Continuation The Russian Invasion of Ukraine part 8

[Andy_Ross]

Originally Posted by Aridas

The logic there looks suspicious. It's entirely plausible that Melitopol will remain in Russian hands when Ukraine's current counteroffensive culminates, of course, and even quite probable if the claim is actually "in August," as I've seen claimed is the qualification well into that article. By the look of it, though, breaking the land bridge is entirely plausible even in scenarios where it hasn't been taken. Also, the ramifications of "several miles outside the city" include that Russian logistics would be almost completely broken and the remainder easily within Ukrainian artillery fire range, provided that several was being used in a more normal sense.

As it stands, retaking Urozhaine is another step towards breaking through Russian lines and cutting off the land bridge where Russian defenses seem to be significantly weaker.

Once they approach the coast any road links can be shut down with artillery and drones.

[Blue Mountain]

Originally Posted by Andy_Ross

They are running out of mines and men. More importantly the men are running out of a willingness to fight

Are they, though? I've been hearing "Russia is running out X" for a year now and yet they're still pummelling Ukraine with shells and missiles.

[BrettM]

Originally Posted by theprestige

My sense is that Moscow very much wants this to be a war of attrition. They think they have an advantage in such a war, and they don't mind the absolute brutality such a war must visit upon their own army.

Kyiv, however, is doing their best to make it a war of erosion. Not trading lives and equipment at an exchange rate that favors Moscow in the long run, but steadily eroding Moscow's ability to wage war in Ukraine, until the hollowed-out shell of the invading army collapses and is swept away.

It remains to be seen if Ukraine can complete the work of erosion, before succumbing to Moscow's horrific calculus of attrition. Also I suspect that Moscow doesn't actually have the numbers of troops and equipment they need, to really make the attrition thing work.

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

I was just thinking that if we don't see a major offensive by Ukraine in the next couple of weeks its not coming until at least late next spring. But, maybe thats not true. As far as attrition levels go, right now Russia has many thousands of guys sitting in trenches guarding the front... uhh how absolutely horrific is it going to be for those guys in the coming months? During the cold late autumn rains and then the freezing snowy winter. Are they going to be able to keep their soldiers on the front warm, dry, fed, and still actually there, guarding the front. They'll have to do much more rotation of men in and out of the front line and Ukraine might be able to take advantage of that. These will be men who are either recent conscripts, are have been at war since February 2022. Exhaustion and low moral is going to be a huge issue for Russia.

I like your thinking! This attrition thing works both ways. Why bother with a counter offensive when the winter weather can work for you? Just sit tight and watch as Nature culls the Russians in the trenches. Hypothermia, malnutrition, disease, alcohol and boredom will play havoc with the troops in the trenches.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Andy_Ross

They are running out of mines and men. More importantly the men are running out of a willingness to fight

The media here has been saying things like this for well over a year now but there seems to be little evidence on the ground.

Russians appeared to be prepared to engage in human wave attacks to move forward and are contesting ever metre of ground in retreat.

This is not to say that Ukraine won't eventually prevail but I fear that hundreds of thousands (millions?) of casualties are still to come.

Russia seems to have plenty of poorly trained but adequately motivated conscripts and plenty of materiel.

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by The Don

Russians appeared to be prepared to engage in human wave attacks to move forward and are contesting ever metre of ground in retreat.

I would hazard the guess that troops sent forward in human wave attacks are not enthusiastic about the situation. The defining factor seems to be their officers’ willingness and means to coerce them, not their fighting spirit.

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by steenkh

Does the Russian army still use political officers?

Apparently reintroduced in 2018

[Andy_Ross]

Originally Posted by The Don

The media here has been saying things like this for well over a year now but there seems to be little evidence on the ground.

Russians appeared to be prepared to engage in human wave attacks to move forward and are contesting ever metre of ground in retreat.

This is not to say that Ukraine won't eventually prevail but I fear that hundreds of thousands (millions?) of casualties are still to come.

Russia seems to have plenty of poorly trained but adequately motivated conscripts and plenty of materiel.

And they still lose ground.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Andy_Ross

And they still lose ground.

Slowly, which is another sign that morale doesn't seem to have collapsed and there's no critical lack of equipment.

[Andy_Ross]

Originally Posted by The Don

Slowly, which is another sign that morale doesn't seem to have collapsed and there's no critical lack of equipment.

If you don't look at things in any detail

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Andy_Ross

Russia will be forced out of Crimea, yes

One of the few strategic reasons for the invasion was that without Russian control of the land route via Maiupol and their control of the Dniepr below Zaporhizie (sp?), their hold on Crimea was untenable and very costly.

It's probably this situation which put the idea for a full invasion into people's minds in the first place.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by Michel H

No, I don't think Russia is really threatening Western Europe, saying such things seems to be part of Ukraine's propaganda scheme: "We are protecting you" (sic). Actually understand: "We are taking your money and raising energy prices, and creating a terrible mess, not only for ourselves but also for others".

It's important to realise that there would be no mess if Russia respected Ukraine's border.

Quote:

Ukraine is very special for Russia because of a number of reasons: It was an important part of the Soviet Union, but is now trying to join NATO

Russia's actions since 2014 haven't exactly done anything to dissuade Ukraine from trying to join NATO. In fact, quite the reverse.

Quote:

it has a significant Russian-speaking minority, part of which is pro-Russian, and there is the Black Sea Fleet, located in Crimea.

I doubt if any Ukrainian still alive in the occupied territories is currently pro-Russian.

Quote:

I believe there is also an ugly aspect in what Russia did by invading Ukraine in 2022

No ******* ****.

Quote:

they probably wanted to prove they were a major great military power, and they were seeking revenge after humiliating sanctions.

And they've proved they are a mediocre military power at best and the sanctions are even more humiliating. Well done Russia.

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

To be serious, I do think Ukraine will likely* retake Crimea so long as "The West" keeps supplying them. However, I think Russia will collapse on the cusp of facing the loss of Crimea, and their troops will surrender. It will be a bit like the end of the Soviet-Afghani war.

*I'm not certain, more like 2 to 1 odds in favor.

Crimea is separated from the rest of Ukraine by only about two pinch points. It's easily defensible.

The only way I can see Ukraine taking Crimea back militarily is via a long siege after cutting the land bridge through Southern Ukraine and destroying the Kerch bridge.

My best guess is that there will be a negotiated settlement long before that happens in which Crimea will be ceded to Russia to give them something to save face with. There will be no settlement with Putin still in power though.

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

My best guess is that there will be a negotiated settlement long before that happens in which Crimea will be ceded to Russia to give them something to save face with.

I think the Donbass will be thrown in as well.

The most important factor for Ukraine is how long the US will support them. If the Republicans win, they are probably withdrawing the support. JayUtah has said that some Republicans are already thinking that it is a war “between two communist regimes”, and that it does not concern us.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

Crimea is separated from the rest of Ukraine by only about two pinch points. It's easily defensible.

Potentially. I seem to recall that in previous instances of conquering Crimea, though, it's happened in under a month. If cut off, it's entirely plausible that it won't actually take a long siege. Just hit their remaining artillery stockpiles quick and their backbone will be practically gone.

Elsewhere -

Ukraine making progress in counteroffensive, U.S. officials say

Quote:

A U.S. official told CBS News on Thursday that Ukrainian forces have made it through a Russian minefield north of Tokmak and are now engaging with the first line of Russian defenses holding the city.

Looks like this is an effort to counter that eyebrow raising WaPo article.

[Andy_Ross]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

Crimea is separated from the rest of Ukraine by only about two pinch points. It's easily defensible.

The only way I can see Ukraine taking Crimea back militarily is via a long siege after cutting the land bridge through Southern Ukraine and destroying the Kerch bridge.

My best guess is that there will be a negotiated settlement long before that happens in which Crimea will be ceded to Russia to give them something to save face with. There will be no settlement with Putin still in power though.

Why would it bta long siege?. what forces do you think will be left to defend it by the time it's cut off and Ukraine reaches it?
Plus, there's a lot of coast to defend and Ukraine have very effective marines.

Ukraine aren't going to negotiate anything but a total withdrawal of Russian forces.

[theprestige]

Fixed positions are susceptible to artillery barrage. And Moscow's vaunted (mythical) depths of manpower and equipment won't mean much if the peninsula is cut off from the supply lines.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

Crimea is separated from the rest of Ukraine by only about two pinch points. It's easily defensible.

The only way I can see Ukraine taking Crimea back militarily is via a long siege after cutting the land bridge through Southern Ukraine and destroying the Kerch bridge.

My best guess is that there will be a negotiated settlement long before that happens in which Crimea will be ceded to Russia to give them something to save face with. There will be no settlement with Putin still in power though.

And if Ukraine rock up to those two pinch points, Russia can only supply Crimea through a bridge that Ukraine can blow up and boats that can be sunk more quickly than the bridge can be rebuilt or the ships replaced.

If the land route to Crimea is cut off, Russia's occupation is untenable; the fact that this was the case even in peace was one of the main reasons for the 2022 invasion.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

Are they, though? I've been hearing "Russia is running out X" for a year now and yet they're still pummelling Ukraine with shells and missiles.

Reports i've been hearing are Russian arty is getting less and less effective. Ukrainian counter-battery radar is both better, and their artillery is more accurate. On account of Russian stuff now being old barrels, and old ammo.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by BrettM

I like your thinking! This attrition thing works both ways. Why bother with a counter offensive when the winter weather can work for you? Just sit tight and watch as Nature culls the Russians in the trenches. Hypothermia, malnutrition, disease, alcohol and boredom will play havoc with the troops in the trenches.

Yeah, and Ukraine can rotate troops in and out more easily. First their home towns are much closer. Secondly they don't really have to worry about a highly motivated mainly volunteer force skedaddling and never being seen from again, at the earliest opportunity, unlike the Russians.

Ewww if Ukraine wants to get nasty, airdrop some vodka on the Rushkie trenches... maybe some of it is really ethylene alcohol?

[JoeMorgue]

Russia's supposed to be this superpower, equal to the US. A regional skirmish shouldn't deplete their supply lines at all in the long term.

The US was in Afghanistan for over 20 years and "When are we going to run out of stuff" was never really a major issue.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Russia's supposed to be this superpower, equal to the US. A regional skirmish shouldn't deplete their supply lines at all in the long term.

The US was in Afghanistan for over 20 years and "When are we going to run out of stuff" was never really a major issue.

I believe Russia has lost more tanks in individual days during this war than the USA lost in Afghanistan and both Iraq wars combined.... excluding blue on blue casualties anyways.

[MarkCorrigan]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Russia's supposed to be this superpower, equal to the US. A regional skirmish shouldn't deplete their supply lines at all in the long term.

The US was in Afghanistan for over 20 years and "When are we going to run out of stuff" was never really a major issue.

Because the US IS a superpower. Russia is Sierra Leone with rusting nukes.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by The Don

The media here has been saying things like this for well over a year now but there seems to be little evidence on the ground.

Russians appeared to be prepared to engage in human wave attacks to move forward and are contesting ever metre of ground in retreat.

This is not to say that Ukraine won't eventually prevail but I fear that hundreds of thousands (millions?) of casualties are still to come.

Russia seems to have plenty of poorly trained but adequately motivated conscripts and plenty of materiel.

You know, of course, undermining morale in the West helps nobody but Putin?
I really think , kat times, the Greeks had the right idea in getting rid of Cassandra...

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

Because the US IS a superpower. Russia is Sierra Leone with rusting nukes.

Or, in the late Johm McCain's words; Russia is a gas station with nukes ran by the Mafia.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by dudalb

You know, of course, undermining morale in the West helps nobody but Putin?
I really think , kat times, the Greeks had the right idea in getting rid of Cassandra...

It was the Trojans that got rid of Cassandra. And they were wrong. But The Don is no Cassandra. On the other hand, he's no Lord Haw-Haw, either.

[Doubt]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Fixed positions are susceptible to artillery barrage. And Moscow's vaunted (mythical) depths of manpower and equipment won't mean much if the peninsula is cut off from the supply lines.

Even more important is that the pinch points are on flat, open ground. If you look at it on Google maps, there is a factory located at one spot. That is the only good defensive terrain there.

Sine it is a pinch point, it will attract artillery into a narrow area making any sort of defense short lived.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Reports i've been hearing are Russian arty is getting less and less effective. Ukrainian counter-battery radar is both better, and their artillery is more accurate. On account of Russian stuff now being old barrels, and old ammo.

I've also seen a breakdown that suggests that Russia's artillery composition has notably changed as the war's progressed, as well. Their ammo stocks for their longer range tube artillery have likely been significantly depleted, for example, which has led to much more Russian emphasis on shorter range and less accurate mortar artillery, because they have significantly more ammo for those available. That, of course, has its visible consequences.

Originally Posted by dudalb

You know, of course, undermining morale in the West helps nobody but Putin?
I really think , kat times, the Greeks had the right idea in getting rid of Cassandra...

It's worth saying that there's a difference between seeking the realistic truth for the sake of meaningful evaluations and fans cheering on their preferred team regardless. The Don quite looks like he's trying to stay along the lines of the former and not the latter. Hence, this kind of response feels a little pointless here. It would be far more appropriate when directed at that WaPo article that sure looks like it's attempting to spin very, very good projections so that they sound like they're bad (anyone want to bet against it being a pro-Putin Republican spinner that did the describing?). When it comes to responding to The Don, on the other hand...

Originally Posted by The Don

The media here has been saying things like this for well over a year now but there seems to be little evidence on the ground.

I'd disagree, but with some qualifications. Morale, for example, obviously varies from group to group, varies over time, and is something that affects wars in a myriad of ways. Far more than just the extremes often daydreamed about and seldom seen. I'd suggest that there's a bunch of evidence of poor Russian morale having very real effects all along. For mines? Ukraine looks like it has already managed to pierce through what are likely the heaviest minefields of relevance. As for running out of men - yeah, it's hard to say how much they have left until they break.

Originally Posted by The Don

Russians appeared to be prepared to engage in human wave attacks to move forward and are contesting ever metre of ground in retreat.

Which hollows them out. They managed to take Bakhmut with human wave attacks, for example? Those kinds of losses are very unsustainable in the larger picture and may well have pretty well doomed their winter offensive otherwise. As relevant to the Southern Front, of course, if Ukraine finally breaks through, it'll likely be fairly decisive.

Originally Posted by The Don

This is not to say that Ukraine won't eventually prevail but I fear that hundreds of thousands (millions?) of casualties are still to come.

Entirely plausible, especially on the eastern fronts where Russian logistics aren't so strained. Even so, that's far from a certainty.

Originally Posted by The Don

Russia seems to have plenty of poorly trained but adequately motivated conscripts and plenty of materiel.

Ehh. It's more worth pointing to the more regular army members than the newer conscripts, I think, when it comes to actually effective combat forces. As for materiel, well... they've got a LOT less than they had at the start of this and Ukraine keeps getting upgrades to their materiel.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by MarkCorrigan

Because the US IS a superpower. Russia is Sierra Leone with rusting nukes.

Ah, now that's just cruel. Don't be dragging Sierra Leone down to Russia's level.

[Andy_Ross]

Originally Posted by Aridas

I've also seen a breakdown that suggests that Russia's artillery composition has notably changed as the war's progressed, as well. Their ammo stocks for their longer range tube artillery have likely been significantly depleted, for example, which has led to much more Russian emphasis on shorter range and less accurate mortar artillery, because they have significantly more ammo for those available. That, of course, has its visible consequences.




It's worth saying that there's a difference between seeking the realistic truth for the sake of meaningful evaluations and fans cheering on their preferred team regardless. The Don quite looks like he's trying to stay along the lines of the former and not the latter. Hence, this kind of response feels a little pointless here. It would be far more appropriate when directed at that WaPo article that sure looks like it's attempting to spin very, very good projections so that they sound like they're bad (anyone want to bet against it being a pro-Putin Republican spinner that did the describing?). When it comes to responding to The Don, on the other hand...



I'd disagree, but with some qualifications. Morale, for example, obviously varies from group to group, varies over time, and is something that affects wars in a myriad of ways. Far more than just the extremes often daydreamed about and seldom seen. I'd suggest that there's a bunch of evidence of poor Russian morale having very real effects all along. For mines? Ukraine looks like it has already managed to pierce through what are likely the heaviest minefields of relevance. As for running out of men - yeah, it's hard to say how much they have left until they break.



Which hollows them out. They managed to take Bakhmut with human wave attacks, for example? Those kinds of losses are very unsustainable in the larger picture and may well have pretty well doomed their winter offensive otherwise. As relevant to the Southern Front, of course, if Ukraine finally breaks through, it'll likely be fairly decisive.



Entirely plausible, especially on the eastern fronts where Russian logistics aren't so strained. Even so, that's far from a certainty.



Ehh. It's more worth pointing to the more regular army members than the newer conscripts, I think, when it comes to actually effective combat forces. As for materiel, well... they've got a LOT less than they had at the start of this and Ukraine keeps getting upgrades to their materiel.

Russian regular forces that started the war have all but been destroyed. The units have been in the field continuously and are largely made up of new conscripts.
I would think the morale of the regulars in the line is lower than that of the newer troops

[jeremyp]

Originally Posted by crescent

They've got a bit more time than that. Last year's Ukrainian counter offensives in Kharkiv and Kherson started to really move in mid/late September and ran into mid October.

It's painful to watch in real time, it feels so slow. And it might yet not succeed this year. But they've still got time.

I guess the best scenario is to have an offensive, take lots of territory back and then, just as your momentum runs out, have it piss down with rain so that any counter offensive has to deal with vast quantities of mud.

[Andy_Ross]

Apparently sales of Russian weapons abroad have fallen more than 70%. The volume of foreign contracts signed during the Army-2023 forum were $600 million as compared to contracts worth $2 billion signed at the same forum in 2021.

Probably two reasons for this, firstly the vast majority of Russian arms production is needed to replace losses, so there's no spare capacity to produce for export, and secondly the potential foreign buyers have seen how poorly Russian-made arms often perform on the battlefield.

[Andy_Ross]

Something I found out today is that there are no domestic producers of ball bearings in Russia.
That must limit production

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Andy_Ross

Something I found out today is that there are no domestic producers of ball bearings in Russia.
That must limit production

Bearing industry news site bearing-news.com says about 50% of Russian bearings are imported. Which isn't "no domestic producers" but is apparently still a big enough gap to cause problems for Russian industry.

https://www.bearing-news.com/bearing...rt-2-may-2022/

[SpitfireIX]

Ball bearings aren't the only kind of bearings. In fact, the article you linked shows roller bearings.

[theprestige]

In any case, domestic ball bearing production seems like it would be a basic feature of any industrialized nation, since at least the last hundred years. But apparently it's something Russia and China still struggle with.

[lobosrul5]

How easy it for them to just buy them from an intermediary though?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

How easy it for them to just buy them from an intermediary though?

Easy enough that it apparently never occurred to them to develop a domestic capability, as a matter of national security.

[Michel H]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Easy enough that it apparently never occurred to them to develop a domestic capability, as a matter of national security.

But, didn't you just point out that Russia and Belarus were able to manufacture about 50% of the bearings they buy?

Of course, they can still import from friendly or neutral countries.

There are limits to the West's attempted dictatorship on the world.

[MarkCorrigan]

The West's attempted dictatorship on the world.

Good grief, we get it vatnik, you're gullible enough to swallow Kremlin lies hook line and sinker.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Michel H

But, didn't you just point out that Russia and Belarus were able to manufacture about 50% of the bearings they buy?

Even that is causing them problems. And apparently they just can't do ball bearings at all.

Quote:

Of course, they can still import from friendly or neutral countries.

How many friendly or neutral countries can manufacture ball bearings of the quality and quantity that Moscow needs, and are willing to risk sanctions to do so.

Quote:

There are limits to the West's attempted dictatorship on the world.

A broad coalition of nations, spanning two continents, and trading with whichever partners they wish, is not a dictatorship. The real problem vatniks, tankies, and useful idiots must confront is that no matter how much they wish Moscow and Beijing could deliver a truly multipolar world, those states are neither up to the task, nor worthy of the responsibility. The world is better off, for keeping Russkiy Mir out of it. That's a fact, no matter how much you wish it were otherwise, and no matter how much you wish Putin could make it otherwise.