History in the Making: Russian Invasion

stroker said:

Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:

FJ40Jim said:

Question from my cynical self to the smarter forum members (that's all y'all.)

I don't understand why there is any talk of "negotiations" with Putin & co. It's not possible to negotiate a contract with a sociopath or pathological liar (choose one). Are the Ukrainians really so naive as to think that any sort of agreement/treaty that is reached with Russia is worth the paper it's printed on, and the effort that it took to come to an unenforceable agreement?

What alternative do the Ukrainians have? They are putting up a good fight, but eventually the weight of Russian manpower and weapons will wear them down, killing countless thousands of their citizens in the process.

if the Ukrainians can keep it up to the point where Vlad's buddies get tired of their wealth being taken and no chance of recovering it, they'll take care of Vlad for us.  That's the Ukrainian alternative.

 

There is a finite number of Ukrainians and they wont be able to breed new ones faster than the Russians can kill them. At some point the Russians win when there are no "Native" Ukrainians left. History has shown this to work quite well. That might actually be the best case scenario for Russia because it leaves them a huge swath of empty land to Homestead. 

Not sure why everyone is sure that Donbas is gonna go to Russia, no matter how much of a PITA the region is.

Texas is a massive pain for the US half the time, pretty damn sure that if Mexico invaded and claimed it for their own we wouldn't accept that they have a right to the land.  Why would Ukraine do the same?

NOHOME said:

stroker said:

Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:

FJ40Jim said:

Question from my cynical self to the smarter forum members (that's all y'all.)

I don't understand why there is any talk of "negotiations" with Putin & co. It's not possible to negotiate a contract with a sociopath or pathological liar (choose one). Are the Ukrainians really so naive as to think that any sort of agreement/treaty that is reached with Russia is worth the paper it's printed on, and the effort that it took to come to an unenforceable agreement?

What alternative do the Ukrainians have? They are putting up a good fight, but eventually the weight of Russian manpower and weapons will wear them down, killing countless thousands of their citizens in the process.

if the Ukrainians can keep it up to the point where Vlad's buddies get tired of their wealth being taken and no chance of recovering it, they'll take care of Vlad for us.  That's the Ukrainian alternative.

 

There is a finite number of Ukrainians and they wont be able to breed new ones faster than the Russians can kill them. At some point the Russians win when there are no "Native" Ukrainians left. History has shown this to work quite well. That might actually be the best case scenario for Russia because it leaves them a huge swath of empty land to Homestead. 

I'm guessing this'll be over in months, not years.

Mr_Asa said:

Not sure why everyone is sure that Donbas is gonna go to Russia, no matter how much of a PITA the region is.

Texas is a massive pain for the US half the time, pretty damn sure that if Mexico invaded and claimed it for their own we wouldn't accept that they have a right to the land.  Why would Ukraine do the same?

Yup. And Mariupol and Donetsk are economically important cities to Ukraine.

volvoclearinghouse said:

In reply to Ian F (Forum Supporter) :

To this point, any talk about Ukraine "winning" is just propaganda from that side.  Ukraine isn't "winning", and will never "win".  Their country was invaded, their buildings bombed and citizens killed and wounded.  The longer the war drags on, the more Ukraine loses.  Yes, Russia is losing troops and tanks, but Moscow isn't under attack.  The sanctions are likely hurting Russia, but then again, they're also hurting the rest of the entire world.  Commodity prices on everything are up, anywhere from 10% to 50%.  A few dozen oligarchs lost their yachts; meanwhile millions have been displaced and millions more are at risk of starving. 

Prior to the invasion it was said that maintaining the status quo of Ukraine not joining NATO was probably all that would have prevented all of this.  And now it looks like that might be what ends the war. 

Commodity prices have been going up well before this all started.

The important way this is hurting Russian leadership is that the populace is getting tired of their E36 M3 and are not afraid to speak out anymore.

Nothing Ukraine could have done or not done would have prevented this, this has been planned out years, maybe decades ago.  Slow-boil reacquisition of the old SSRs.

GameboyRMH said:

it seems the Russian soldiers did not know about the Chernobyl disaster!

 

WOW

tuna55 said:

GameboyRMH said:

it seems the Russian soldiers did not know about the Chernobyl disaster!

 

WOW

Guess they never played S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

Some tidbits:

Russian forces have begun to withdraw from Chernobyl and are heading into Belarus, a Pentagon official told the AFP

Although it is also very clear fighting around Kyiv continues.

The purge on the Belarusian railways is in full swing. Dozens of train drivers and technical staff have been arrested this week. Today alone, pro-government Telegram channels posted more than 30 videos in which arrested employees "confess" to sabotaging Russian echelons and other crimes

Which is interesting.  Is this an underground of Belarusian support for Ukraine, or is it convenient way to not blame Russian / Belarusian incompetence?

Defense is always easier then offense.  If the Ukrainians start to go offensive, the Russians are clearly digging in some areas, how easy will that be, especially without much armor, air, or artillery support?

There certainly seems to be potential for a semi-stalemate quazi WWI trenches facing each other type situation in some areas.  The Ukrainaians at that point will really want some more offensive weapons...

A found this little tidbit on Reddit (should be true?).  But gives a bit of a perspective on Ukraine:

...most people just pay a bribe to get a drivers license in Ukraine, the process is insane and you need to spend nearly a week going to different offices almost all day every day filling out paper work and doing tests. It is intentionally designed that way to incentivize people to pay a bribe instead.

There is/was a lot of corruption in Ukraine, much has been cleaned up over the last several years but that is one of the remaining corrupt things.

One thing that hasn't been spoken of much is how Russia's dominance in Crimea was a wakeup call to Ukraine. They've been steeling themselves for eight years for this moment.

All the former Soviet bloc countries have struggled mightily with corruption.  Communism set the table, and then you had mid-level bureaucrats given rein over entire countries without a tradition of checks and balances. Look at the various "Stans" and the E36 M3show their governance is.

aircooled said:

A found this little tidbit on Reddit (should be true?).  But gives a bit of a perspective on Ukraine:

...most people just pay a bribe to get a drivers license in Ukraine, the process is insane and you need to spend nearly a week going to different offices almost all day every day filling out paper work and doing tests. It is intentionally designed that way to incentivize people to pay a bribe instead.

There is/was a lot of corruption in Ukraine, much has been cleaned up over the last several years but that is one of the remaining corrupt things.

If you want a description of how bureaucracy saps the life out of an economy, read "The Mystery of Capital" by Hernando de Soto...

Kreb (Forum Supporter) said:

One thing that hasn't been spoken of much is how Russia's dominance in Crimea was a wakeup call to Ukraine. They've been steeling themselves for eight years for this moment.

All the former Soviet bloc countries have struggled mightily with corruption.  Communism set the table, and then you had mid-level bureaucrats given rein over entire countries without a tradition of checks and balances. Look at the various "Stans" and the E36 M3show their governance is.

 It's not limited to former eastern bloc countries. When I lived in Italy in the 90s it was full of bribery (of course, they also had their share of authoritarian government). One thing we often found was that Italian traffic cops would never pull over cheap cars because they couldn't pay good bribes and would actually go to traffic court. So you'd always see them pulling over high-end cars who would pay bribes. 

China is also heavy on bribery, though it's mostly at the regional level officials and not the national-level guys.  When I was in Vietnam I saw my local contacts pay at least two bribes in my presence, though it was done pretty low-key. 

But yeah, the post-communist countries are arguably the worst for the reasons you noted - the huge bureaucratic class with a lot of power and little to no oversight. I mean, Putin is reported to have a  personal net worth of $40 Billion. Pretty good for a guy whose only real private-sector job was as a taxi driver and otherwise has been a "civil servant." We hear people talk about US politicians "getting rich" but they're paupers compared to the Russian leadership class lol. Today i was listening to the report about Joe Manchin owning a company that sells coal to a powerplant that he has supported with federal aid bills as a Senator. And Manchin was "only" raking in $100k a year in this shady side business. I bet Russian Duma members wipe their asses with that chump change lol. 

--

as to "steeling themselves" you're dead on. I have a couple buddies in the US SOF community and they've spent quite a bit of time in Ukraine over the past 5-6 years training their forces. Ukraine was a E36 M3show when Crimea was invaded and totally reorganized their military structure to make it more modern (something Russia has never done). Ironically, they probably followed a model similar to China's recent professionalization of their military, which in turn was modeled strongly after the US (China's military is a stark contrast to Russia's in terms of organization and professionalism, surprisingly). 

Of the "on the ground" reporting, Radio Free Europe has done a really good job at embedding reporters with Ukrainian combat units, so they've gotten some pretty close-up looks at "how things are going" for both the military and populace in general. They also talk to a lot of the Ukrainian soldiers about their combat tactics and such. This one about a small town retaken by the Ukrainians after a month of Russian control is pretty interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-tp97V2QG0

one thing I notice in almost all of them is that the Ukrainian infantry and anti-tank teams are all equipped with the most modern western-style equipment, kevlar helmets, night vision, substantial comms gear, armor, and other equipment that's pretty similar to what US forces wear. Then you see a lot of the Russian infantry wearing gear that looks like it's from the 1960s.....Just the personal soldiers' equipment differece is a microcosm of the entire forces, from what i can tell. 

So, from those that might know, Is Russia's poor performance in Ukraine because they are holding back worried about China, the US, or others or are they really stretched to the breaking point and this is the best that they can do?

VolvoHeretic said:

So, from those that might know, Is Russia's poor performance in Ukraine because they are holding back worried about China, the US or others or are they really stretched to the breaking point and this is the best that they can do?

Russia's poor performance is seemingly due primarily to incompetence, whether that be in planning, logistics, training, equipment maintenance, intelligence, communications, leadership, and morale (conscripts). Likely all of those things in high doses. Also the assumption that an armor-heavy force would just walk in to a country loaded with AT munitions. The western world decided decades ago that armor is only useful for a few environments (primarily, deserts where AT teams can't hide), and ONLY when the user has air superiority. 

I'm not sure what they could be holding back ,  short of nukes/chem/bio stuff, which would really cross a red line with the west, and likely with China/India as well.  Seems like they're throwing the kitchen sink at Ukraine already and not accomplishing much other than knocking down a lot of infrastructure. 

Can Russia totally level every city in Ukraine eventually? I suppose so, assuming they have enough long-range munitions to do so. I don't believe for a second that Russia can occupy even a "significant" portion of Ukraine, ever. I mean, they can hardly occupy the areas they already more or less occupied before the invasion (e.g. part of the Donbas). I'm not sure 'at the breaking point' is on-target, but Russia is taking massive losses and using massive amounts of munitions, missiles, etc.....and so far has actually accomplished very little in terms of territorial gains and has been totally rebuffed from Kiev. Russia is a big country, but not a particularly rich one. It can't just go on forever exhausting supply while its war machine is kneecapped by sanctions, corruption, and general ineptness. I have to assume there is a substantial part of Russia's military that absolutely can't be used in Ukraine, especially with Putin's paranoia about being invaded by NATO and with not-all-that-friendly other countries along its borders. And the Ukrainians don't appear inclined to roll over any time soon - especially with the entire (rich) West pumping modern weapons into their fighting force and an obvious home-field advantage in terms of terrain, tactics, and geography.  

I saw videos the other day of a huge convoy of Russian tanks heading for the Ukraine border - all of them in the distinctive winter camo used in Russia's northern army. So it would seem the Russian army is now having to call in reinforcements from all the way across the country, if that says anything. Japan also publicly reported Russian landing ships coming from the Pacific purportedly bringing reinforcements from Russia's Far East. Not something you're doing unless you're running out of "local" stuff to throw at Ukraine.  Then you have the Wagner guys there as well. You don't call in a mercenary force if your Army is "doing fine." 

Just my take on things. That and 75 cents will get you a can of Coke. 

In reply to VolvoHeretic :

Best they can do. Instead of falling back and regrouping, they keep holding the "land" they've taken and are tossing solders at Kyiv and other cities using similar tactics and formations- you don't hold "the best" back for any reason, especially in a Blitz scenario. Russia literally believed that the initial wave was going to be enough like Georgia years ago and though by now they'd be mopping up- instead, there's videos online that imply they're grabbing teenagers from Donbass and conscripting them en masse.

And Putin can't toss every boy in fatigues to the front, because of that aforementioned paranoia and genuine problems from Us, or China, or Japan whom might covet parts of his nation and decide to attempt a most devious lick.

Just found out that Ukraine has a national app.  Amongst the many aid functions, it also has a function that let's citizens mark Russian soldiers and send the info directly to the Ukrainian military. 

There's been a lot of talk about the possible end states of things for Ukraine and for NATO, but not a lot of discussion about possible end states for Russia, with the exception of Putin being removed (though that raises its own questions). I wonder exactly what contingencies are being considered, and what the desired outcome is in the West generally and the US specifically.

Assuming a cease-fire and reasonably durable settlement, what does the West want to achieve in Russia? It seems fairly clear that overt attempts to undermine Putin will not be successful, and will very likely strengthen the narrative he has been pushing for years. So how to deal with a post-war Russia? Maintaining general sanctions could easily push more Russians toward feeling victimized by the West, which certainly doesn't help. Lifting sanctions could help to stabilize the regime, which could be good or bad, depending on how things develop. Is Russia to remain a pariah state, or does a peace settlement open the door to at least some manner of redemption? What is the intent of Western policy toward Russia after the shooting stops in Ukraine?

The questions raised by a post-Putin Russia are in some ways vastly more complicated. I don't envision a scenario in which Russia embraces the West and its values, especially if Putin is deposed by either the military or some members of his inner circle. Who rules after Putin, and how? And how does the West intend to deal with them? If there is a military coup that results in a general's cabal running the place, what's the plan? What if another ex-KGB officer claims the throne? Should they be embraced because they're not Putin, or shunned, potentially antagonizing them and their supporters, and ultimately undermining the chance for improved relations? Worst case, what if Russia descends into civil war, or even localized rebellion, after Putin goes? Does the US actively support a Russian pro-Western movement after Putin?

These questions need to be addressed now, long before they become pressing. The chances of an ideal partner rising to power in Russia are almost zero, so which flaws are we willing to accept in order to keep the peace? These are not decisions to be made on the fly, especially if the post-war situation on the ground in Russia is moving fast and not entirely clear.

In reply to irish44j (Forum Supporter) :

Thanks, that was very informative. So, I have heard, with no conformation, that Russian migs have to bomb at low altitude in order to hit anything with the dumb bombs that they have been using. No smart bombs and very few cruise missiles? Does that explain why our stingers are so affective against their aircraft? 

I also just read that Russia has the 5th largest standing army in the world. Wasn't Saddam Hussein's  army the 5th largest back in 2001?

Many good points. In a post-Putin scenario, I almost wonder if the "ideal" result would bring some rich oligarch to power - someone who is obviously corrupt but is interested in money, and not interested in "Russian Glory" or territorial expansion. Someone who realizes that partnering with the West is "where the money is at" and isn't interested in cultural or ethnic issues. Wars are bad for business (assuming the oligarch in question isn't Aleksandr Mikheyev)....

People whose only goal is money are easier to deal with by the financial carrot and stick, and they can be bought in one way or another. And the west has the money to do the buying (in a figurative sense, or literal sense). 

Or does a Sergei Lavrov come to power post-Putin, and we find out if he truly IS of the same mindset as Putin (as his public face indicates) or that's all just self-preservation and his interests are different. Or a Dmitriy Medvedev, who at least on the surface made a tacit attempt to be part of the modern world order when he wasn't swapping positions with Vlad. I tend to think Medvedev is more about the money than a "true believer."

For all the hubub about the opposition leaders in Russia (jailed and otherwise) I dont' get the feeling any of them are vastly popular in a general sense, or that any could take power. 

I have a feeling that a cabal of Generals wouldn't last long in power, because without increasingly oppressive measures against the populace, they can't wield power. Generals almost never have the Cult of Personality behind them a la Trump or Putin or Mussolini or Kennedy (geez, was that a line from the song?). I don't think the Russian populace will stand for a Soviet model or a statocracy. 

The long and short is that what is needed is another Gorbachev - someone who makes a general change in the way things are run there, but at the same time history has shown that Gorbachev also enabled the rise of the oligarch class as a means to keep power post USSR. 

The idea of a western-oriented, fairly-elected leader is probably the least likely. 

--

All that said, I'm sure people over at State or Langley or whatever have plans in place for different post-putin leaders and how to deal with various ones from various parts of teh Russian power base. Or I certainly hope so. 

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

volvoclearinghouse said:

In reply to Ian F (Forum Supporter) :

To this point, any talk about Ukraine "winning" is just propaganda from that side.  Ukraine isn't "winning", and will never "win".  Their country was invaded, their buildings bombed and citizens killed and wounded.  The longer the war drags on, the more Ukraine loses.  Yes, Russia is losing troops and tanks, but Moscow isn't under attack.  The sanctions are likely hurting Russia, but then again, they're also hurting the rest of the entire world.  Commodity prices on everything are up, anywhere from 10% to 50%.  A few dozen oligarchs lost their yachts; meanwhile millions have been displaced and millions more are at risk of starving. 

Prior to the invasion it was said that maintaining the status quo of Ukraine not joining NATO was probably all that would have prevented all of this.  And now it looks like that might be what ends the war. 

Commodity prices have been going up well before this all started.

The important way this is hurting Russian leadership is that the populace is getting tired of their E36 M3 and are not afraid to speak out anymore.

Nothing Ukraine could have done or not done would have prevented this, this has been planned out years, maybe decades ago.  Slow-boil reacquisition of the old SSRs.

Look at that chart for wheat. Yes, inflation, even higher than normal, was definitely a thing prior to Putin's invasion. But on the exact date that happened, it's like the chart got a hit of nitrous. Same for gasoline, and a bunch of other stuff.  Between the global instability inherent in war, and the sanctions, prices have spiked since Putin's trips boots landed on the other side of that border. 

Whether or not Ukraine could have prevented this is open to debate. As is the question of whether there was anything the world could have done to prevent this. 

What to do about post war, or post Putin Russia?  Learn from history. The last time there was a major upheaval (the Berlin Wall era) Russia was given the pariah treatment. And we see how well that worked out. Granted, it's not going to be all love and roses, but there needs to be some middle ground that let's them back into the world economy and doesn't drive them straight into China's clutches. Perhaps such a policy might also figure out a way to deal with China's issues, too. 

irish44j (Forum Supporter) said:

I'm not sure what they could be holding back ,  short of nukes/chem/bio stuff, which would really cross a red line with the west, and likely with China/India as well.  Seems like they're throwing the kitchen sink at Ukraine already and not accomplishing much other than knocking down a lot of infrastructure. 

I read somewhere that Russia's defense budget is a fairly small percentage of the US one (like 10-20%) but that Putin wanted to be seen as challenging the US for the "high tech".  So lots of money spent on stuff like hypersonic missiles, designs for new ballistic missile submarines, and stealth aircraft, not enough on the basics of keeping the army running.  And the high tech stuff either isn't useful against Ukraine or is in such small numbers that it won't make any difference.

In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :

Yeah, things like the new T-series (t-14?) tanks that supposedly could outdo the Abrams are essentially, one-offs built by hand. Even prior to the sanctions, Russia just lacked the capital and production needed to make warmachines on a USA scale; they'd be outdated by the time enough had been built to make a difference.

codrus (Forum Supporter) said:

irish44j (Forum Supporter) said:

I'm not sure what they could be holding back ,  short of nukes/chem/bio stuff, which would really cross a red line with the west, and likely with China/India as well.  Seems like they're throwing the kitchen sink at Ukraine already and not accomplishing much other than knocking down a lot of infrastructure. 

I read somewhere that Russia's defense budget is a fairly small percentage of the US one (like 10-20%) but that Putin wanted to be seen as challenging the US for the "high tech".  So lots of money spent on stuff like hypersonic missiles, designs for new ballistic missile submarines, and stealth aircraft, not enough on the basics of keeping the army running.  And the high tech stuff either isn't useful against Ukraine or is in such small numbers that it won't make any difference.

 

plus, 50% of that defense budget has to go into the private offshore accounts of Putin, Lavrov, Shoigu, and Aleksandr Mikheyev before the other 50% can filter down through the other levels of corruption to finally build a military item.

GIRTHQUAKE said:

In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :

Yeah, things like the new T-series (t-14?) tanks that supposedly could outdo the Abrams are essentially, one-offs built by hand. Even prior to the sanctions, Russia just lacked the capital and production needed to make warmachines on a USA scale; they'd be outdated by the time enough had been built to make a difference.

know what else can outdo the Abrams (or the T-14)?

literally any kind of aircraft with virtually any kind of weapons. 

The US Marine Corps (smartly) went complete stop on any more tank purchases. They'd all be annihilated in a war with a modern adversary (say, China) and are largely useless against insurgencies with anti-tank weapons (see: Afghanistan,Ukraine).

Meanwhile, the US Army just dropped $5 billion on more Abrams. Because I guess they're expecting a third Gulf War or something, IDK, seems dumb. But a perfect example of why the US defense budget is so much - we buy things that we don't need, at all, for a type of war we'll never fight again (assuming Mexico doesn't invade Texas).  Because making any defense budget go DOWN is political suicide for legislators.