Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion

[stefan92]

Yes, true.

But when talking about "major part of each countries defense capability", we should keep in mind that most of these countries have zero defense needs at this moment. Nobody is going to invade Spain, or Germany, or Canada. Their defense capabilities are needed in Ukraine, that's where the common defense is today. The best defense for Spain or Germany is to make sure that Ukraine wins.

That's oversimplifying the reality. No NATO or EU member should send all it's capabilities to Ukraine because the borders need to be defended. We need a strong military presence in the Baltic states or Poland, and that's why German troops are stationed there. And they need to be fully trained and operational. That's impossible if you don't have enough equipment at home.

 

[The United]

At the moment, there is largely stalemate across Ukraine. In some areas e.g. Bakhmut, it is clear that Russia are throwing bodies into the meatgrinder to make marginal gains. I imagine Ukraine casualties here are pretty high, given there isn't a huge amount of defence from artillery and Russia have so many men there. However I think it is extremely obvious that attacking a good defensive position with unsupported and inexperienced troops will lead to a significantly higher casualty rate for Russia. There are plenty of videos supporting this, with Russians advancing in open fields and being easily taken out.

There is clearly a reason why Ukraine needs tanks. With Russia dug in and Ukraine unable to break defensive lines with the current weather/ weaponry, Russia can afford to push their soldiers into a smaller number of positions for tactical, marginal gains. Breaking through less-defended Russian lines would force Russia to reassign soldiers to other areas, blunting their ability to attack Bakhmut, and given what we’ve seen earlier in the war significant Russian retreat.

I think you're overestimating Russia's position. According to pretty much every expert, the current war is a protracted war of attrition, with some unknowns around future Russian air power and Western government resilience. Bahmut may fall, but this line is moving metres rather than miles each day, and so a month worth of gains could be wiped out with a single, effective counter-attack. After giving Ukraine further NATO weaponry (i.e. tanks and air defence), which surely is the current base case, most experts expect Ukraine to seize significant momentum.

That doesn't mean the war will be over quickly. But it should ramp up the pressure on Putin from Russia's far right, whilst giving Ukraine a significant morale boost (and vice-versa for Russia).

It is not about overestimating the Russians. It is about the attrition war that everyone talked about which concerns me. The UKR does not have much of advantage in that especially if the "West" started becoming disinterested in long term.

 

[The United]

Yes they stablized their line but already lost a lot of ground in Kherson and before that in Harkiv region. Also they're pushing in Bakhmut but cant get through. Not to mention, as it was already mentioned, only big city they occupied is Mariupol.
Of course question need to be asked about UA losses and is it sustainable, how much longer can they hold in Bakhmut and how big of a toll it will take on their forces on the whole.

I said that they stabilized their line AFTER they lost those and gained some (minimal) grounds. It does not matter how much they are losing which they don't care but it has big impact on the UKR forces as well.

 

[VorZakone]

The Army’s top acquisition official says production of the 155-millimeter shells badly needed by Kyiv will rise to 90,000 a month in two years.

The Army’s decision to expand its artillery production is the clearest sign yet that the United States plans to back Ukraine no matter how long the war continues

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[The United]

Yes Bakhmut might well fall in the next few weeks, it might not, we've been here before. If it does, it'd be one hell of a stretch to call that a Russian victory. What happens then? They expend another ~40k men trying to break the next defensive line a few km up the road? Bring it on.

Bakhmut does matter, Ukraine obviously would rather not give up any ground and its reportedly a well defensible position, but its also just 40 km2 of abandoned rubble. It's certainly not as important as some are making it out to be. Media have to print something and aside from German shenanigans, this is the only thing going on so the exposure blows it out of proportion a bit in the minds of the casual observer.

Still, I find it very reassuring that despite it being the focal point of Russia's offensive, their inability to take this relative speck of land after so long and at so much cost, can't be seen as anything other than a spectacular failure and sign of their impotence, whether they finally take it or not.

No one will call it their victory for that alone. But, what I'm trying to emphasize here is that those frontal assaults are also wasting UKR combat capability, and they can't compete in terms of troop losses with the Russians. People keep focusing on the Russian losses with exaggerated numbers while ignoring the fact that the UKR is suffering a lot for itself, which is a concern for this whole war and limits their own counteroffensives elsewhere. There are noises coming from the U.S. that they should change their tactics because it is becoming a bit ridiculous.

Also, there is an article on CNN about how UKR found the Wagner army of convicts not as easy to fight against as people thought.

 

[VorZakone]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[VorZakone]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[VorZakone]

Twitter translate:
"I don't see a diplomatic coup by Scholz here, but rather the USA throwing a life preserver, grudgingly, to pull the chancellor out of the self-made trap of their own dogmas. I think Germany will also get a receipt for this."

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[MoskvaRed]

No one will call it their victory for that alone. But, what I'm trying to emphasize here is that those frontal assaults are also wasting UKR combat capability, and they can't compete in terms of troop losses with the Russians. People keep focusing on the Russian losses with exaggerated numbers while ignoring the fact that the UKR is suffering a lot for itself, which is a concern for this whole war and limits their own counteroffensives elsewhere. There are noises coming from the U.S. that they should change their tactics because it is becoming a bit ridiculous.

Also, there is an article on CNN about how UKR found the Wagner army of convicts not as easy to fight against as people thought.

UKR is fighting for its existence. The Russian forces are fighting an imperialist war of conquest and are composed of ethnic minorities, those too poor to get a medical certificate plus mercenaries. This is not WWII and “Russians” (most of whom are not from the heartland) will have limited appetite to run into machine guns. Once the next wave of Western armaments arrive, the recent small gains made by Russian banzai charges will be reversed.

 

[VorZakone]

UKR is fighting for its existence. The Russian forces are fighting an imperialist war of conquest and are composed of ethnic minorities, those too poor to get a medical certificate plus mercenaries. This is not WWII and “Russians” (most of whom are not from the heartland) will have limited appetite to run into machine guns. Once the next wave of Western armaments arrive, the recent small gains made by Russian banzai charges will be reversed.

We don't know that yet though. But the support obviously has to continue to increase Ukraine's odds.

 

[The United]

UKR is fighting for its existence. The Russian forces are fighting an imperialist war of conquest and are composed of ethnic minorities, those too poor to get a medical certificate plus mercenaries. This is not WWII and “Russians” (most of whom are not from the heartland) will have limited appetite to run into machine guns. Once the next wave of Western armaments arrive, the recent small gains made by Russian banzai charges will be reversed.

Obviously, and they need to come a bit faster. Otherwise, there is a risk that UKR (and the 'West') will get some kind of fatigue soon, fighting for its existence or not.

 

[MoskvaRed]

We don't know that yet though. But the support obviously has to continue to increase Ukraine's odds.

I think we can assume Russians are not as fired up as in WWII. They have not been attacked and I assume their enthusiasm to advance into gunfire is limited. Give Ukraine the right artillery and tanks and i believe they can fight back the imperialist attacks.

 

[Semper Fudge]

Obviously, and they need to come a bit faster. Otherwise, there is a risk that UKR (and the 'West') will get some kind of fatigue soon, fighting for its existence or not.

I mean, no. This obviously won't happen.

 

[11101]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

There will be valuable intelligence coming from all this recent heavy weaponry. Almost none of it has fought against a modern enemy or in this environment before and all the countries providing it will be looking to see how it performs.

 

[Simbo]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

A vote passed today in Switzerland but still needs to be ratified by parliament apparently. Would not break their neutrality rules as arms would go via 3rd countries.

 

[RedSky]

Sending Abrams into Ukraine is huge. Clearing gearing up Ukraine ready for a counter offensive in late Spring.

 

[nimic]

Norway can give a maximum of 8 tanks, so not exactly a dragon's hoard. Though this probably accelerates the process of buying new tanks, which was put on hold after some parts of the military thought maybe the tank isn't the best possible use of money for the modern defence of Norway.

 

[The United]

I mean, no. This obviously won't happen.

It will if both sides are locked in a stalemated battle of attrition. It is why the momentum is important, and it is why the "West" is providing more weapons to the UKR to initiate soon. They need "Kharkiv counter-offensive success" to convince their people more than "Bakhmut's defense is holding but has been in an extremely difficult condition for months."

It was not too long ago that some noises were coming from the "West" to put pressure on the UKR to negotiate. Only Zelensky's visit to the U.S. Congress kind of shut it down, with the U.S. supporting and pushing others to provide more weapons. And everyone knows that the United States' continued support is heavily dependent on the 2024 election. At least, nothing is certain after this year with the GOP controlling the house.

 

[Carolina Red]

There will be valuable intelligence coming from all this recent heavy weaponry. Almost none of it has fought against a modern enemy or in this environment before and all the countries providing it will be looking to see how it performs.

Abrams has definitely fought against T-72s. And it cleaned feckin house

 

[Sir Matt]

Abrams has definitely fought against T-72s. And it cleaned feckin house

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Medina_Ridge

So the Americans (with some British help) destroyed 160 Iraqi tanks, including T72s, while losing one Bradley. In the second battle, they took out 186 Iraqi tanks to 4 losses.

Obviously, it's not just the tanks that determined this outcome, but, if the Ukrainians can be even half as effective as the Americans were, they'll be in good shape.

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

Obviously, it's not just the tanks that determined this outcome, but, if the Ukrainians can be even half as effective as the Americans were, they'll be in good shape.

There is one past battle that the Ukrainians can draw inspiration from since it is about how a smaller tank force held the line against a much bigger attacking force, which was drilled by the Soviet/Russian doctrine.

The Valley of Tears (1973)

The first task for the Ukrainians will be to withstand what the Russians will throw at them (expectedly) soon. If that step is accomplished, then the Ukrainians can think about moving armored forces forward. Considering that the Syrians lost between 260 and 300 Syrian T-55s/T-64s compared to 60-80 Israeli Centurion tanks lost back then, I think we can expect the tank casualty ratio will be much more favorable for the Ukrainians in a similar context because of the more recent Western technology as well.

 

[4bars]

But maybe then russia will go full force on air superiority capabilties taking more risks.

Then tanks will be worthless

Also, all this iraquis tabks pr0bably they were totaled by not american tanks

 

[sport2793]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Medina_Ridge

So the Americans (with some British help) destroyed 160 Iraqi tanks, including T72s, while losing one Bradley. In the second battle, they took out 186 Iraqi tanks to 4 losses.

Obviously, it's not just the tanks that determined this outcome, but, if the Ukrainians can be even half as effective as the Americans were, they'll be in good shape.

Americans also had air superiority though, something Ukraine doesn't have. The tanks by themselves can be defeated if not used properly.

 

[RedDevilQuebecois]

But maybe then russia will go full force on air superiority capabilties taking more risks.

Then tanks will be worthless

Also, all this iraquis tabks pr0bably they were totaled by not american tanks

You're kidding yourself. Russia hasn't deployed shit to try attaining air superiority in several months.

Americans also had air superiority though, something Ukraine doesn't have. The tanks by themselves can be defeated if not used properly.

I see the scenario of the Valley of Tears repeating because it's closer to the current context, where it's down to tanks vs. tans because neither side has a form of air superiority. The quality of the equipment and the crews' training will matter here, but I think Ukraine will be in a position to succeed just like the Israelis did.

 

[Carolina Red]

Americans also had air superiority though, something Ukraine doesn't have. The tanks by themselves can be defeated if not used properly.

73 Easting was fought in between a driving rain storm, heavy fog, and a sand storm. Air power wasn’t a factor.

 

[Carolina Red]

Also, all this iraquis tabks pr0bably they were totaled by not american tanks

What?

 

[4bars]

You're kidding yourself. Russia hasn't deployed shit to try attaining air superiority in several months.

i know. Im just saying that maybe, with the perspective of losing the war bc maybe, ukraine will attain ground superiority due to the NATO tanks, they will go all out for air superiority no matter what. It is just my pure speculation. Based in nothing. But war is about adaptability and reassessing situations

 

[4bars]

What?

Sorry, was out and wrote too fast. I meant not american tanks but from planes or others, probably not many tanks vs tanks battles, but i say that without knowing anything. Just why risk equipement nd lives, when you can do it easily in another way. But again based in nothing. Just an opinion. You might know much more what happened there

 

[Real Name]

I said that they stabilized their line AFTER they lost those and gained some (minimal) grounds. It does not matter how much they are losing which they don't care but it has big impact on the UKR forces as well.

I think if they're losing that much manpower as they seemingly are it does matter in the long run.

 

[stefan92]

i know. Im just saying that maybe, with the perspective of losing the war bc maybe, ukraine will attain ground superiority due to the NATO tanks, they will go all out for air superiority no matter what. It is just my pure speculation. Based in nothing. But war is about adaptability and reassessing situations

Maybe they would, but I feel like the Russians missed the time for that. Too many air defense systems have been pledged and delivered due to their ongoing missile attacks, it should be almost impossible for Russia to operate their air force in a truly effective way.

 

[4bars]

Maybe they would, but I feel like the Russians missed the time for that. Too many air defense systems have been pledged and delivered due to their ongoing missile attacks, it should be almost impossible for Russia to operate their air force in a truly effective way.

Yeah, that is what i was thinking all along. Maybe it is good that ukraine had time to receive, be trained and deploy air defences and now be able to be trained with gtound equipment. All at once could be impossible maybe

Who knows the strategy that is being followed and what tgey let us know or make us believe

 

[11101]

Abrams has definitely fought against T-72s. And it cleaned feckin house

Iraqi T72s were anything but modern.

 

[stefan92]

Iraqi T72s were anything but modern.

True, but what Russia currently fields is only partially better. They even field T-62s now.

 

[11101]

True, but what Russia currently fields is only partially better. They even field T-62s now.

Probably why they're so pissed about these latest developments. They're going to have to send more of their best equipment because these Western tanks will steamroll the junk they've been getting away with so far.


The other side to my original point is the environment. M1s have only ever fought in the desert, and Challenger 2s have only had minor deployments elsewhere. It will be useful learning.

 

[The United]

I think if they're losing that much manpower as they seemingly are it does matter in the long run.

Again, people talk about the Russian losses in manpower while ignoring the UKR losses in manpower, which are kept secret, but from the little hints we get around, they are not too far away from the Russians in that sense. This becomes an issue if the Russians keep supplying those canon folders, which does not seem to slow down at all at this moment, while the UKR will naturally have less manpower. We have talked about the possible Russian collapse with those tactics for months, and they are still here, gaining (minimal) ground in certain areas where they use it. In those such as the twin cities in the summer and the Bakhmut area now, the UKR were/are losing triple digits manpower a day themselves. Not to mentioned the Russians still have more artillery power than the UKR according to some sources.

I feel good about the UKR getting armored vehicles (hopefully enough) to use some kind of maneuvering tactic instead of head-on defending against the Russian frontal assaults over and over due the lack of necessary equipment to do something else.

 

[Real Name]

Again, people talk about the Russian losses in manpower while ignoring the UKR losses in manpower, which are kept secret, but from the little hints we get around, they are not too far away from the Russians in that sense. This becomes an issue if the Russians keep supplying those canon folders, which does not seem to slow down at all at this moment, while the UKR will naturally have less manpower. We have talked about the possible Russian collapse with those tactics for months, and they are still here, gaining (minimal) ground in certain areas where they use it. In those such as the twin cities in the summer and the Bakhmut area now, the UKR were/are losing triple digits manpower a day themselves. Not to mentioned the Russians still have more artillery power than the UKR according to some sources.

I feel good about the UKR getting armored vehicles (hopefully enough) to use some kind of maneuvering tactic instead of head-on defending against the Russian frontal assaults.

I dont think they defend head on in the sense of throwing people out there to defend like Russians do without any support. From what I've seen in some videos and they're using vasious technique and wepons to defend. Of course given they dont have as many forces in the back as Russians it can become an issue, they need to be smart about how and what to defend and at what cost. I dont think people are ignoring their losses but that its not known what the losses are that's true.
But despite the fact they're throwing bodies out there even for Russians they will be a limit. Not to mention they're throwing it all on Bakhmut and gain a km or 2 per day and then lose it.

 

[The United]

I dont think they defend head on in the sense of throwing people out there to defend like Russians do without any support. From what I've seen in some videos and they're using vasious technique and wepons to defend. Of course given they dont have as many forces in the back as Russians it can become an issue, they need to be smart about how and what to defend and at what cost. I dont think people are ignoring their losses but that its not known what the losses are that's true.
But despite the fact they're throwing bodies out there even for Russians they will be a limit. Not to mention they're throwing it all on Bakhmut and gain a km or 2 per day and then lose it.

They have to defend head-on once they start losing ground in their outer defense lines, which has happened in those areas I mentioned. Even if the Russians are losing tons of their men, in that situation, the UKR will have to fight back head-on or they will have to retreat, as they did from those twin cities in the summer. As long as they try to hold on, their losses will be mounting as well. The Russians will hit a limit, and when they get there, it will devastate the UKR forces as well. We keep making fun of the Russians' World War I or II tactics, but they cost a lot for the UKR, and it is a tough pill to swallow because the UKR will need all the manpower to push the Russians all the way back.

We have seen videos of how the UKR operates, hardly from the Russian side, which go back to the point that we are not exactly seeing everything. As I mentioned earlier, the UKR report stated how tough it was to fight against the Russian convicts in those areas, as opposed to how we were making fun of them here online.

 

[Rajma]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Rajma]

Probably why they're so pissed about these latest developments. They're going to have to send more of their best equipment because these Western tanks will steamroll the junk they've been getting away with so far.


The other side to my original point is the environment. M1s have only ever fought in the desert, and Challenger 2s have only had minor deployments elsewhere. It will be useful learning.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Real Name]

They have to defend head-on once they start losing ground in their outer defense lines, which has happened in those areas I mentioned. Even if the Russians are losing tons of their men, in that situation, the UKR will have to fight back head-on or they will have to retreat, as they did from those twin cities in the summer. As long as they try to hold on, their losses will be mounting as well. The Russians will hit a limit, and when they get there, it will devastate the UKR forces as well. We keep making fun of the Russians' World War I or II tactics, but they cost a lot for the UKR, and it is a tough pill to swallow because the UKR will need all the manpower to push the Russians all the way back.

We have seen videos of how the UKR operates, hardly from the Russian side, which go back to the point that we are not exactly seeing everything. As I mentioned earlier, the UKR report stated how tough it was to fight against the Russian convicts in those areas, as opposed to how we were making fun of them here online.

But in UA videos you can see how Russians operate too. As for defending that's what I meant of being smart and retreating to the next defensive line when it's not feesible to defend and lose men.
I dont know what you meant about making fun of anyone, war is never fun let alone making one on the internet. Attacking force always loses more men, we dont know whats the ratio and of course it costs UA deerly but its safe to say Russian tactics of just throwing men is absolute madness.