Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-23 and Invasion

[The Brain]

Interestingly Michael Kofman who's a specialist on Russia's military (and had a lot interesting to say about the conflict in general) just posted about this - basically it's a mess:

Michael Kofman
@KofmanMichael
Russian units are not fighting as BTGs. They're not doing combined arms warfare. They're driving down roads in small detachments, pushing recon and VDV units forward. Tanks without infantry. It's not going well for them because this isn't how they organize and fight (more later).
Folks are taking the right lessons about Ukraine's military from this, but a number of the wrong ones about the Russian military. This operation looks terrible, and it should, because it's assumptions were nuts, but this isn't the Russian mil fighting as it would against NATO.
It's taken me a while to figure out what they're trying to do, because it looks so ridiculous and incompetent. Ukraine's military has done great. The Russian op is a bizarre scheme, based on terrible political assumptions, with poor relationship to their training & capabilities.
Outside of the fighting NW of Kyiv we have a lot of smaller detachments, tanks, IFVs, often recon or VDV units pressing down roads & into cities. Often small formations outrunning logistics, without support, or letting support getting ambushed - its a mess.

These are Russia's best combat formations displaying their skill. If Russia fought NATO they would have to field even worse troops.

[Malthus]

Its said that Putin has broke the one golden rule of the modern world. You don't go to war. I read a piece the other day on how dictators like him have just given up on pretending now.
But thinking on this it doesn't seem right. America has gone to war before. And Putin's past adventure in Georgia didn't get him in trouble.
So I will modify slightly. Could it be the world operates on a yellow/red card system? Or 3 strikes?
Or maybe its just that Putin did an awful job of manufacturing a cassus beli this time. It all basically came down to him sitting on the border and threatening to invade then doing it. The pretending was needed.

Way I see it, Russia lost the narrative.

If you wish to wage war, you have to have one of two things: a reasonable cause; or project a sense of inevitability. In other words, you have to have a narrative that explains why you will win - because your cause is just, or because might makes right and you have the might.

Russia was never able to manufacture a decent cause here (de-Nazifying a democratic government whose leader is Jewish isn't the best take). It did better on the might makes right narrative - many, obviously including the Russians themselves, thought Ukraine would quickly collapse, as it did when Russia seized Crimea.

If that had happened, many would be annoyed or frightened by it, but enough would be impressed by might making right to basically say 'well that happened, now we better make the best of it' and allow everything to get back to normal. Many would be willing to accept the Russian framing of the narrative about how this is all about Russian historical grievances and the unjust imposition of the West encroaching on Russia's legitimate geopolitical concerns. Before the invasion, Russian trolls and Western useful idiots were constantly harping on this line (while equally constantly harping on the US's "idiocy" in claiming an invasion was coming - it was a function of this narrative that Russia was both fully justified in invading, and also not going to invade).

Instead, Russia did invade, and the invasion went poorly. Ukraine did not collapse. The narrative became all about how Ukraine was defying the ruthless night of Russia. The contrast between Ukrainian bravery and Russian duplicity, ruthlessness and incompetence made for a very compelling story - much more compelling than the narrative put out by Russia and its usual useful idiots in the West.

I think this narrative failure was a function of events - that Ukraine did not collapse in the way many expected. That was decisive. It is now probably too late for Russia to restore narrative momentum. Even if Russia wins, which it presumably can do if the Russian will to fight doesn't collapse, the narrative will remain about Russian ruthlessness overcoming outnumbered Ukrainian bravery.

Narratives have real power. They mobilize (or undermine) support. They determine how people define themselves. There was a time when Ukrainian identity was more up for grabs - Ukrainian nationalism has of course always existed, but many people living within Ukrainian borders have Russian as their first language, many were moved to their current location under Stalinism; the 'protection of Russian minorities' was another part of Putin's narrative ... but events like this invasion have a way of cementing people's sense of who they are. Ukrainian nationalism has received an enormous boost from Putin's bullying. Many who speak Russian as their first language now consider themselves Ukrainian (note that the current leader of Ukraine, as well as being Jewish, spoke Russian as his first language!).

Here in Ontario, there is a bit of a historical parallel. Way back in the War of 1812, what was then the province of Upper Canada had a large percentage of its population as recently arrived Americans - not United Empire Loyalists, but mostly economic migrants who had come for cheap land. Both the Brits and the Americans thought this population was ripe for being a fifth  column ... but the events of the US invasion decisively flipped the loyalty of the population, forging a sense of identity as 'upper Canadians' which had not really existed prior to that, even among people who had been 'Americans'.

[The Brain]

Interestingly Michael Kofman who's a specialist on Russia's military (and had a lot interesting to say about the conflict in general) just posted about this - basically it's a mess:

Michael Kofman
@KofmanMichael
Russian units are not fighting as BTGs. They're not doing combined arms warfare. They're driving down roads in small detachments, pushing recon and VDV units forward. Tanks without infantry. It's not going well for them because this isn't how they organize and fight (more later).
Folks are taking the right lessons about Ukraine's military from this, but a number of the wrong ones about the Russian military. This operation looks terrible, and it should, because it's assumptions were nuts, but this isn't the Russian mil fighting as it would against NATO.
It's taken me a while to figure out what they're trying to do, because it looks so ridiculous and incompetent. Ukraine's military has done great. The Russian op is a bizarre scheme, based on terrible political assumptions, with poor relationship to their training & capabilities.
Outside of the fighting NW of Kyiv we have a lot of smaller detachments, tanks, IFVs, often recon or VDV units pressing down roads & into cities. Often small formations outrunning logistics, without support, or letting support getting ambushed - its a mess.

These are Russia's best combat formations displaying their skill. If Russia fought NATO they would have to field even worse troops.

And one thing to remember: for decades now Russian generals have been promoted not based on military skill but on their personal loyalty to Putin. They aren't exactly the best and the brightest.

[Malthus]

There's definitely a broad sense of anger and backbone being shown by EU members towards Russia, I'm particularly surprised by Germany. Not sure what has lead to such a large shift in thinking.

Way I see it, this is part of the narrative flip I was talking about above.

Ukrainian resistance has decisively changed the narrative. There is a widespread feeling that history is in the making and that those supporting Ukraine are on the right side of that history.

If Ukraine had quickly collapsed, more would have been willing to buy Putin's narrative. As it is, I think it is now too late - even assuming spectacular Russian military successes.

[alfred russel]

Anyway, I'm seeing satellite imagery of a gigantic Russian column (5 km long) heading towards Kiev so this might not last long.

It's early days still.

If this ends without atrocities and massive loss of civilian life, that would be ideal... but I don't think anyone really thinks it's likely even if we hope for it.

And at this point, even if they take Kyev what will that get them? Will Ukraine surrender? Will the West stop supplying Ukrainian fighters? I doubt it in both cases.

A cease fire that leaves Ukraine a hopelessly divided country in yet another frozen conflict?

That seems the probable "successful" end game for Russia, though whether that is what the kremlin wanted at the start I don't know.

[Sheilbh]

These are Russia's best combat formations displaying their skill. If Russia fought NATO they would have to field even worse troops.

I'm sure that's true for some of them - less sure about the ones who've transferred in from the far east.

But I read his point as being they wouldn't be facing NATO in the same way because their assumption going in would be that NATO's a difficult fight so they'd be set up more as they have been in the North-West (which is where the Chechens are now being deployed) and maybe up from Crimea?

The assumption that this would be a cakewalk and the Ukrainian forces and resistance would just collapse - he's pointed out before but there seems to be a lot of forces getting involved just to do "their bit". Weird airdrops and amphibious landings which operationally make no sense or national guard troops getting way ahead of where they sensibly should be - all of which makes sense if the whole thing was going to be over in a couple of days and you wanted to nab your spot at the victory parade, but in terms of an actual conflict where they're facing real opposition is crazy.

[Sheilbh]

The footage of a Ukrainian tractor stealing an APC is incredible

[FunkMonk]

The footage of a Ukrainian tractor stealing an APC is incredible

Yeah I saw that and I don't think it is real (how can it???)

But I still choose to believe it is real 

[Jacob]

Test: was having some posting difficulties, but they seem to have resolved.

[Jacob]

A cease fire that leaves Ukraine a hopelessly divided country in yet another frozen conflict?

That seems the probable "successful" end game for Russia, though whether that is what the kremlin wanted at the start I don't know.

I don't doubt that Putin would like that, but I don't see Ukrainians ceasing their fire in those conditions.

[viper37]

Apparently Denmark is donating 2,700 M72 EC LAW AT weapons to Ukraine as well. Apparently it's a one-use weapon that requires about 5 minutes of instruction to use. So point and click, basically.

Canada has donated 25M$ in non lethal armament: flak jackets, helmets, etc.
We've loaned (given...) some money to Ukraine, but I wish my government would do a little more.  Like sending some troops and bureaucrats to neighbouring countries to assist with the evacuation and ressettlement of refugees, for example.

[The Larch]

Maybe the sanctions do have an effect after all...

Two top Russian billionaires speak out against invasion of Ukraine
Oleg Deripaska and Ukrainian-born Mikhail Fridman call for peace, as activities come under threat from sanctions

Russian billionaires Mikhail Fridman and Oleg Deripaska have become two of the country's first leading businesspeople to speak out against Moscow's full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

Fridman, who is one of Russia's richest men, controls private equity firm LetterOne and was a founder of Alfa Bank, Russia's largest private bank. In a letter to his employees he called for an end to the "bloodshed".

Ukrainian-born Fridman sent an email to staff at LetterOne, first reported by the Financial Times, in which he wrote that "war can never be the answer".

Describing his Ukrainian roots in Lviv, where his parents still live, he wrote: "I have also spent much of my life as a citizen of Russia, building and growing businesses. I am deeply attached to Ukrainian and Russian peoples and see the current conflict as a tragedy for them both."

Deripaska called for peace talks to begin "as fast as possible" in a post on the messaging app Telegram.

"Peace is very important," wrote Deripaska, who founded the Russian aluminium giant Rusal, in which he still owns a stake through shares in its London-listed parent company EN+ Group.

Deripaska, who said as recently as 21 February there would not be a war in Ukraine, has been on the US sanctions list since 2018 over his alleged links to the Russian government, which he has taken legal action to challenge.

Fridman was ranked as the 128th richest person in the world in 2021, according to the publication Forbes' world billionaire list.

The 57-year-old told staff in his letter that he usually avoids making political statements.

"I am a businessman with responsibilities to my many thousands of employees in Russia and Ukraine. I am convinced however that war can never be the answer. This crisis will cost lives and damage two nations who have been brothers for hundreds of years," he wrote.

"While a solution seems frighteningly far off, I can only join those whose fervent desire is for the bloodshed to end."

Fridman's LetterOne owns assets in its L1 Retail unit including the UK health food retailer Holland & Barrett, as well as Spain's supermarket chain DIA and the mobile phone service provider Turkcell, which has customers in Turkey, Ukraine, Belarus and Cyprus.

[Jacob]

Interesting - via the Bellingcat guys - it seems Russian state media accidentally published the article they were suppose to publish after victory which has been web archived.

Sheilbh, can I trouble you for a link to this? I'd like to share it.

[DGuller]

I made a number of predictions in this thread, but none in the last couple of days, so here is another one:  I think Putin is going to be in power for a couple of more decades, and Russia's influence over the internal politics in the Western countries will just continue to grow.

[Jacob]

... also, I think the perfect alignment of Fox News talking points (esp. Tucker Carlson) with Russian talking points could do with a little bit of investigation.