How Hot is Ukraine Gonna Get?

[Eddy]

I wonder whether the IMF will revise their forecast given this evidence from the Russian Finance Ministry today:

• Oil and gas revenue down year on year by 46%
• Govt expenditure up year on year by 59%

A 46% drop in revenue is significant I reckon.

Russia budget deficit soars as energy revenues slump by almost half | Financial Times (ft.com) 

 

[danfrodo]

3 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

I can simplify it for you, though.

You do realize how that sounds?  Probably gets some hackles up and so makes readers less receptive to your message.  The folks who post here are pretty smart overall but you seem to imply that folks just aren't smart enough to understand your message.  They understand, they are just disagreeing with your positions on several matters and have made some very strong arguments.

[FlemFire]

3 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Ok, well you have already been pretty badly beat up on just about all your comments and positions with respect to military assessment.  This is not a bar, posting some credible references or something, anything that supports your position may be an idea as we move forward.  But it is a free country and that comes with all the good and bad in the end.

So lets talk about "Russian Advantage", because that is what this all comes down to in the end.  In line with the Russian Economic Advantage, what is the Russian Military Advantage and how does that translate into future outcomes etc?  Well the obvious one, from those who deeply study warfare, is capacity.  Russia, as has been shown on infographics since day one of this war, has got mountains of steel and an ocean of fighting aged males to throw at a poor huddling Ukraine as it just barely manages to hang on.  There is some truth to this although I personally think it has been over emphasized to a large extent as Russian willpower to actually spend all that steel and blood is clearly not a "done deal" with respect to this war.  If it was, Putin would have fully mobilized at the terrifying scope and scale the Russian Bear is capable of as demonstrated by so many Hollywood movies and myth.  Ok, lets not quibble, the RA is a big ol beast, with a large industry behind it...got it.

So does size still matter?  Does it matter in this environment?  Does it become a liability in this environment?  And finally, why has Russia largely failed on the battlefields of Ukraine if size and attrition were the critical factors in this war?  Why has Russia largely failed on the battlefields of Ukraine when they also had advantage in manoeuvre?

What I do not get from the "Russia is going to win" crowd, is what is their explanation of the exceptionally poor battlefield performance of the RA, which has led Russia into what is now a morass and quagmire (if this was a US war, people would be all over those words)?

And Russian performance - outstanding gunners and all - has been abysmal.  Pulling from the RUIS preliminary report:

https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/special-resources/preliminary-lessons-conventional-warfighting-russias-invasion-ukraine-february-july-2022

Russia had enormous mass advantage in Phase I of this war.  12:1 of mechanized forces north of Ukraine (pg 1).  By all traditional military metrics that is an overwhelming force ration advantage.  They were stopped cold.  Worse, after a month of mooing like cows in column while getting pounded they had to withdraw from 2 out of the 6 major operational axis of advance, many of those units reportedly at 20-30% strength after a month of being cut up and hammered by UA "tiny" artillery.  So that was the first really bad sign, again if the US had suffered a similar setback in 2003 south of Bagdad people would have lost their minds - or gleefully celebrated the downfall of US power in the region, whichever their leaning.  Ukrainian War Phase I - this is done, it is fact.

Then Russia did a political spin in quick order and re-drew the definitions of victory.  "The Northern Offensive as a feint" which is brutally laughable at those force ratios pointed at a capital city and seat of political power in nation you are invading.  They then re-set the official line as "The Donbas" and began a crushing and grinding assault on the region during Phase II of this war.  Recall the cauldrons and pincers with bold red arrows all over maps last Apr-May?  "Attrition against Russia will never work!" people cried..."Ukraine cannot win"..."Russia has reframed this war to their strengths."  Well turns out they were wrong then too.  Russia, at one point at Severodonetsk, has mounted over 900 guns in a density to rival the western front in WWI.  They turned entire fields in the Ukraine into moonscapes as they completely abandoned mechanized warfare and did a "blast-advance-repeat" older style of overwhelming firepower.  But what actually happened?

Well they did not achieve an operational level breakthrough - against a vastly outnumbered and gunned UA.  We did not see a single mechanized, or otherwise, break through - let alone break out - in that campaign.  We did see some horrific Russian river crossing attempts and casualty rates, but remember "Russian Bear!!"  The UA stood back and took it.  I recall the rumblings on social media of UA troops, under trained and equipped for this fight...it was only a matter of time.  But it went nowhere.  Russia managed to take Severodonetsk, and Lysychansk and advance a couple dozen kms towards Slovyanks - which I am sure as a "studier of warfare" you recognize as the obvious operational objective in the region. 

And then the RA stalled and ran out of gas.  No other way to put it.  At a strategic level Russia "mobilized" which is never a good sign for how things are going on the ground (see: conscription and Vietnam).  Russian attacks and firepower all waned.  Phase II was a poor outing that had high costs and yielded very few gains.  And then Phase III happened.  

The UA, who was supposed to be on the ropes and barely hanging on, went on the offensive.   We all knew Kherson was an operational objective but conditions were clearly set for Kharkiv as well.  My hypothesis is that the RA burned itself out so badly at Severodonetsk that the entire Kharkiv line eroded out.  So then we saw this:

https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/09/15/a-stunning-counter-offensive-by-ukraines-armed-forces

That is what a breakin, breakthrough and breakout battle looks like.  It does not look like what we are used to, but the UA managed to make the entire right flank of the RA collapse in about 30 days.  And then they were not done yet:

https://www.graphicnews.com/en/pages/43152/ukraine-kherson-counteroffensive

Now this was not Dunkirk that we wanted, but retaking the capital of a region that Russia just did a big show of annexing is nothing but a win in my books.

And so here we are, Winter 2023 and the "Ukraine can't win" crowd - who do have legitimate concerns, I will not take that away - are back.  So I am not going to dig into the current state of the RA or an assessment of their actual fighting capacity at this point based on what we are seeing - human wave attacks with weaker artillery is again not a good sign.  All the while the UA is getting larger and larger injects of greater capability.  Or how fundamental conditions like ISR, air power or sustainment have not actually changed.

What I am going to do is make the "Ukraine can't win crowd" do the actual work to prove their point.  Based on all of that above, and the progress of this war to date, you have two ways to go.   The UA and Ukraine are barely holding on and are going to break any second - lets call this the Macgregor school.  Or the "Russia is just getting started and has magic rabbits by the fuzzy buttload in hats".  Based on the progress of the war so far you are going to have to provide evidence and facts that support the idea that conditions have fundamentally changed.  That those changes will alter the current trajectory of this war.  This is something I have not seen one credible coherent argument put forward in this whole thing.

In fact, I will give you opportunity to take a shot, and then if I have time I might just try to do it for you, if I can. 

I mean the explanation is quite simple: they tried to “Georgia” Ukraine and overthrow the government. They did not come into Ukraine with the goal of conquering it. At some point you have to accept this perspective for the rest of the arguments to make sense. Obviously, if you perceive the invasion to be one of conquest then it looks extra bad with a side of r-worded sprinkled on top. What I saw were Russians parked outside of Kiev, confused that the Ukrainians were, in fact, firing back on them. When the order came in to retreat, it was a rout. Total mess. Even in Georgia, Russians showed some cohesion issues so going backwards in Ukraine, and at that number, proved quite a comedy.

I do not hold Russian military command in any high regard, but I think even the Russians would know that 40,000 men is not enough to conquer a capital city like Kiev. It’s not a “feint”, necessarily, but a scare tactic that fell right on its face. The fact this was Russia’s “plan” to begin with is in and of itself an indictment of their military thinking. The fact they didn’t even have a backup plan, or an exit ramp of any kind, definitely gasts my flabber. Rather strangely, and I guess this is where you very likely struggle to give credit where it’s due, Putin was smart to listen to his generals and actually pullback. Multiple areas faced encirclement and massive loss. Unlike Stalin in ’41, who ignored Zhukov about (coincidentally) Kiev and in fact demoted the general, Putin submitted to reality and gave up the territories to preserve his army.

Russia humiliated itself in its retreats. That much is obvious. But that was then, and this is now. The war Russia was looking to “fight” in 2022 is not the far it is going to fight in 2023. Holding onto victories of yore does little. You actually kind of make the argument in your preamble there. Russia simply has vastly more industrial capacity and manpower than Ukraine. That’s really all there is to it. I think if Ukraine weren't fighting a democratic nation, then it could bleed their way to victory, but they're not. They're fighting Russia. And if Ukraine wants to engage in a long war, then Russia will oblige and Ukraine will pay for it dearly. This is why I think Ukraine should have sued for peace after the counter-offenses. All that initiative has been lost and now the Russians are creeping forward again and we don’t know exactly what their plans are now. I mean this is the part where also significant disagreements arise: I'm looking at 2023 trying to figure out what new things Russia's going to do. They're clearly planning something, and they're clearly not going away. Others are looking at 2023 like it's just going to be 2022 all over again, as if the Russians are just too dumb to learn and adapt. As I mentioned elsewhere as well, Russia now has had 1-full year to adjust its industries on a war footing. I don't think people really understand what that means while they debate and pull their hair out about a battalion or few of Leopards and Abrams.

[Kraft]

11 minutes ago, Butschi said:

by saying that it also doesn't mean that he doesn't

But I replied to that, a deviation from the status quo requires a reason as to why it may be the case. Me telling you apples tomorrow will levitate, it is up to me to prove why it shouldnt follow current situation.

Unless you assume Putin rolls a dice every morning. There are some lines in his head. Those, in my believe, strongly align with his ability to keep on living and ruling, not arbitrary lines on a map. 

This evaluation in my opinion strongly goes the way that the little tactical gain is vastly offset by the strategic punishment of the escalation and possible involvement of conventional annihilation, that will lose him this war very quick and is more likely to see him end like the last Tsar, than if he just declares the war over, blames his generals, etc.

[JonS]

6 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

Russia simply has vastly more industrial capacity and manpower than Ukraine

The Russian economy is about the same size as Italy, or Canada. That's an OR, not an AND. Does Russian have vastly more resources than Ukraine AND Britain AND France AND Germany AND Finland AND Norway AND Poland AND The United States AND Canada AND Italy AND Australia AND &c.?

[FlemFire]

1 minute ago, danfrodo said:

You do realize how that sounds?  Probably gets some hackles up and so makes readers less receptive to your message.  The folks who post here are pretty smart overall but you seem to imply that folks just aren't smart enough to understand your message.  They understand, they are just disagreeing with your positions on several matters and have made some very strong arguments.

TheCpt's posts were dripping with such language and I answered them anyway. If one salty sentence gets them running, all the better as far as I'm concerned. It's not like my arguments are being taken at face value or given any benefit of the doubt. There has already been a number of occasions where I point something out only for a response to be, "Well I guess Putin is just a super genius then", as if that is a fair treatment.

[FlemFire]

Just now, JonS said:

The Russian economy is about the same size as Italy, or Canada. That's an OR, not an AND. Does Russian have vastly more resources than Ukraine AND Britain AND France AND Germany AND Finland AND Norway AND Poland AND The United States AND Canada AND Italy AND Australia AND &c.?

Actually, the Russian economy is in a sense much stronger than Italy/Canada, but also much weaker. That is the fundamental high-risk/high-reward cost of being a natural resources exporter and little else. It's economic blackjack. As for industrial capacity, Russia is on a war footing. The West is not. It's not a video game. You don't just tally up base #'s and go off of that. If NATO were actually fighting Russia then it'd be a different story. Not just economically, but militarily. But they're not. They're arguing about how many tanks to send to Ukraine instead of just up and doing it.

[JonS]

For better or worse he's earned it. I dont always agree with him, but he has earnt respect.

At this point you're just being a condescending dick.

Edited February 6, 2023 by JonS

[FlemFire]

Just now, JonS said:

For better or worse he's earned it. I dont always agree with you, but he has learnt respect.

At this point you're just being a condescending dick.

 

First off, nobody earns the right to be mean. That's a silly statement.

Secondly, I've been rather cordial this entire time and barely taken umbrage with some of the absurd responses I've seen. If you think I'm being condescending, I in no way intend to be.

[Eddy]

58 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

On a lot of this: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-update-february-5-2023

Very interesting analysis/assessment and speaks to a dictator that is either very risk adverse after making a big gamble and losing, or is much more politically hemmed in than many think.

Good link thanks.

However, the article argues, and I think this is important, that Putin did not know he was making a big gamble and in fact he 'saw Russia’s invasion as a limited and acceptable risk' (from the article).  My understanding of the point the article is making is that Putin at all times has been risk-averse if the risk is large, as he perceives that risk. Given this the article ends with 'Putin’s reluctance to take risks directly related to his conventional war in Ukraine indicates that he remains highly unlikely to pursue nuclear escalation or war with NATO.' (their bold)

To paraphrase the article, in Putin's mind he has taken no big risks either invading or mobilising or whatever and that he will continue to not take any big risks in the future, because he is not a risk taker.

Obviously, I think I'm right in saying a lot of the people here thought invading Ukraine was a massive, ginormous risk.

[Kraft]

11 minutes ago, Eddy said:

Obviously, I think I'm right in saying a lot of the people here thought invading Ukraine was a massive, ginormous risk.

I think the argumentation is, that he was unaware of the risk.

He overvalued the power of his military, undervalued Ukraine's and undervalued Western economic and military resolve.

Compared to his first massive land grab crimea, and the Donbas slaughtering, neither of these factors had any value, the west did nothing, Ukraine could not resist much (too be debated Im sure), his army bravely captured all objectives and reports surely showed the cunning skill of each commander.

I think there are some indications for this, among others the battleplans, the trucks carrying parade gear and military band equiptment, the pre-written and untimely released article about the fall of Kyiv, no supply reserves etc.

His military planning wasnt geared for a war with solid frontlines, with a lot of VDV boys getting to pay the bill for that blunder.

I may be pessimistic but I so not think the West would have done even 1% of what is going to Ukraine now if the government had fallen and this would be an insurgency now

Edited February 6, 2023 by Kraft

[danfrodo]

18 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

TheCpt's posts were dripping with such language and I answered them anyway. If one salty sentence gets them running, all the better as far as I'm concerned. It's not like my arguments are being taken at face value or given any benefit of the doubt. There has already been a number of occasions where I point something out only for a response to be, "Well I guess Putin is just a super genius then", as if that is a fair treatment.

TheCapt can be ..... direct.  I've been on the other end of his directness once or twice.  His worst and most despicable trait is his annoying and endlessly troublesome habit of being right, often, especially over longer time periods.  It's awful .  But the dude really really knows his stuff and I've learned a ton from his posts.

[danfrodo]

7 minutes ago, Kraft said:

I think the argumentation is, that he was unaware of the risk. He overvalued the power of his military, undervalued Ukraine's and undervalued Western economic and military resolve.

I think there are some indications for this, among others the battleplans, the trucks carrying parade gear and military band equiptment, the pre-written and untimely released article about the fall of Kyiv, no supply reserves etc.

His military planning wasnt geared for a war with solid frontlines, with a lot of VDV boys getting to pay the bill for that blunder.

Indeed.  He sewed a coup and reaped a war -- "the seed packet said 'coup seeds, plant and add some muscle, fruits of victory assured in 3 days'".  Everything since the first week has been Putin trying to pull some kind of increasingly limited victory from this utter disaster.

Edited February 6, 2023 by danfrodo
addition

[JonS]

20 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

Russia is on a war footing. The West is not.

True enough - at least for the West. And guess what: even with all our bickering and with one and a half arms tied behind our backs, it's still more than enough.

[JonS]

18 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

I've been rather cordial this entire time

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/873/260/a5b.png

[BlackMoria]

3 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

Actually, the Russian economy is in a sense much stronger than Italy/Canada, but also much weaker. That is the fundamental high-risk/high-reward cost of being a natural resources exporter and little else. It's economic blackjack. As for industrial capacity, Russia is on a war footing. The West is not. It's not a video game. You don't just tally up base #'s and go off of that. If NATO were actually fighting Russia then it'd be a different story. Not just economically, but militarily. But they're not. They're arguing about how many tanks to send to Ukraine instead of just up and doing it.

You said "Russia simply has vastly more industrial capacity and manpower".  It was true at the beginning of this fiasco.   Fast forward nearly 12 months.   Has that capacity resulted in victory for Russia yet?  No.    And Russia is worst off economically and has diminished industrial capacity due to sanctions than when this started.   If a given industry can't get parts and technology due to sanctions and has a reduced workforce due to workers fleeing the country or being fed into the meatgrinder, just how do they intend to leverage that industrial capacity and manpower for victory.   Maybe over time but the opinion of most on this forum is Russia doesn't have the time to make the sweeping changes in industry or the military industrial complex to ensure victory.  Nor do they have the time to completely reform and restructure their armed forces.    Russia military is dying ever so slowly the death of a thousand cuts and the industrial capacity and manpower isn't going to be a timely savior as the Ukraine wolves keep tearing small pieces of the Russian bear.   Changes to salvage this situation for Russia requires changes and reforms that will take years to implement.  Not in a few short months.   Sure, Russia has shore up what it has but frankly, they seemed determine to banzai charge their way to victory, which is fundamentally a stupid way to try to achieve victory.

Having industrial capacity and manpower is not enough.  It is how you leverage it and so far, 12 months in, Russia is very poor at using it to advantage.  Hence, poorly trained, poorly armed, and poorly motivated conscripts and criminals are the thing right now; poor leadership and limited equipment are the norm.   Just when is the industrial capacity and manpower going to kick in and win this for Russia.  Maybe in some years from now but Russia doesn't have the time.   For Ukraine, its NATO tanks today... it could be F16 / Tornadoes etc. next week. 

[Twisk]

@Khalerick

-  Where does Ukraine retreat to that it has better odds in the Bahjmut direction? 

You say that they shouldn't be fighting there but where should they fight? The terrain is mostly the same for nearly 60-70kilometers in that direction.
 

- Why is this current moment different than Lyschansk, Sievierodonetsk /previous UAF setbacks last year?

I remember many talks last summer about the dire straights of the UAF as bad news came out of Lysychansk, bad videos, and bad news elsewhere on the front. What is unique about the current moment?


More philosophically I don't believe that Ukraine suing for peace being good for the nation-state at all. Lives would be saved if fighting were ended but if the war ends with the map like it exists now Ukraine won't ever recover. @LongLeftFlank described Ukraine as an "armed camp" many posts ago and I think your suggestion for suing for peace is achieving that future.

And while Russia is not a democracy it has a psuedo middle class being the reseidents of core cities. Correct me if I am wrong here but none of the mobilizations have really bitten into those populations. Instead they focus on residents of the hinterland and prisoners, why is that?

 

[FlemFire]

5 minutes ago, danfrodo said:

TheCapt can be ..... direct.  I've been on the other end of his directness once or twice.  His worst and most despicable trait is his annoying and endlessly troublesome habit of being right, often, especially over longer time periods.  It's awful .  But the dude really really knows his stuff and I've learned a ton from his posts.

If people just post random nonsense or be mean for the sake of it I just ignore it. He's been snide, but he has fronted an argument. If he didn't I wouldn't respond. I personally don't think many of my arguments are actually being discussed. You may have noticed, for example, that I didn't even bother with much of his post. There's nothing really to disagree with about the conduct of Russia's military in 2022. But I'm not talking about 2022. Not to pull a Godwin's Law, but I can strong, strong 1942 Mannerheim-Hitler vibes when I read some of these posts. Where people are just looking at Russia and laughing and not really paying attention to the details. Russia is on a war footing 1-year out and their goals have fundamentally changed. I'm quite spooked at what they have up their sleeve but everyone else seems to already be prepping the parade grounds in Crimea. I just don't get it 

 

Just now, JonS said:

True enough - at least for the West. And guess what: even with all our bickering and with one and a half arms tied behind our backs, it's still more than enough.

It's not. There's a reason why Zelensky is wanting more tanks and gear.

I mentioned this awhile ago, but the response of the West does not seem like arms expenditure made to win a war. It feels more like arms expenditure to flush stockpiles and start running capital through the war industry. Right now, the USA could dump hundreds if not 1,000+ Abrams into Ukraine. They could have done that months ago. But they're not, so I get this vague sense that the West is not so certain of itself as people here seem to be.

 

Just now, JonS said:

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/873/260/a5b.png

Don't worry, I have to travel soon and then you guys can return to snorting Ukrainian glory stories straight off the T-72s 

 

1 minute ago, BlackMoria said:

You said "Russia simply has vastly more industrial capacity and manpower".  It was true at the beginning of this fiasco.   Fast forward nearly 12 months.   Has that capacity resulted in victory for Russia yet?  No.    And Russia is worst off economically and has diminished industrial capacity due to sanctions than when this started.   If a given industry can't get parts and technology due to sanctions and has a reduced workforce due to workers fleeing the country or being fed into the meatgrinder, just how do they intend to leverage that industrial capacity and manpower for victory.   Maybe over time but the opinion of most on this forum is Russia doesn't have the time to make the sweeping changes in industry or the military industrial complex to ensure victory.  Nor do they have the time to completely reform and restructure their armed forces.    Russia military is dying ever so slowly the death of a thousand cuts and the industrial capacity and manpower isn't going to be a timely savior as the Ukraine wolves keep tearing small pieces of the Russian bear.   Changes to salvage this situation for Russia requires changes and reforms that will take years to implement.  Not in a few short months.   Sure, Russia has shore up what it has but frankly, they seemed determine to banzai charge their way to victory, which is fundamentally a stupid way to try to achieve victory.

Having industrial capacity and manpower is not enough.  It is how you leverage it and so far, 12 months in, Russia is very poor at using it to advantage.  Hence, poorly trained, poorly armed, and poorly motivated conscripts and criminals are the thing right now; poor leadership and limited equipment are the norm.   Just when is the industrial capacity and manpower going to kick in and win this for Russia.  Maybe in some years from now but Russia doesn't have the time.   For Ukraine, its NATO tanks today... it could be F16 / Tornadoes etc. next week. 

Yes, if Russia is fighting the war you think they are fighting then the IC is not being used correctly and they are moving slowly. This is the convenience of arguing strawmen.

 

[Battlefront.com]

32 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

Secondly, I've been rather cordial this entire time and barely taken umbrage with some of the absurd responses I've seen. If you think I'm being condescending, I in no way intend to be.

Well, then I suggest a bit of introspection in how you interact with others.  This is your second major dust up with people here and IIRC the last one was similar to this one in that you don't seem very interested in debate, just hammering a point home without much evidence and expecting us to all succumb.

Your characterization of well thought out and explained responses as "absurd" clearly is a red flag.

Steve

[Beleg85]

It seems another brilliant Russian push into Vuhledar met their fate today...videos of burning soldier where taken from this very attack. One analysts with sources on the ground here also confirms they attacked straight in parade fashion or were caught during regrouping...reportedly Naval Infantry + some army men. Elite.

Where is famously excellent Russian artillery when it is needed?

But seriously, I don't remember such concentrated armour attacks for a long time.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Beleg85

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Khalerick said:

I mean the explanation is quite simple: they tried to “Georgia” Ukraine and overthrow the government. They did not come into Ukraine with the goal of conquering it. At some point you have to accept this perspective for the rest of the arguments to make sense.

Wow.  No, I don't have to accept that perspective because doing so would be in conflict with mountains of evidence and also not understanding what the war in 2014/2015 was all about.  Or Russia's 20+ year history of relations with Ukraine.

This was a war of conquest from the outset.  And yes, it was horribly planned and resourced, but Putin isn't the first dictator to screw up this big.

14 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

Where people are just looking at Russia and laughing and not really paying attention to the details.

And there's that condescending attitude coming out again.  Thank GOD you came around 2000+ into a thread that is nothing but snickering at Russian follies.  We have been soooooo missing intellectual insight, so it's great that you're finally coming here to provide it for us.

Holy crap man, do you really not know how bad you come off?

Steve

 

[Sekai]

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

Not to mention that Russia has long relied upon Western partnerships for such resource extraction.  As with so many things within the Russian economy, they went cheap and fast by outsourcing the difficult stuff so they could rake in easy profits.  Sanctions pretty much preclude Russia from getting anything out of these areas for the current regime's use.

Steve

Exactly, excellent thread about the dependence of Russian gas sector on the West:

 

Edited February 6, 2023 by Sekai

[BlackMoria]

8 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

Yes, if Russia is fighting the war you think they are fighting then the IC is not being used correctly and they are moving slowly. This is the convenience of arguing strawmen.

 

Pray tell, explain it to me then.  You said Russia went to a war footing.   I am not seeing any impact, to date, on the battlefield.  Just the same old russian tactic have trying to brute force their way through the Ukrainian defensive wall.  Just how does all you say result in Russia coming out on top.  Because I, and a whole lot of others on this forum, over the past 12 months, are seeing the same thing you must be seeing and yet, coming to a completely different conclusion of where this is headed.

[Battlefront.com]

3 minutes ago, Sekai said:

Exactly, great thread about Russian's gas industry reliance on the West:

 

Sorry, I have to retract my point.  I'm not paying attention to the details.  Russia's economy is going great and there's nothing wrong with it.  I'm now in utter fear of it, thanks to one guy coming here and setting us straight.  So forget about what I said or the evidence to back it up.  We're all wrong and hopefully we'll now get insights into why, because up until now I thought I had a pretty good handle on things.

Steve

[dan/california]

4 minutes ago, Beleg85 said:

It seems another brilliant Russian push into Vuhledar met their fate today...videos of burning soldier where taken from this very attack. One analysts with sources on the ground here also confirms they attacked straight in parade fashion or were caught during regrouping...reportedly Naval Infantry + some army men. Elite.

Where is famously excellent Russian artillery when it is needed?

But seriously, I don't remember such concentrated armour attacks for a long time.

It appears the continued integration of Western kit has made Ukraine even better at smashing Russian armored formations. Now we just need to bump up the priority on the Banzai charge>>>>>slaughterhouse bits. 

This would belong in The_Captn's power point about mass. Is all mass obsolete? or just incompetent and outdated Russian mass obsolete? On a separate note, stop, drop, and roll needs an hour of coverage in Russias non existent military training regimen. You never want to be the star of the lead slide in one of those segments.