Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[antaeus]

Strike drones are vastly overrated in general. There's a reason why the footage around them has continuously decreased as the war has gone on, to the point where it's been near non-existent in May. Well actually, there are many reasons, but either way.

The real drone success story of this war is the small recon drone, and how proliferating them among your units vastly raises your situational awareness. Again, back to the basics, force structure and capabilities are what matter, fancy tech can only do so much on its own.

The optics that those literally at the front have are disturbing. But as you note, we do also see a lot of low angle very long range drone footage which is clearly from drones placed well back from danger.

[Vanoi]

https://www.newsweek.com/putin-fires...ntinue-1712053

A Moscow-based media source is claiming Putin has fired five generals. Don't recognize any of the names and it doesn't include Putin's top commander in Ukraine.

[PointOfViewGun]

5 million Euros were raised in crowdfunding in Lithuania to buy a Bayraktar drone. Baykar today announced that they would instead gift the drone and asked the 5 million Euros to go into humanitarian aid for Ukraine.



This sort of enforces my suspicion that Baykar have been supplying the Ukrainians with additional drones on top of the ones Ukraine already purchased.

[Love Mountain]

https://www.newsweek.com/putin-fires...ntinue-1712053

A Moscow-based media source is claiming Putin has fired five generals. Don't recognize any of the names and it doesn't include Putin's top commander in Ukraine.

All of these are interior security. They have been "retired" with the official reason being old age.

Personal analysis, these don't seem to be directly connected to Ukraine as the MVD (Ministry of Interior Matters) is not really at fault here, at least from an outsiders' perspective. The biggest failure of this operation should be on the SVR (Minister of Exterior Intelligence), but Naryshkin is clearly not being touched. Honestly, looking back at the original announcements of Russia's invasion, Naryshkin seemed to be a voice opposed to the invasion, so maybe the SVR actually advised Putin against this invasion.

Only the U.S. intelligence is likely to have actual details and rough picture of the decision making that happened and who's at fault. Perhaps the Ukraine matter really is an "interior" matter for Putin, and therefore the MVD really is to blame, but half of the generals aren't anywhere near Ukraine. If they were spies, it would make much more sense if they were arrested.

[Mithradates]

It has slowly crystallised in my mind that this shabby bull**** scenario is as if I claim Ludicius owes me some money (which he disputes), I assault him on the street and steal his wallet, and then the rest of you approach and tell me to give half his money back....but I can keep the Crimean wallet because my dad used to have one like it...and everyone knows i have an AR15 vat home and I keep hinting I will shoot up the neighbourhood if anyone annoys me too much.

Steal his wallet? No, no, no! Its a "Special Money Removal Operation"
He caused all of this, why does he need an Alarm Response Security Service? Why? To protect his home from his neighbours? No more home invasions? This is dangerous! He forced you to do it, you had no choice!

-

Some good news: Exclusive: Putin Treated for Cancer in April, U.S. Intelligence Report Says

The classified U.S. report says Putin seems to have re-emerged after undergoing treatment in April for advanced cancer, three U.S. intelligence leaders who have read the reports tell Newsweek.

The assessments also confirm that there was an assassination attempt on Putin's life in March, the officials say.

[conon394]

All of these are interior security. They have been "retired" with the official reason being old age.

Personal analysis, these don't seem to be directly connected to Ukraine as the MVD (Ministry of Interior Matters) is not really at fault here, at least from an outsiders' perspective. The biggest failure of this operation should be on the SVR (Minister of Exterior Intelligence), but Naryshkin is clearly not being touched. Honestly, looking back at the original announcements of Russia's invasion, Naryshkin seemed to be a voice opposed to the invasion, so maybe the SVR actually advised Putin against this invasion.

Only the U.S. intelligence is likely to have actual details and rough picture of the decision making that happened and who's at fault. Perhaps the Ukraine matter really is an "interior" matter for Putin, and therefore the MVD really is to blame, but half of the generals aren't anywhere near Ukraine. If they were spies, it would make much more sense if they were arrested.

Could be just shaking things up. Getting rid of anyone who not have a good loyalty record etc. Saying the wrong thing?

Also on second thought would they have been in charge of security and oversight for reserve equipment? That is not going so well. so might need some heads to roll.

[Love Mountain]

Could be just shaking things up. Getting rid of anyone who not have a good loyalty record etc. Saying the wrong thing?

Also on second thought would they have been in charge of security and oversight for reserve equipment? That is not going so well. so might need some heads to roll.

I don't know if they are, but the issues with Russian maintainence and logistics issues isn't really as big of an issue as portrayed, in my opinion. I mean sure, Western armies have a higher level of discipline, but we would see similar issues if we were in Russia's position. The biggest issue, is the oeprational planning for this invasion. It assumed a lot of unrealistic things, and crucially, the rank-and-file of the Russian Army genuinely did not understand they were going to war.

A lot of the issues we saw in the first 30 days of the war are really no longer present. If at least, Russia's mid-level officer corps knew what was going on, they could've definitely fixed the vast majority of these issues before the war started. In general, I think most people and analysts took away the wrong lessons from this war about combat in general, and Russia's military.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

One of the major reasons, again, in my opinion, for Russia's problems in this war, is a lack of contractor infantry. Contractors tend to fill in all of the important "trigger-puller" and "specialist" positions in the Russian army. That means that most of the infantry and mundane jobs, which are critical for any modern army, are filled in by conscripts. A 1 year conscript can learn how to be an infantry man, how to drive a truck, how to cook, how to dig latrines, just fine during his time in the military. Hence why conscripts fill these positions.

Learning how to operate a radar, Spetsnaz, VDV, or being a tank commander, are all roles that are much better served by a 2-5 year contract serviceman. This presents an obvious problem of when all of your conscripts cannot cross the border. This is why we heard some instances of Battalion Tactical Groups coming into Ukraine with only 400 men, as opposed to the full 800-1000. This contributes massively to the logistical and maintenance issues.

Again, this doesnt mean that the Russian Army is bad, or has bad capabilities, but it does reflect on the atrocious operational planning by the General Staff, or perhaps more likely, Putin himself. I can see Putin rejecting a sensible battle plan, and demand a new, hastily-drawn up one, on the eve of the invasion.

[Cyclops]

...
A lot of the issues we saw in the first 30 days of the war are really no longer present. If at least, Russia's mid-level officer corps knew what was going on, they could've definitely fixed the vast majority of these issues before the war started. In general, I think most people and analysts took away the wrong lessons from this war about combat in general, and Russia's military.
... this doesnt mean that the Russian Army is bad, or has bad capabilities, but it does reflect on the atrocious operational planning by the General Staff, or perhaps more likely, Putin himself. I can see Putin rejecting a sensible battle plan, and demand a new, hastily-drawn up one, on the eve of the invasion.

I'm grateful for the various aspects being explained plainly like this as I have only a very basic understanding of warfare, and in particular modern warfare. The narrative about Putin taking the reins is persuasive.

On the question raised above about the importance of tech, would it be fair to say the area where tech differences are most apparent is intel, especially tactical intel? It seems as though the Ukrainian's ability to respond quickly and appropriately to the multiple attacks in the first week stumped the Russian invasion unexpectedly bringing it down to a near peer war.

[Alastor]

An interesting article: https://consortiumnews.com/2022/06/0...nsortium-news/
It appears that the fight to quell dissenting views continues:

Consortium News is being “reviewed” by NewsGuard, a U.S. government-linked organization that is trying to enforce a narrative on Ukraine while seeking to discredit dissenting views.
The organization has accused Consortium News, begun in 1995 by former Associated Press investigative reporter Robert Parry, of publishing “false content” on Ukraine.
It calls “false” essential facts about Ukraine that have been suppressed in mainstream media: 1) that there was a U.S.-backed coup in 2014 and 2) that neo-Nazism is a significant force in Ukraine. Reporting crucial information left out of corporate media is Consortium News‘ essential mission.
But NewsGuard considers these facts to be “myths” and is demanding Consortium News “correct” these “errors.”

NewsGuard’s accusations against Consortium News that could potentially limit its readership and financial support must be seen in the context of the West’s war mania over Ukraine, about which dissenting voices are being suppressed. Three CN writers have been kicked off Twitter.
PayPal’s cancellation of Consortium News‘ account is an evident attempt to defund it for what is almost certainly the company’s view that CN violated its restrictions on “providing false or misleading information.” It cannot be known with 100 percent certainty because PayPal is hiding behind its reasons, but CN trades in information and nothing else.
CN supports no side in the Ukraine war but seeks to examine the causes of the conflict within its recent historical context, all of which are being whitewashed from mainstream Western media.

[Love Mountain]

On the question raised above about the importance of tech, would it be fair to say the area where tech differences are most apparent is intel, especially tactical intel? It seems as though the Ukrainian's ability to respond quickly and appropriately to the multiple attacks in the first week stumped the Russian invasion unexpectedly bringing it down to a near peer war.

I would say that Ukraine's initial tactical success ultimately came down just to competency in defensive actions. Moreover, a lot of the events in the beginning of the war have been very... sensationalized. It is fairly clear now, that the Russians have maintained control of the Hostomel airport throughout the entire time until they finally decided to retreat weeks later. That's an example.

Furthermore, Ukrainians are not really displaying superior technology or tactics in my opinion. This war is really more about Russia's inability to achieve their desired outcome, rather than a story of Ukraine's resistance ruining Russia's best efforts. That's a bit taboo to say I guess. Ukrainians have done well and executed defensive action competently, but they didn't strategically or tactically outsmart the Russians really. I mean, just go back to the beginning of the thread or maybe I'm mis-remembering whether it was a different thread. But right up until the invasion, Ukraine denied the need for mobilization and denied the possibility of an invasion. So no, their intelligence and military apparatus isn't particularly impressive. That's just my assessment of course, but you're unlikely to hear such an assessment from even the most sober military analyst like Kofman.

Finally on the tech side. Ukraine didn't have a lot of drones really, and that was a glaring weakness that Ukraine had to compensate for. Again, this stuff just isn't reported, but it was clear that while Ukrainians are quite good at holding defensive positions, as all entrenched infantry is, they really did have a lot of trouble mustering successful counter-offensives that could definitively dislodge Russian positions. They could certainly grind Russians back, but there's a reason why things were so back and forth until Russia's logistical capability finally ran out.

This issue has been steadily rectified and vastly improved as the campaign has gone on. US intelligence and ISR network is great, but on the tactical level, what's really made a difference is DJI drones. People forget that Russia has a very good satellite network themselves, as well as their own ISR assets. Furthermore, Russia had proliferated small drones like Orlan-10 on a battalion level. However, the reason why they ran into a lot of similar issues that Ukrainians did, is because despite these assets, what troops on the ground really need, is organic, real-time reconnaisance. This is why small DJI drones are such a big deal. Yeah, they have low range, yeah they're not as capable, but, on a company and squad level, these drones are invaluable.

And that's really what the drone story here is, in my opinion. Both Russia and Ukraine have recognized the importance of company and squad-level drone assets. Infantry attacks and holds ground. Infantry spots things for artillery. The "kill-chain" of recon fire is much shorter when it goes from Infantry Squad > Battalion Commander > Artillery. Because Infantry can spot things in real time. This is completely different from how Russia conceptualized this concept. Their Kill-chain consisted of Battalion-level recon company > Battalion Commander > Infantry > Battalion Commander > Artillery. The lag time there is much greater because the kill chain is longer.

Furthermore, Orlan-10 drones come in pairs for the recon company. That's two drones for an entire battalion or 1000 men. Instead, now Russia really has more like two Orlan 10s for Battalion level reconnaisance. 24+ smaller drones for the company, which are usually distributed in pairs to individual squads.

This is far more eyes on the battlefield, which is why the importance of artillery has only magnified as time has went on. So yeah, TB-2 footage is cool and all, and their early success was considered shocking when the Russian Army has so much anti-air capability, but what I see this as, is the vindication of Russia's doctrinal concepts like recon-fire. In terms of doctrine and concepts Russia definitely got a lot of things right.

[antaeus]

I think the glaring Russian failure, was the fact that the US published their plan, in some detail, months in advance, and they barely changed a letter of it, as if to double bluff. But they went even further: for fear of security breaches they didn't allow their soldiers the time to mentally prepare to go to war, some not even knowing they were at war when they were on Ukrainian soil, asking for directions, while filling their tanks up at suburban gas stations.

It doesn't take much outsmarting when you know what the enemy is going to do, before most of the enemy soldiers know they're going to do it. I'm surprised that the Russians held onto the initial invasion plan as long as they did.

Yes, I sensationalise. But I don't buy for a second any sense of "It was all going to plan until they decided to change the plan" there are plenty of published interviews with both soldiers and civilians in the north that illustrate just how "urgent" that need to change the plan was, and why. They were getting bled white.

But that aside, you're right, I don't think this is a story of Ukraine being much better than everyone gave them credit for. With hindsight their corrupt, but motivated and experienced force should have held their ground for long enough to hold of an onslaught. In that respect, Russia attempting a coup-de-grace or a fait-accompli with so few soldiers was imbecilic. It was almost irrelevant whether they were doctrinally or tactically sound, because they were strategically so flawed so as to render the best intentions and capabilities of their forces null.

[Nebaki]

5 million Euros were raised in crowdfunding in Lithuania to buy a Bayraktar drone. Baykar today announced that they would instead gift the drone and asked the 5 million Euros to go into humanitarian aid for Ukraine.



This sort of enforces my suspicion that Baykar have been supplying the Ukrainians with additional drones on top of the ones Ukraine already purchased.

So the Drone will go first to Lithuania and then they will decide what gonna happen to it next?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[reavertm]

I think we should stop overanalysing problems with Russian planning, logistics and execution of invasion.
Ukraine enjoyed success in repelling initial assault, but where we are now, war effort is entirely different and it favours Russians.
Ukraine can muster a lot of soldiers for sure, equipment may be arriving seemingly indefinitely from the 'West", but I'm not certain they can out-man Invader attrition-wise.
What is being shelled is Ukrainian territory exclusively and when they are not expected to (and are not being equipped by the West), to hit military targets within fascist territory, I just fear that more direct involvement of European armies is necessary to deter Russian state from treating Ukraine like its own backyard.
Putin and his acolytes have no regard for life of average Russian so I don't think he will be deterred exclusively by economic means or casualties.
I think more friendly diplomatic pressure needs to be put on China as they can make Russians withdraw with single phone call.
Russians are not really worth talking to unless they initiate the talks imho, their Medieval 2 Total War reputation is "deceitful" or "very untrustworthy" at best.

[Alastor]

The EU suffers, while Russia's account surplus keeps getting better and better: https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...vladimir-putin

Yay sanctions.

[reavertm]

Is this the only thing you quoted from this article? Why not the part where he says there is hope that new delivery of advanced rocket systems from US tips the scales. Or the part where he says economic blockade and even tougher sanctions may eventually force Putin to abandon Ukraine.
Negotiated settlement is possible when both sides want to negotiate. Russia seems to want Ukrainian surrender only. Blame Putin for not wanting to negotiate Russian withdrawal from Ukraine, don't blame sanctions. It's silly and repetitive.

[Alastor]

Is this the only thing you quoted from this article? Why not the part where he says there is hope that new delivery of advanced rocket systems from US tips the scales. Or the part where he says economic blockade and even tougher sanctions may eventually force Putin to abandon Ukraine.
Negotiated settlement is possible when both sides want to negotiate. Russia seems to want Ukrainian surrender only. Blame Putin for not wanting to negotiate Russian withdrawal from Ukraine, don't blame sanctions. It's silly and repetitive.

Because that's a "hope" and a "may", what I quoted is a "happening already".
I don't see Ukraine wanting to negotiate either and no, blaming the sanctions for the damage they are doing to our economies is not silly and repetitive, on the contrary it is evidently correct. However you may like to spin it. Even worse they don't seem to vex Putin all that much, not yet at least and probably not for a while.

[Love Mountain]

I think we should stop overanalysing problems with Russian planning, logistics and execution of invasion.
Ukraine enjoyed success in repelling initial assault, but where we are now, war effort is entirely different and it favours Russians.
Ukraine can muster a lot of soldiers for sure, equipment may be arriving seemingly indefinitely from the 'West", but I'm not certain they can out-man Invader attrition-wise.
What is being shelled is Ukrainian territory exclusively and when they are not expected to (and are not being equipped by the West), to hit military targets within fascist territory, I just fear that more direct involvement of European armies is necessary to deter Russian state from treating Ukraine like its own backyard.
Putin and his acolytes have no regard for life of average Russian so I don't think he will be deterred exclusively by economic means or casualties.
I think more friendly diplomatic pressure needs to be put on China as they can make Russians withdraw with single phone call.
Russians are not really worth talking to unless they initiate the talks imho, their Medieval 2 Total War reputation is "deceitful" or "very untrustworthy" at best.

Ukraine is favored in a long-term matchup. Russia has a shortage of troops and they've been suffering from a shortage of troops. Russia will need to either declare a state of war, or they need to find other ways to win... relatively quickly.

Of course, there is more to the military effort than such simplistic factors. The bigger issue is whether Ukraine's population and economy can withstand a few more months of this. After a full year of fighting, and once the full destruction truly sets into Ukrainian society, that's when we'll really see whether Ukraine has the mettle to continue this fight.

Peace will always look preferable to the average person, especially one who's a victim of war.

The EU suffers, while Russia's account surplus keeps getting better and better: https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...vladimir-putin

Yay sanctions.

There's more to life than money. How high Russian foreign reserves get isn't particularly relevant. The bigger deal is getting cut off from the largest economies of the world, and that's not bound to change anytime soon. United States and EU comprise 40% of the world economy. If you add in other allies like Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Canada (who's economy is just as large as Russia's), etc, that probably adds up to another 10-20% of the global GDP. Meaning Russia is sanctioned by half of the world. The technologically advanced half.

[z3n]

Is this the only thing you quoted from this article? Why not the part where he says there is hope that new delivery of advanced rocket systems from US tips the scales. Or the part where he says economic blockade and even tougher sanctions may eventually force Putin to abandon Ukraine.
Negotiated settlement is possible when both sides want to negotiate. Russia seems to want Ukrainian surrender only. Blame Putin for not wanting to negotiate Russian withdrawal from Ukraine, don't blame sanctions. It's silly and repetitive.

This newest western media led narrative is really strange about the four HIMARS launchers USA is giving. There's no realistic chance those 4 HIMARS launchers will change things significantly. Do you see the hundreds of Iskanders Russia uses changing the field of battle (or even 100 more Iskanders than the 4 HIMARS)? Those Iskanders have a way longer range and pretty good accuracy (2 CEP for the hundreds of Russian systems vs 5 CEP from the 4 American systems), and the ability to shoot hypersonic missiles.


Do you see the Iskanders singlehandedly crushing Ukraine? Imo it's the Russian artillery as a whole. The analysis we have posted in the thread by Love Mountain about the target acquisition drones Russian troops are using in conjunction with the relentless artillery barrage lines up with the RAND analysis suggesting Russias artillery is a significant threat, even to USAs entire artillery arsenal (in RANDs analysis if USA sent every artillery piece they had Russian artillery would outmatch USAs).

[Ludicus]

The four (HIMARS) will not make a substantial difference to the course of the war. In fact, according to a CNN Portugal military expert, they are already in Europe.
-----
For the U.S., this war is about weakening Russia in the long run, militarily and economically. No matter how long this war goes on, the American economy will suffer very little. The US industry is interested in selling weapons and liquefied natural gas to Europe, which is not enough to satisfy the needs of the European industries, namely the German industry, and which is much more expensive than the gas delivered directly from the producer to the consumer.
On the Western side, there are different perceptions of this war.
Europe's biggest economies - Germany, France, and Italy - all wish to see a negotiated solution. European countries fear the gradual and inevitable decline of their economies. Poland and the Baltic countries seem not to care.

What is America's end-game for the war in Ukraine? Financial Times

behind the confident rhetoric, there is much less clarity about what Washington actually believes can and should happen in Ukraine. There is little detail about what a strategic defeat for Russia would actually look like or what sort of territorial settlement the US might end up encouraging the Ukrainians to accept. Some analysts say that the administration may be keeping elements of its war aims deliberately vague… it is trying to hold together an international coalition in support of Ukraine that includes some European allies who worry loudly and openly about the impact of a long protracted war, both on Ukraine and its society and on their own economies.In recent weeks, the leaders of France, Germany and Italy have all made statements encouraging some sort of ceasefire and negotiated settlement. “The Europeans wish they knew what was America’s end game plan, because the idea of Russia losing — or not winning — has not been defined,” says Stefano Stefanini, Italy’s former ambassador to Nato.

Russia is winning the economic war - The Guardian.

The perverse effects of sanctions means rising fuel and food costs for the rest of the world – and fears are growing of a humanitarian catastrophe. Sooner or later, a deal must be made... economic reality suggests only one thing: sooner or later a deal will be struck.
a result of the war, western economies face a period of slow or negative growth and rising inflation – a return to the stagflation of the 1970s. Central banks – including the Bank of England – feel they have to respond to near double-digit inflation by raising interest rates. Unemployment is set to rise. Other European countries face the same problems, if not more so, since most of them are more dependent on Russian gas than is the UK…economic reality suggests only one thing: sooner or later a deal will be struck.

How Does It End? Fissures Emerge Over What Constitutes Victory in Ukraine - New York Times.

…the emerging fissures about what to do next are notable.
At a moment when the U.S. refers to Russia as a pariah state that needs to be cut off from the world economy, others, largely in Europe, are warning of the dangers of isolating and humiliating Mr. Putin. That argument is playing out as American ambitions expand.
NATO and the European Union have been surprisingly united so far in supporting Ukraine. But that unity is under strain…And the Europeans are not even trying, at least for now, to cut off their imports of Russian gas. (1)
France, Italy and Germany, the biggest and richest countries of the bloc, are anxious about a long war or one that ends frozen in a stalemate, and nervous of the possible damage to their own economies.Those countries also think of Russia as an inescapable neighbor that cannot be isolated forever.

(1) Making the transition from Russian natural gas to other suppliers or moving to alternative energy sources would require four to five years. Martin Brudermüller, the head of the world's biggest chemical corporation, German-based BASF, said it was an undeniable fact that "Russian gas is the foundation of German industry's global competitiveness", in an interview with German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. When asked if Germany wasn't fueling Putin's war with its energy imports from Russia, he said a ban on those imports "will destroy the well-being of Germans." BASF-Chef warnt vor Zerstörung der Volkswirtschaft - FAZ.NET

Do we want to deliberately destroy our entire economy? We should be aware that, for example, liquefied gas deliveries from the US will lead to significantly higher energy prices and cannot be implemented at the push of a button - a challenge for the competitiveness of German and European industry

[AqD]

Europe's biggest economies - Germany, France, and Italy - all wish to see a negotiated solution. European countries fear the gradual and inevitable decline of their economies. Poland and the Baltic countries seem not to care.

Germany was the one who kept increasing reliance on Russian gas.
France was the one who refused to accept Georgia before they were invaded by Russia.

Perhaps they shouldn't lead EU politics anymore, not until Russian collaborators are kicked out.

Poland and the Baltic countries seem not to care.

Because unlike spineless German and French politicians, they do value freedom and long term prospect.