Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[Tamas]

So while I agree on the need for strong, steady support - the only slight point I wonder about is whether Russia's war industry is actually better suited for the war Russia is trying to fight (grinding, attritional etc) than Western equipment for Ukraine? Edit: Particularly if, as I say, we're not willing to give the equipment that would enable Ukraine to fight a "Western-style"/21st century war or are putting such restrictions on their use of our supplies.

The lesson of the two World Wars - and indirectly the Cold War as well - is that the military capacity of a country ultimately derives from its overall economic strength. The US has negligible military production in the late 30s outside of ship construction, but it able to convert civilian industry to military production very quickly.  Looking at through that lens, Russia is roughly on the level of fascist Italy on the eve of WW2, with a top heavy military production complex sitting on top of a weakish economic base. My conclusion is that attritional warfare is problematic to both sides, but in somewhat different ways.

If Russia is Italy, then Ukraine is I suppose Ethiopia?

Greece.

[crazy canuck]

That works too. 

[Josquius]

Remember Russia isn't actually doing such a good job industrially outside of shells and drones.
It has no shortage of shells but it's in a critical state for artillery barrels - you can only get so many shots out of one before it starts warping and becomes less accurate steadily to the point of uselessness.
On vehicles too, it has reached the bottom of its stocks, and is turning to golf buggy assaults and all sorts of nonsense - the trouble here on the Ukrainian side is figuring out the role of vehicles on modern battlefields. They don't last long.

[The Brain]

I agree with both of you, but my lens is that Russia is also fighting a hybrid war against the West - by attacking institutions, public sentiment, and political processes. This is making it harder for the West to provide the kind of "firm, strong, and STEADY Western support" that's required for victory, and so far the West is not doing that great a job responding to that IMO.

We may have the better war industries and better technologies, and our potential if realized may be orders of magnitude greater than the 3rd-rate Russians. But if we don't deploy those industries and technologies to the war at hand, and if we leave our potential unrealized we can still sleepwalk our way to defeat.

When it comes to propaganda, influence operations, and hybrid warfare it seems to me the West has basically ceded the field.

Yeah. Western hybrid warfare against Russia appears to be very very weak. The West should be retaliating overwhelmingly against Russia but appears to just sit and take it.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Remember Russia isn't actually doing such a good job industrially outside of shells and drones.
It has no shortage of shells but it's in a critical state for artillery barrels - you can only get so many shots out of one before it starts warping and becomes less accurate steadily to the point of uselessness.
On vehicles too, it has reached the bottom of its stocks, and is turning to golf buggy assaults and all sorts of nonsense - the trouble here on the Ukrainian side is figuring out the role of vehicles on modern battlefields. They don't last long.

Thing is that don't have to do well, they just have to do better than the Ukrainians and good enough to cow western weakwilled and spineless politicians into not acting until they potentially get replaced with collaborators.

[crazy canuck]

More reporting from the NYTimes that Biden is about to remove the complete ban on the use of American supplied weapons inside Russia, and allow some limited use.

[Tamas]

More reporting from the NYTimes that Biden is about to remove the complete ban on the use of American supplied weapons inside Russia, and allow some limited use.

This constant dance is so tiring, from German helmets through fighter jets to actually being allowed to shoot back at the enemy. If Ukraine has been given the same stuff and permissions from the getgo this might have ended already.


BTW do we know how the big Russian offensive is going, have they captured a 4th village yet?

[Josquius]

BTW do we know how the big Russian offensive is going, have they captured a 4th village yet?

Ground to a halt is what I hear, with the early advances being basically planned for as they were unfavourable terrain.  Though I also hear the Russians had more success than they expected so just didn't have any forces in place to press an advantage.

More reporting from the NYTimes that Biden is about to remove the complete ban on the use of American supplied weapons inside Russia, and allow some limited use.

I heard on a popular youtube commentator's channel that the Russians are leaving large amounts of valuable equipment out in the open near the border. Potentially as a deliberate provocation to get Ukraine in trouble.

Would be great if Biden doesn't make a big announcement about this and just lets Ukraine know they've got the go ahead quietly, making the reveal only after a decent amount of Russian forces on the border are smashed.

[crazy canuck]

But that would be inconsistent with the stated reason the Americans put the restrictions on in the first place.  They don't want to upset the Russians too much because of the threat of Nuclear war.

The Russians may be trying to tempt the Ukrainians, but most of
The equipment is there because it is safe.

[Tamas]

I find it inconceivable that a HIMARS landing on a military base in Russia proper would result in Russia (conventional) missile-striking a NATO target. Once NATO gets involved the best outcome Russia can expect is that the whole world burns  with them.

I guess a more realistic danger is Ukrainian strikes becoming damaging enough that Russia starts using nukes to take out  launch equipment, but, again, what'd would be the rationale for that brutal escalation?

[crazy canuck]

Let's see if the president of the United States comes around to your point of view.

[Grey Fox]

Nothing has changed from the early 1960s. The one that convinces the other that he is crazy enough to actually go through with Nuclear strikes wins. Currently, in the West, only France looks crazy enough and Russia has the initiative vs the USA.

[crazy canuck]

Nothing has changed from the early 1960s. The one that convinces the other that he is crazy enough to actually go through with Nuclear strikes wins. Currently, in the West, only France looks crazy enough and Russia has the initiative vs the USA.

I think there is less reason to think the Russians pose a credible nuclear threat now than say the Cuban missile crises.

[Tamas]

The only thing I agree with being careful about is Putin and his regime. The way to ensure no nuclear escalation isn't to yield to nuclear threats, but to avoid Putin feeling like he has nothing to lose by launching nukes. So hopefully there will be no "unconditional surrender" talks in terms of requiring Putin's leaving for stopping hostilities.

[The Brain]

Western thinking on Putin seems to be "he's a bully, therefore he isn't afraid of being on the receiving end of physical violence". Russia is terrified of Western use of military might. Almost as terrified as the West itself.