other part is that Russia can't access the reserves without a declaration of war.  Therefore, that large number that's been so often quoted is meaningless unless there is a massive shift in how Russia is manning its armed forces.  A shift that Putin is overtly afraid of doing.  The partial mobilization was a long delayed compromise measure and was very poorly executed.  It was supposed to go after reserves first, but in effect was grabbing people off the street (literally in many cases) because it was the easiest thing to do.

You need to do better research.  Putin is not negotiating.  He says he will, even so far as saying with no preconditions, then lists off all the same BS he started the war with.  There are efforts from time to time to test the waters, and each time it's come back with Putin being unwilling to abandon any of the things I enumerated.

If you think this is wrong, please cite a source.

At some point Putin might conform to what you described, but so far there's been no signs of this.  Again, if you disagree then you need to provide proof or you should adjust your concept of what is going on in this war.

Yes, and as we've discussed maybe 1000 times (as recently as a few pages ago) this is exactly what Putin did not do. 

You really should go back and read more of what is discussed here instead of insisting this is all novel.

Steve

 

Just focusing on the peace stuff, I said there were efforts and there have been. We actually don't know to what extent he'll negotiate because neither side has sat down and hammered out details in awhile. Publicly, he can say whatever he wants to say. He's made his objectives clear and is sticking to them. I've already said that this is part of the theater of public diplomacy. I think it's an eyebrow raising mistake to do this just like it is for the other side. Behind closed doors tides change, though. Call me an optimist in this regard.

And I've said my observations here are not niche already. People are choosing to engage with them so I don't see the issue. Nothing wrong with back and forth. I've no umbrage with anyone here and if anything I said made it seem otherwise I apologize. It's quite late on my end so something may have slipped through.

 

1 minute ago, Battlefront.com said:

They've invested more manpower into Ukraine than they originally allocated to the invasion, correct.  The first few months they moved just about every military unit stationed anywhere in Russia and deployed it to Ukraine.  This included units actively involved in "peace keeping" and garrison duties.  Add to this all the personnel originally left in garrison (i.e. 3rd Battalions), hastily raised volunteer battalions, Wagner, the portion of the partial mobilization that were deployed, and the huge campaign to secure new Contractors straight from civil society.  We've also seen anecdotal evidence that a wide array of normally non-combat personnel have been transferred to the front.  My favorite example was the junior officer (IIRC 2nd LT) who was a meteorologist with some Arctic unit.  He was killed while manning a rifle unit somewhere in the south early in the war.

Anyway, it's been a long time since I've crunched the numbers.  But even months ago they had rotated in more men than they started with.  Yet the overall Russian force size does not to be noticeably bigger.  It is, instead, noticeably not the force it started with.  Whether 165,000 is the right number or not, it is certainly six figures in size.

Steve

 

I just don't understand how one can make these assertions. I've seen casualty numbers all over the place. If you want to make estimates, fine, but what #'s are there to even crunch? There are wars long concluded which people still debate this crap. The idea you could do it live is a bit silly. I personally think the total casualties are very high, but I'm 100% guessing and I honestly don't know. Both sides have strong interests in totally muddying the water on this topic. Looking at unit rotation to glean data is interesting but that's a big rabbit hole because we just don't know Russia's internal designs for this sort of thing (unless you got some very up to date documentation, then I'd gladly take a look).

Here's my own rabbit hole. The West has keen interest in Ukraine winning this war. If what you say is true about the casualties, then we can assume the West's generals know this as well. So why are they not acting on this information? Why are they not depositing as much war material as physically possible right this second to press the advantage? Again, I find this wishywashy reluctance by the West to be indicative of a lack of faith in the project as a whole. The U.S. MIC will get its money. That's what it wants. But in terms of military objectives if Russia is so lambasted that they could be pushed over, why are the generals not moving in the aggressive direction? I sincerely find this very suspect. But, like your notions with the rotations, it is only something I can gauge at a vast distance. And while I may be taking the word of one man, that man is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He's not speaking off the cuff. He's speaking at the spearhead of what is undoubtedly the world's biggest mountain of intelligence and analysis. His conclusion does not track with this assertion that Russia's forces are virtually obliterated.

[Battlefront.com]

Speaking of Russia's manpower problems... from yesterday's ISW report:

Quote

Mobilization and Force Generation Efforts (Russian objective: Expand combat power without conducting general mobilization)

The Ukrainian Main Intelligence Directorate (GUR) reported on January 13 that the Russian Armed Forces seek to raise personnel numbers to two million by an unspecified date.[69] This target is half a million higher than the Russian force generation goals Deputy Chief of the Main Operational Directorate of the Ukrainian General Staff Brigadier General Oleksiy Hromov reported on January 12 and Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu proposed on December 21.[70] The Russian Armed Forces consisted of about 1.35 million personnel as of September 2022.[71] The GUR stated that Russian authorities may launch a mobilization effort “in the coming days” to mobilize an additional 500,000 soldiers.[72] ISW maintains that a second wave of Russian mobilization would neither be a separate effort from ongoing mobilization efforts, nor would it substantially improve Russia’s ability to wage war in Ukraine given Russia’s persistent lack of trainers, supplies, and bureaucratic capabilities to administer large-scale mobilization and prepare troops for combat.

Two things here.  First is that Russia seems to understand, finally, that it's prewar force size is completely inadequate for fighting in Ukraine AND doing everything else it was doing before the war.  Not only is ISW understandably pessimistic that Russia has the ability to pull off such an enlargement in terms equipping and administering, but it is also quite sour on the notion that Russia can physically gather that many men at all.  Given the obvious problems with the first partial mobilization, those doubts are well founded.

Then they move onto more evidence of how difficult it will be for Russia to raise any significant amount of manpower without major difficulties:

Quote

Russian authorities are likely preparing to expand the segments of Russian society eligible for mobilization. The GUR reported that Russian officials are preparing to change mobilization laws, ready military training centers, and are actively setting conditions for a second wave of mobilization.[73] Siber Realii and an opposition Russian source reported that Russian military enlistment offices and public utilities, the Moscow State Budgetary Institution, and Omsk State University are taking steps to verify credentials, restrict worker travel, or prepare to distribute mobilization notices ahead of the second wave of mobilization.[74] The Kremlin is continuing its crypto-mobilization campaign by proposing to mobilize migrants with Russian citizenship, increasing the presence of volunteers from Serbia, and mobilizing personnel in occupied Luhansk and Kherson oblasts.[75]

We've seen this sort of thing reported elsewhere using Russian sources as the basis.  Russia is using its "captive audience" of people who are readily known and easily identified as the potential source for the next mobilization.  This is state cannibalism at work.

More evidence of this in the next 2 paragraphs:

Quote

Kremlin officials issued contradictory statements regarding the expansion of mobilization eligibility, causing significant alarm and confusion among domestic Russian audiences. Russian Human Rights Council member Irina Kirkora confirmed to Russian State Duma Deputy Nina Ostanina and a prominent Russian news outlet that Russian Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov terminated mobilization exemptions for men with three or more children in December 2022.[76] Secretary of the General Council of the United Russia Party Andrey Turchak denounced Ostanina’s claims on January 13 and called on Russians to avoid hypothesizing on the topic of deferral eligibility changes.[77]

Kremlin officials also sparked controversy by suggesting that Russia will commit reservists and civilian men to a mandatory call-up for military training after expanding conscription eligibility as part of the mobilization reserve. Russian State Duma Deputy and Committee on Defense member Lieutenant General Viktor Sobolev announced that men over 30 years of age in the reserve and without prior military service experience would be subject to military training following the adoption of the law extending the legal conscription age.[78] Sobolev noted that Russia needs to develop a trained and combat-ready mobilization reserve, a goal that the Russian Ministry of Defense sought to accomplish in the autumn of 2021 prior to invading Ukraine.[79] Sobolev also proposed on January 11 that all Russian youth receive military training as well.[80] Several Russian milbloggers critiqued Sobolev’s announcement, claimed that he was speaking without authority, and questioned the theoretical effectiveness of training programs for the mobilization reserve.[81] Milbloggers noted that the mobilization reserve is unlikely to adequately prepare called-up men for modern-day combat or have enough resources to properly train them.

If Russia has hundreds of thousands of reservists ready to go, it sure seems like they're having to look pretty hard to find them.

Then there's this tidbit from the UK MoD that indicates Russia has a serious national manpower problem even before this next wave of mobilization starts:

Quote

The United Kingdom Ministry of Defense (UK MoD) reported on January 13 that Russian officials plan to use convict labor to address increased wartime production demands and labor shortages.[84] The UK MoD stated that low-tech weapons manufacturers will likely have the greatest demand for convict labor, especially as Russian authorities intensify demands for increased military production.[85] Russia’s largest tank manufacturer, Uralvagonzavod, reportedly told local media in November 2022 that it would employ 250 prisoners.[86] Russia has a far greater supply of potential convict labor, with the Russian Federal Penal Service reportedly overseeing over 400,000 inmates.[87] ISW has previously reported on both Russian failures to meet military production needs and labor shortages due to mobilization.[88]

It seems that prisoners are going to be used for military related labor for production just as they have for fighting.  If Russia has such huge, great, and amazing manpower reserves... kinda odd that in less than one year of war they are so tapped out that they have to use convicts to fight and work in factories.

Lastly, no discussion about Russia manpower is complete without mentioning its poor quality.

Quote

Extremely low morale continues to limit Russian force effectiveness and to gain attention from Russian sources. Independent Russian news outlet Meduza amplified two videos in which mobilized soldiers from Novosibirsk complained that Russian leadership sent them to the frontlines to leave only when wounded or dead.[89] A prominent Russian milblogger posted on January 13 that one brigade commander polled his soldiers and only one soldier said that he wanted to fight.[90] The milblogger called for the restructuring of Russian forces to address the issue of low morale and called on Russian officials to promote motivated recruits to military leadership positions.[91]

Milbloggers are suggesting that untrained recruits be given leadership positions if they show signs of being motivated to fight.  Oh boy, that says a lot about how bad things are that they are making suggestions like that.

To summarize... Russia's endless manpower pool is a myth, just like it's endless tank and artillery pools are myths.  Russia might still have lots of all of this stuff left to throw in the fight, but we've seen it scraping the barrel well before now and we're entering a whole new year with yet more scraping sounds.

Steve

[FlemFire]

No offense, but you gotta think for yourself a bit here. I wouldn't trust much of anything coming from the intel agencies of the parties involved. Their entire purpose, literally, is to serve up disinformation and anything hitting the public waves has a purpose. "The CIA says--" wait a second, why am I reading this in a newspaper? See what I'm getting at...?

 

I think we'll get a much clearer picture of where Russia's at on these issues in a few weeks to months from now. No reason to lean on spooks whose entire job is to tell you what they want you to think. Not sure if you're American or remember 2001-2003, but personally I've had quite enough of this "public facing" intelligence for one lifetime already.

 

[Kinophile]

@Khalerick you've mentioned this war as ending in a diplomatic /economic  negotiation...

I'm sorry,  what? 

There is a ethical aspect to this war that makes it unique over many others, and which completely guts any possible diplomatic/economic end, for a very simply reason -  Ukraine is under attack for simply existing. 

This isnt 2014. The invasion now is not a territory grab for resources or power or some other BS, it's an existential fight to shatter Ukraine as a cultural entity.

That isn't my read,  btw,  that's Putin's publically stated goals.  He's had almost a year to walk back from this maximalist positions but he hasnt,  he's just hardened them. The rhetoric has gotten more extreme,  the demands more intransigent and his "negotiating" position is now "Accept What I've Done And Taken From You,  then we can talk about I'Il allow you to keep from here on. Maybe" . 

There isn't a diplomatic/economic solution to a situation like that. This is a man ruthlessly bent on subjugation, who views negotiation as a weapon not a peace process,  who has decreed the wholesale deportation of Ukrainian children into Russia proper. How does Ukraine "negotiate"  with a man like that,  in any sort of good faith from him? You cannot negotiate with an extremist ideologue, they just view anything other than NO as an opportune weakness. 

Where is the wiggle room in that situation? What are the acceptable degrees of cultural destruction, ethnic cleansing and child murdering that any Ukrainian would be able to "discuss" with Putin and somehow not have his family, friends and colleagues back home string him from a lamp post? 

This is why Zelensky has stated that any peace will require a referendum,  as any peace will affect Ukraine as a whole being,  as a state and a society. 

And based on everything so far, I dont see any possible prospect of Ukraine agreeing to let Putin keep what he has torn away, no matter what. 

[Kraft]

To add to the dead assault squad in UA MM-14 camo that was discovered yesterday, Wagner PMC now posing in UA combat fatigues. Note the yellow tape as well.

I hope he gets captured so we can see the lawful ending to this.

[FlemFire]

3 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

@Khalerick you've mentioned this war as ending in a diplomatic /economic  negotiation...

I'm sorry,  what? 

 

I tire of this pearl clutching indignation, to be honest. My viewpoint is not niche at all.

 

"The probability of a Ukrainian military victory — defined as kicking the Russians out of all of Ukraine to include what they claim as Crimea — the probability of that happening anytime soon is not high, militarily." - Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Army Gen. Mark Milley.

 

You needn't knock me over the head with the moral shovels, either. I'm aware of the rest. Can we engage on a more common ground for once? Our differences are not even that far apart.

[kraze]

17 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Speaking of Russia's manpower problems... from yesterday's ISW report:

Two things here.  First is that Russia seems to understand, finally, that it's prewar force size is completely inadequate for fighting in Ukraine AND doing everything else it was doing before the war.  Not only is ISW understandably pessimistic that Russia has the ability to pull off such an enlargement in terms equipping and administering, but it is also quite sour on the notion that Russia can physically gather that many men at all.  Given the obvious problems with the first partial mobilization, those doubts are well founded.

Then they move onto more evidence of how difficult it will be for Russia to raise any significant amount of manpower without major difficulties:

We've seen this sort of thing reported elsewhere using Russian sources as the basis.  Russia is using its "captive audience" of people who are readily known and easily identified as the potential source for the next mobilization.  This is state cannibalism at work.

More evidence of this in the next 2 paragraphs:

If Russia has hundreds of thousands of reservists ready to go, it sure seems like they're having to look pretty hard to find them.

Then there's this tidbit from the UK MoD that indicates Russia has a serious national manpower problem even before this next wave of mobilization starts:

It seems that prisoners are going to be used for military related labor for production just as they have for fighting.  If Russia has such huge, great, and amazing manpower reserves... kinda odd that in less than one year of war they are so tapped out that they have to use convicts to fight and work in factories.

Lastly, no discussion about Russia manpower is complete without mentioning its poor quality.

Milbloggers are suggesting that untrained recruits be given leadership positions if they show signs of being motivated to fight.  Oh boy, that says a lot about how bad things are that they are making suggestions like that.

To summarize... Russia's endless manpower pool is a myth, just like it's endless tank and artillery pools are myths.  Russia might still have lots of all of this stuff left to throw in the fight, but we've seen it scraping the barrel well before now and we're entering a whole new year with yet more scraping sounds.

Steve

Worth noting that all the stockpiles were made by USSR to occupy the planet (or at least a huge chunk of it) by smashing whole combined NATO army - not to have all of it wasted completely on a formerly occupied country without much effect.

[Kraft]

23 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

No offense, but you gotta think for yourself a bit here. I wouldn't trust much of anything coming from the intel agencies of the parties involved. 

Sending scientists, 60something exVets, shipmates and anyone in the donbas who can hold a rifle into combat just screams manpower reserves.

Maybe do a little thinking as well instead of just dismissing possible sources.

How come Russias massive army has increased by more than 300000 troops yet they lost about 50% of their captured area in the meantime - surely its all the AFVs and tanks they have more in storage than Ukraine. While we are at it lets ignore Oryx open source tracking as well

How about you do an event study on the 200th Brigade to get a grasp on Russian casulties before just claiming everything is wrong and backing it up with.. CIA bad?

Edited January 14, 2023 by Kraft

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

However, we actually do NOT know the full extent of Russia's stockpile.

We don't need to.  And, in fact, this is exactly the mistake the "experts" made prewar.  Instead what should be looked at is what's been documented as lost, what's coming into the battlefield to replace it, and what's going on at the front.

3 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

Just focusing on the peace stuff, I said there were efforts and there have been. We actually don't know to what extent he'll negotiate because neither side has sat down and hammered out details in awhile.

It's been tried.  Recently, in fact (early December) and might be going on right now.  But what does this matter?  Russia would have to negotiate leaving Ukrainian territory AT A MINIMUM in order for Ukraine to agree to anything at all.  Do you think Russia is going to do that?  I sure do not.

3 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

And I've said my observations here are not niche already. People are choosing to engage with them so I don't see the issue. Nothing wrong with back and forth. I've no umbrage with anyone here and if anything I said made it seem otherwise I apologize. It's quite late on my end so something may have slipped through.

Communications are imperfect, but you do seem to have an attitude that is... well, not all that respectful to what's been discussed here and how it is discussed.

3 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

I just don't understand how one can make these assertions. I've seen casualty numbers all over the place. If you want to make estimates, fine, but what #'s are there to even crunch?

Oh, there's been plenty of numbers for what forces have been moved into Ukraine since the war started.  Some released by the Russians, some guessed at by Ukrainians, some back of the envelope.

Losses, on the other hand, are indeed all over the place.  But even the lowest estimates are massive relative to the starting force size.  I haven't even kept track of the latest, but months ago even the more conservative numbers were 100,000+ more than a month ago.  Since you quoted Milley a few times, here's what he said at the beginning of November:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/11/10/us-general-over-100000-russian-military-casualties-in-ukraine

Some estimates put the initial Russian forces at 190,000.  This means Russia has lost 50% of its starting force in about 10 months.

3 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

There are wars long concluded which people still debate this crap. The idea you could do it live is a bit silly.

And you are doing what when you disagree with the numbers you are seeing?

3 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

Here's my own rabbit hole. The West has keen interest in Ukraine winning this war. If what you say is true about the casualties, then we can assume the West's generals know this as well. So why are they not acting on this information? Why are they not depositing as much war material as physically possible right this second to press the advantage?

Ukraine just finished two major offensive campaigns at the end of 2022 that were both extremely successful.  You don't think they pressed their advantage?  I sure do.  What followed was very bad weather and the inevitable post offensive pause that all forces have to eventually succumb to.  So we are only NOW starting to see things heat back up again and it is too soon to say what is happening.  All we know for sure is that Russia has been hammering central Donbas hard and not making much progress and leaving a lot of dead behind, while at the same time causing Ukraine a lot of casualties in the process.  Too early to tell what this all means.

3 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

 And while I may be taking the word of one man, that man is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He's not speaking off the cuff. He's speaking at the spearhead of what is undoubtedly the world's biggest mountain of intelligence and analysis.

For sure, but they've been wrong at various points in this war about their assessments.  Especially Ukraine's chance of surviving the initial invasion.  The US military has, unfortunately, been caught off guard by how bad the Russians and how good the Ukrainians are at fighting.

3 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

His conclusion does not track with this assertion that Russia's forces are virtually obliterated.

Who is making such an assertion?  I've not seen it anywhere here.  I think Russia is going to go the distance for 2023, unfortunately, but in an unsustainable defensive posture.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

7 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

"The probability of a Ukrainian military victory — defined as kicking the Russians out of all of Ukraine to include what they claim as Crimea — the probability of that happening anytime soon is not high, militarily." - Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Army Gen. Mark Milley.

Yup, and I think pretty much everybody here agrees with this.  Even those here who think Ukraine can take on Crimea do not see it as being possible "soon", depending on how "soon" is defined.

7 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

You needn't knock me over the head with the moral shovels, either. I'm aware of the rest. Can we engage on a more common ground for once? Our differences are not even that far apart.

True, especially as most of the differences you perceive aren't real.

Steve

[kevinkin]

5 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

Anyone who plainly asserts that the Russian military is vanishing or isn't "relevant" is making an assumption. We don't actually know.

Well we do know they effectively have no modern air force nor navy that can conduct conventional sustained operations. Just a kit for nuclear blackmail.

8 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

Why are they not depositing as much war material as physically possible right this second to press the advantage? Again, I find this wishywashy reluctance by the West to be indicative of a lack of faith in the project as a whole.

Like I said above, we are debating the pace of support given to Ukraine hour by hour almost. Several factors are in play: training is one. It takes time and resources. Another is that we don't want to appear to be at war with Russia - as silly as that seems today. Support has to be managed at the proper pace technically and with the overall picture in mind. NATO and Ukraine need to be attached at the hip regarding how these new weapons are used. Dumping "war material as physically possible" would not solve anything and actually become wasteful and non-productive. No sense having armadas of AFVs sitting around waiting for trained troops. And just because NATO is not manning these does not indicate a lack of commitment. We haven't protected Ukraine with a no fly zone either. It may come down to this simple selection: Russian troops, die in place, die moving forward, or just go home. 

[Battlefront.com]

19 minutes ago, kraze said:

Worth noting that all the stockpiles were made by USSR to occupy the planet (or at least a huge chunk of it) by smashing whole combined NATO army - not to have all of it wasted completely on a formerly occupied country without much effect.

It has been noticed, including by many Russians.  The Russian nationalists with blogs certainly have pointed this out often, though they of course think it's because of simple things like bad generals because they can't admit that Russia Sucks at War™

15 minutes ago, Kraft said:

Sending scientists, 60something exVets, shipmates and anyone in the donbas who can hold a rifle into combat just screams manpower reserves.

Maybe do a little thinking as well instead of just dismissing possible sources.

How come Russias massive army has increased by more than 300000 troops yet they lost about 50% of their captured area in the meantime? Surely its all the AFVs and tanks they have more in storage than Ukraine lets ignore Oryx open source tracking as well, he may be CIA asset or what?

How about you do an event study on the 200th Brigade to get a grasp on Russian casulties before just claiming everything is wrong and backing it up with..?

Yes, all of this.  We have plenty of verifiable, quantifiable information to indicate that Russia is struggling very hard to keep this war going.  The evidence is overwhelming that this is the case.

But I think what Khalerick is struggling with is using the available information to make educated assessments of what might be going on instead of relying on someone telling us in succinct form.  I've been doing it here since the start of the war, every day since.  I'm used to noticing that  unmodified T-62s that have obviously been sitting outside for a few decades were sent into Ukraine instead of T-14 Armatas.  Mobiks uploading videos with rusted AKMs that won't even shoot, DLPR soldiers being isused Mosin Nagants, and the use of steel helmets are too many to be ignored.  There's got to be a reason for this, and looking at prewar estimates won't help figure that out.  The simple fact is either Russia is having problems equipping its forces or it doesn't want to give them what they want to win.  Either way, not a good sign for Russia.

Steve

[Kinophile]

12 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

I tire of this pearl clutching indignation, to be honest. My viewpoint is not niche at all.

 

"The probability of a Ukrainian military victory — defined as kicking the Russians out of all of Ukraine to include what they claim as Crimea — the probability of that happening anytime soon is not high, militarily." - Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Army Gen. Mark Milley.

 

You needn't knock me over the head with the moral shovels, either. I'm aware of the rest. Can we engage on a more common ground for once? Our differences are not even that far apart.

Ah in fairness I can go on about the moral aspect, I'm aware.

But the political point stands - Ukraine has no option but to match Putins maximalist positions. He has driven the narrative and Zelensky et al are clear in their understanding of the Russian mindset - any agreement with extreme demands implies weakness of the target, and this opportunity to demand more. This is a pattern that Russia has exhibited time and again and which Ukraine is very clear-eyed on.

Ukraine has no negotiations to offer because Putin has closed off anything reasonable. All that is left is unreasonable and thats not negotiating, thats extortion. The only means Ukraine has left to make Putin reasonable are military actions, and until that is achieved talking is worthless and possibly detrimental. 

I'm not concerned about Milleys estimates, frankly. For CJOC he can be pretty...unaware sometimes. I go by the UKR Gen Staff, Zelensky and the general public vibe over there and they are quite realistic in what they have, need and intend to do. And they sure aren't going to give in, Western aid or not

[paxromana]

26 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

I tire of this pearl clutching indignation, to be honest. My viewpoint is not niche at all.

 

"The probability of a Ukrainian military victory — defined as kicking the Russians out of all of Ukraine to include what they claim as Crimea — the probability of that happening anytime soon is not high, militarily." - Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Army Gen. Mark Milley.

 

You needn't knock me over the head with the moral shovels, either. I'm aware of the rest. Can we engage on a more common ground for once? Our differences are not even that far apart.

Sadly, I am not sure that there is any common ground.

Your posts are full of baseless assertions and you seem entirely uninterested in objective reality, as the Soviets used to say ...

[Battlefront.com]

13 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Ukraine has no negotiations to offer because Putin has closed off anything reasonable. All that is left is unreasonable and thats not negotiating, thats extortion.

Yup.  Here's an example from early December:

"Russia on Tuesday dismissed a peace proposal from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that would involve a pullout of Russian troops, saying Kyiv needed to accept new territorial "realities"."

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/kremlin-says-ukraine-must-accept-realities-there-be-peace-2022-12-13/

So Russia is refusing to remove it's troops from illegally occupied sovereign territory because it decided it was a part of Russia and Ukraine just has to accept that.  It would be funny if it wasn't so deadly.

Let's not forget that Ukraine did offer up major concessions at the start of the war when Russia already knew it's plan had failed but Ukraine didn't know yet how badly.  Putin insisted on a wild array of things, Ukraine rejected them as they should have, and Russia lost ground and leverage.  Putin is, after all, the master strategist!

That all being said, there is a lot of motion for some sort of talk for the end of February.  KevinKin mentioned that a bunch of pages ago.  Whether the talks will happen or not, whether it will see a different Russian approach, obviously is yet to be determined.

Steve

[FlemFire]

23 minutes ago, Kraft said:

Sending scientists, 60something exVets, shipmates and anyone in the donbas who can hold a rifle into combat just screams manpower reserves.

Maybe do a little thinking as well instead of just dismissing possible sources.

How come Russias massive army has increased by more than 300000 troops yet they lost about 50% of their captured area in the meantime? Surely its all the AFVs and tanks they have more in storage than Ukraine lets ignore Oryx as well, he may be CIA asset or what?

How about you do an event study on the 200th Brigade to get a grasp.

To me it screams Russia fighting the war on the cheap, presuming it will be short, and all the while trying to protect its core urban centers from the effects thereafter. I thought I already made that abundantly clear. Is it not already a known fact that Russia does this? We can't make inferences into Russia's manpower reserves based upon whatever yokels they throw into the blender. If you saw this out of some other countries, sure, but we've already seen this tactic in Chechnya and Afghanistan alike. All we can really pull out of the opening stages of the war is that they did commit some high value assets and those were lost and are definitely not easy to replace.

I don't think any intel agency should be assumed to be a good source. You can glean from it whatever you want, but I'm just stating the reality that if they're releasing info to the public it is not to be blindly trusted as read. Ever.

Oryx I actually like and do more or less trust, FWIW. I'm not actually shocked at all by the losses Russia has taken. The question at hand is what they have in replacement.

As for losses, I agree that they're quite likely in the 100,000 area. 100,000 casualties is different than 100,000 dead though. Very, very different.

 

18 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Yup, and I think pretty much everybody here agrees with this.  Even those here who think Ukraine can take on Crimea do not see it as being possible "soon", depending on how "soon" is defined.

True, especially as most of the differences you perceive aren't real.

Steve

A bit rude. I'd consider there to be a pretty real difference between "Ukraine defends until the West finds a diplomatic solution at the behest of economically cornering Russia" vs. "full out warfare to reclaim lost territories in the hopes Russia does not or cannot escalate."

I think at this point, like I said, it's all a bit moot. We'll see pretty soon what Russia has left in the tank. (Love using that phrase in this context.)

 

2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Putin is, after all, the master strategist!

I think stuff like this is also rude. In my mind, he's a dangerous opponent to take seriously, but at the same time he is an idiot in many ways that speak for themselves, and he was clearly hoodwinked into thinking this would be a walk in the park. I don't need people implying I'm saying otherwise. Feel free to say this was a "general" statement and not at all directed to the only person with which anyone in this thread has had contention for the past few hours.

 

 

6 minutes ago, Kinophile said:

Ah in fairness I can go on about the moral aspect, I'm aware.

Just to focus on this for a bit, I want to make something clear. What Ukraine is doing is in actuality saving a truckload of lives in the future. Not just in Europe, but possibly other places just as well. By making the aggression costly to Russia, it keeps them in check and defangs them of any incentive to try this excursion again. It also puts out a flare to the planet as a whole that if you do this to your neighbors, you're liable to see a hammer fall on you. It also puts out a flare to possible victims that you need not fold, because if you stand your ground help may yet come. I know we disagree on means and ends, but I think this aspect of the conflict is very real and very true. This is a wargame forum and almost every single one of the games developed comes out of a conflict born from its primary actors never being curbed.

[Shady_Side]

11 hours ago, Khalerick said:

How does Ukraine ever win this war militarily absent of NATO putting boots on the ground and tempting WWIII?

 

I have the same question. I think maybe first thing to do would be define winning. Hold a stalemate till Russia agrees to go back to where they started February 23rd. That might almost sound like losing now and certainly for all the blood sweat and tears it has costed the Ukrainians it is an unsatisfying outcome. But if you had ask them on Feb 25th last year if it was an acceptable outcome they would have been very happy to have it.

If you call winning pushing the Russians into the black sea and back to their original borders. That still seems a little out of reach to me. Though that is not an opinion shard by many people on this forum. I think that Russia has more cannon fodder that they are willing to use, and that cannon fodder is still willing to be used. So the only way you get that outcome is to hold a back and forth type of stalemate until something fundamental in Russian society changes. For a lot of reasons that either takes decades maybe centuries or does not happen at all. See North Korea. Or it is something that could happen next week. That is one of those things that tends to happen slowly and then all at once.

Personally I would like to see them march to Moscow. Give Putin and his enablers the quick and fair trial that he deserves followed by the quick hanging or toss from a very high window. He deserves that to. Leave a bill they are owed for the rebuilding of their destroyed cities and scholarships for the children of Ukrainian mothers and fathers killed in this war.......... but I dont think i am getting what I want on this one

 

 

[kraze]

22 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

To me it screams Russia fighting the war on the cheap

I'm not sure losing half of the whole tank force (when comparing to numbers on paper, probably much more than that in reality) and completely wasting 80% of its tactical missile reserves is "cheap".

Russia is forced to buy back its own old artillery shells from DPRK - not sure if they give a high discount to make it cheap.

And also that minor, little thing of having total (aka "partial") mobilization going on for the past half of a year where they grab people off the streets sometimes literally (as evidenced by videos).

[Kraft]

40 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

To me it screams Russia fighting the war on the cheap, presuming it will be short, and all the while trying to protect its core urban centers from the effects thereafter. I thought I already made that abundantly clear. Is it not already a known fact that Russia does this? We can't make inferences into Russia's manpower reserves based upon whatever yokels they throw into the blender. If you saw this out of some other countries, sure, but we've already seen this tactic in Chechnya and Afghanistan alike. All we can really pull out of the opening stages of the war is that they did commit some high value assets and those were lost and are definitely not easy to replace.

If we remove the first 2 weeks, Russia has been net losing ground since, while smashing up its most elite units, expend roughly half of its missile stockpiles, lose a hefty portion of its flyable and almost not replaceable airpower, lose a handful of ships as well reducing the black sea fleet to harbor AA, throw in specialists as meatshields to fill holes - surely its not efficient to lose a trained sailor or weapons expert in a trench. Why not use a conscript if you have one to spare? Lose more tanks than most Nato countries ever had, and being forced to do the politically unpopular thing of rounding up 300000 people to go die in Ukraine because the initial 190k+40k+Wagner didnt cut it to even achieve Luhansk and Donbas, all of this to somehow lose the ground gained during the initial surprise.

Now they start warming up the public for a 2nd wave of tampon & SSh68 carrying sturmobiks that will soon make me question again if im watching all quiet on the western front but from a drone.

All the while western sanctions continue to bite and political barriers for greater lend lease weapon systems are removed.

And all of this spells doom for Ukraine somehow, I cannot follow.

I am one of the more pessimistic people here when it comes to  developments but claiming Russia is just tossing its trash as if it had infinite resources is wrong, which should be obvious as Putin clearly is afraid of mobilizing urban masses under 50, who should make up prime candidates to run over a field and die, not old men with a gut and some teeth missing.

 

Edited January 14, 2023 by Kraft

[kraze]

8 minutes ago, Kraft said:

I am one of the more pessimistic people here when it comes to front development but claiming Russia is just burning through its trash as if it had infinite resources to toss into graves is wrong, which should be obvious as Putin clearly is afraid of mobilizing urban masses under 50, who should make up prime candidates to run around and die, not old men with a gut and some teeth missing.

 

russians do mobilize young men just as much, don't forget about autumn conscription, which this time was basically mobilization under another name. They get about 200k (on paper, as is usual in Russia) future young war criminals semi-annually anyway - in orderly fashion.

Edited January 14, 2023 by kraze

[JonS]

On 1/12/2023 at 10:42 AM, Kinophile said:

if their taxis go pop then then men inside often are not dead and come ou super pissed and Javs in hand. Many, many times I've snotted a Bradley in CMBS and had its damn uber riders pile out, occupy the nearest structure and snot me back.

I love CM as much as the next person here, but you DO realise there are ... issues with CM's morale model, right? And that this is one of them?

[Aragorn2002]

1 hour ago, kraze said:

Worth noting that all the stockpiles were made by USSR to occupy the planet (or at least a huge chunk of it) by smashing whole combined NATO army

And since that threat no longer exists, NATO can send much more heavy material to Ukraine. 

[JonS]

2 hours ago, Khalerick said:

we can assume the West's generals know this as well. So why are they not acting on this information? Why are they not depositing as much war material as physically possible right this second to press the advantage?

presumably because in western democracies our generals don't get to make those decisions?

Edited January 14, 2023 by JonS