(Thread IKs:
fatherboxx)
|
Antigravitas posted:A nuclear-only deterrence also means you have no escalation ladder to show how serious you are getting. It is really no deterrence at all; someone is going to call your bluff eventually and then you're hosed, because it's not a deterrence if it fails to deter. Conventional deterrence is really non-negotiable.
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 14:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:34 |
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Military action almost always winds down in winter. I don't think I've seen any aggregate numbers from the past 5 months of the counteroffensive. I've seen estimates from the initial Ukrainian spring push and from the recent Avdiivka offensive by Russia, but not totals. Are there any reliable OSINT spreadsheets or estimates from Western intelligence services to compare the numbers?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 14:46
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:I don't think I've seen any aggregate numbers from the past 5 months of the counteroffensive. I've seen estimates from the initial Ukrainian spring push and from the recent Avdiivka offensive by Russia, but not totals. Are there any reliable OSINT spreadsheets or estimates from Western intelligence services to compare the numbers?       From here based on Oryx numbers
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 14:59
|
|
|
DTurtle posted:From here based on Oryx numbers Thanks! Would it be right to assume that human losses are proportional? I think for Ukraine, that might be the biggest pain point after almost 2 years of war.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 15:04
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:Thanks! Would it be right to assume that human losses are proportional? I think for Ukraine, that might be the biggest pain point after almost 2 years of war. Quoting an article linked on Wikipedia from the the middle of August by US sources: quote:Russia’s military casualties are approaching 300,000, the officials claimed, with as many as 120,000 killed in action.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 15:16
|
|
|
Yeah it’s very difficult to get a meaningful estimate of casualties for each side - and particularly for Russia. Russian offenses have been very infantry-heavy, and there’s hardly any medical support available. Even if a wounded soldier does survive, they can be expected to demobilize if permitted, since Russians don’t want to be there. On the other hand, Ukrainians have relied more on their equipment, and the vehicles have tended to be more effective at keeping the troops alive. And there’s been a lot of stories about wounded Ukrainians returning to battle once they heal. On the other hand, Ukrainians conceal their mobilization and casualty reports and there have been indications that their troops are beginning to tire (meaning there’s a lack of troops available to reinforce or rotate the frontline). The Russian have been concealing their mobilization numbers and routinely conflate statistics in order to reduce the perception of their losses. For example there was a brief disclosure by one Russian deputy minister that their prison populations have plummeted from 420,000 prior to the invasion to 266,000 - implying that 100,000 prisoners have been effectively conscripted into uniform in addition to the some 50,000 that joined Wagner. But those numbers, if believed, aren’t typically included in the overall force mobilization or casualty reports. There’s so many different types of Russian soldiers, and so little oversight, that it’s very easy for them to curate the statistics as they please. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/10/26/russia-prison-population-convicts-war/ On the whole, there is likely a correlation between verifiable equipment losses and human casualties. But it’s difficult to really tell how strong that correlation actually is. Kaal fucked around with this message at 15:52 on Nov 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 15:49
|
|
|
Russia is approaching or is past full employment, and was already operating with a demographic crisis in the military age males population---because of the collapse of the Soviet Union---prior to the war. Any taking from that population really, really hurts them down the line, and hurts them further because it compounds into lower population when we are 20 years down the line from this conflict. Right now, this has mostly been limited to marginalized populations outside of the population and political centers of Moscow and St. Petersburg, e.g. Buryatia. But, as others have said, it is anyone's guess of the true amount of losses in Russia's population. The Moscow Times has some estimates based on social media and regional funerals, etc; but impossible to put an exact number down. And that's just war casualties, not counting those who have fled because of conscription, which is a ball the Russian MoD keeps seemingly kicking down the road. Russia also needs a significant amount of internal troops, a problem Ukraine doesn't seem to face. Russia is facing a true crisis in men and materiel, when it comes to artillery barrels, artillery ammunition, trucks, its just not as apparent since their industry and war fighting was already geared toward pushing artillery, so they have a larger capacity to build out such resources. Ukraine seems to have shifted back to an attrition-based strategy, which could lead to unexpected gains. Unfortunately, media framing has made the war into a battle for territory, which Ukraine is still unable to accomplish, even if they are grinding out Russia's material and population advantage. Although the losses at Avdiivka show how much pain the Russian state can endure without much consequence.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 15:56
|
|
|
What was the end result of this hideous god drat mobile crematoriums? Impression I got was the point of those was to make warcriming evidence go away and conceal KIA stats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 16:02
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:"Sir, I have no quarrel with you, but I warn you in advance and with all possible clarity that if you invade me, I shall answer at the only credible level for my scale, which is the nuclear level. Whatever your defenses, you shan't prevent at least some of my missiles from reaching your home and causing the devastation that you are familiar with. So, renounce your endeavour and let us remain good friends." Okay, I'll play this silly game for a post or two. If one soldier from another country places one foot upon a square meter of land in this hypothetical, nukes-only country, does that country initiate nuclear holocaust and mutual-assured destruction? Nukes-only are not a reasonable deterrent for any-and-all infractions. We might as well say, "The penalty for the breach of any crime, howsoever small, is death."
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 16:02
|
|
|
nukes are good for preventing WWII-style gotterdammerung scenarios where the victorious side flattens all your cities with impunity and then occupies your country but definitely not localized wars like we've seen in the Balkans and in Ukraine
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 16:10
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Okay, I'll play this silly game for a post or two. If one soldier from another country places one foot upon a square meter of land in this hypothetical, nukes-only country, does that country initiate nuclear holocaust and mutual-assured destruction? Nukes-only are not a reasonable deterrent for any-and-all infractions. We might as well say, "The penalty for the breach of any crime, howsoever small, is death."  That quote's from a french admiral. They knew perfectly well how uneven the conventional balance would be, and didn't want to rely on the US, so they had a gently caress around and find out nuclear posture. The actual plan included tac nukes as "dernière sommation", but they had no intention to sit back and get defeated conventionally. Of *course* no one's got a nukes-first-and-only defense policy. But there's degrees on the other end of the scale.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 16:10
|
|
|
Or more realistically, what does a normal country do when aircraft violate its airspace? It scrambles some fighters and escorts the intruder out of its airspace. If it is really pissed off, it turns the intruding aircraft into confetti and sends a strongly worded letter tacked to the coffin containing what remains of the pilot back home. The same is true for naval or ground incursions. There's a proportional response a country will choose, and any other response isn't credible. Threatening to end the existence of your own country because another nation's submarine beached itself on a sandbank in your own waters is not credible. And if your red lines are not credible, someone's going to be tempted to probe where exactly the red line actually is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 16:15
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:What was the end result of this hideous god drat mobile crematoriums? Impression I got was the point of those was to make warcriming evidence go away and conceal KIA stats. I think the consensus is those were for disappearing the various lists of political enemies Russia had assembled. More post conquering genocide criming than active war criming.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 16:19
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:"Sir, I have no quarrel with you, but I warn you in advance and with all possible clarity that if you invade me, I shall answer at the only credible level for my scale, which is the nuclear level. Whatever your defenses, you shan't prevent at least some of my missiles from reaching your home and causing the devastation that you are familiar with. So, renounce your endeavour and let us remain good friends." "That's not us. Those little green men are actually just people from your own country seeking their independence. If you had a conventional military, you might have been able to handle them some other way, but you don't, what a shame."
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 16:46
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I think the consensus is those were for disappearing the various lists of political enemies Russia had assembled. More post conquering genocide criming than active war criming. I don't think there was any authoritative theory or knowledge behind the 'consensus', it was just some guy's opinion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 16:55
|
|
|
The ability of Russia to reconstitute and launch a major attack immediately after Ukraine's offensive points towards Ukraine's offense being a failure. The interesting thing is the Russian offensive has been so bad that the two combined could open opportunities for Ukraine. At the end of the day it seems like Russians have been more than willing to sign contracts for large amounts of money to go fight in Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 17:04
|
|
|
Avdiivka seems worth paying attention to long term, Bakhmut was also a long grueling offense for the Russian forces but they just kept at it until they took it. Avdiivka might end up much the same if Ukraine is unable to muster the necessary reinforcements.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 17:07
|
|
|
Bashez posted:The ability of Russia to reconstitute and launch a major attack immediately after Ukraine's offensive points towards Ukraine's offense being a failure. Very good point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 17:11
|
|
|
Bashez posted:The ability of Russia to reconstitute and launch a major attack immediately after Ukraine's offensive points towards Ukraine's offense being a failure. The interesting thing is the Russian offensive has been so bad that the two combined could open opportunities for Ukraine. This is a fair point but again imposes a bit too harsh of a binary between "success" and "failure." One reason Russia's current offense is failing is that Russia is so bankrupt in materiel they're having to rely on trucks manufactured in the 1930's. Russia is bankrupt in materiel because Ukraine has blown up virtually everything they have manufactured since about 1970 at this point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 17:13
|
|
|
WarpedLichen posted:Avdiivka seems worth paying attention to long term, Bakhmut was also a long grueling offense for the Russian forces but they just kept at it until they took it. Avdiivka might end up much the same if Ukraine is unable to muster the necessary reinforcements. I think the whole "human wave" narrative is overblown, but many successful parts of Russian military history (which I am sure has helped shape their doctrine and success metrics) has involved their ability to sustain major losses in the face of tactically superior foes. I think Russia is definitely okay with repeating what happened with Bakhmut at Avdiivka because they know that in terms of manpower and homegrown productive capacity, they have that advantage and there is a realistic prospect of outlasting the waves of western support that have been helping Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 17:20
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Okay, I'll play this silly game for a post or two. If one soldier from another country places one foot upon a square meter of land in this hypothetical, nukes-only country, does that country initiate nuclear holocaust and mutual-assured destruction? Nukes-only are not a reasonable deterrent for any-and-all infractions. We might as well say, "The penalty for the breach of any crime, howsoever small, is death." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 17:22
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Okay, I'll play this silly game for a post or two. If one soldier from another country places one foot upon a square meter of land in this hypothetical, nukes-only country, does that country initiate nuclear holocaust and mutual-assured destruction? Nukes-only are not a reasonable deterrent for any-and-all infractions. We might as well say, "The penalty for the breach of any crime, howsoever small, is death." Pretty sure someone already posted this clip from Yes, Prime Minister earlier in the thread. e: ^ gently caress! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 17:22
|
|
|
From a purely self-serving perspective why would anyone in the US/EU want to stop funding the Ukrainians? This conflict is allowing the collective "West" to flex its military muscle, severely attrit (both in material and in credibility) a geo-political adversary and to send a clear message to others hostile states. I don't see how you can as a politician in a Western government not show your whole rear end by calling for a draw down of support to Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 17:47
|
|
|
99pct of germs posted:From a purely self-serving perspective why would anyone in the US/EU want to stop funding the Ukrainians? This conflict is allowing the collective "West" to flex its military muscle, severely attrit (both in material and in credibility) a geo-political adversary and to send a clear message to others hostile states. When you're getting a big enough paycheck/intangible support from said geo-political adversary, whole worlds of nuance open up where you can cut aid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 17:49
|
|
|
However many casualties Russia suffered, it's obviously not enough to cause a collapse anywhere on the front. I broadly agree with Shashank Joshi's (Defence Editor at The Economist) take here. https://twitter.com/shashj/status/1719365241107001506?s=20 https://twitter.com/shashj/status/1719366702524150187?s=20
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 17:55
|
|
|
99pct of germs posted:From a purely self-serving perspective why would anyone in the US/EU want to stop funding the Ukrainians? This conflict is allowing the collective "West" to flex its military muscle, severely attrit (both in material and in credibility) a geo-political adversary and to send a clear message to others hostile states. Well, recent source of that is Slovakia, where much of the given funding goes to locals to produce ammunition, creating some very nice jobs for the exact people who elected the newest Slovak PM. FYGM populism happens even when the "helping others" is actually helping yourself ...
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 18:12
|
|
|
Despite Joshi's ruminations in July about the value of technology and insistence that "mass still counts", the Russian offensive at Avdiivka is a clear failure. The Ukrainian offensive at Kherson is obviously substanstively different from that. Maybe if Joshi wasn't so focused on his deep insights into "Ukraine's private goals" then he'd be better equipped at grappling with that reality. While the Ukrainian counteroffensive hasn't turned into the exciting mechanized and preferably televised rout that many in the West were so clearly eager for, I don't really think there's any real value in characterizing it as a "serious failure". If the standard of success is "a collapse of Russian lines or a political reassessment", then critics will be foretelling Ukrainian doom until they march into Moscow. Even capturing Crimea wouldn't force a disordered retreat of Russian forces elsewhere, and it certainly wouldn't push Putin out of power. https://www.economist.com/special-report/2023/07/03/the-war-in-ukraine-shows-how-technology-is-changing-the-battlefield Kaal fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Nov 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 18:12
|
|
|
99pct of germs posted:From a purely self-serving perspective why would anyone in the US/EU want to stop funding the Ukrainians? This conflict is allowing the collective "West" to flex its military muscle, severely attrit (both in material and in credibility) a geo-political adversary and to send a clear message to others hostile states. - Some are genuine isolationists and think the US should not get involved overseas in anything. - Some are genuine authoritarians who want the West to be more like Russia: white, Christian, and anti-LGBT. They want Russia to be strong and them easily conquering Ukraine would have been the greatest gift to them imaginable. - Some see it as a vote-getting wedge issue they can exploit; the administration/establishment is for it so they can get attention by being against it. They don't actually understand or care about Ukraine one way or the other. - Some are genuine idiots who have bought into the Russian propaganda and don't care to look into it any deeper than that. - Some are a different kind of idiot and think that every single dollar spent on Ukraine is a dollar not spent on tax rebates for job creators. Moon Slayer fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Nov 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 18:19
|
|
|
They've failed to secure vast swathes of territory, but -They've destroyed a metric fuckton of russian materiel -Crucially, a bunch of that was artillery, effectively neutralizing the Russia's arty advantage -They penetrated the most heavily defended defense line in the world and gained artillery control over some key supply routes. Not as nice as taking them, true, but the Russia shipping anything big through there is now a huge risk -They have beachheads on the east bank of the Dnieper, and have held them. -They've completely blunted an absolutely massive counter-counter attack from the Russia -The Black Sea Fleet is running away lest it be annihilated. By a country with no navy. All of these can't be understated as very important successes. Yes, the overall counteroffensive didn't meet expectations, but--assuming western support doesn't evaporate--they're well positioned for the next push once they regather their strength. And they're getting more of an air force to support that next push, if and when it appears. It's a slog of a war. It's ugly. But it's not an absolute failure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 18:23
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Despite Joshi's ruminations in July about the value of technology and insistence that "mass still counts", the Russian offensive at Avdiivka is a clear failure. The Ukrainian offensive at Kherson is obviously substanstively different from that. Maybe if Joshi wasn't so focused on his deep insights into "Ukraine's private goals" then he'd be better equipped at grappling with that reality. While the Ukrainian counteroffensive hasn't turned into the exciting mechanized and preferably televised rout that many in the West were so clearly eager for, I don't really think there's any real value in characterizing it as a "serious failure". It's almost like offense is hard and defense is less hard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 18:36
|
|
|
there's a relevant times article (not the most reputable i know, but at least it's not newsweek) that i haven't seen posted. does paint a picture that even if the attrition rate is heavily lopsided, it is not a simple thing for ukraine to sustain, even if the west manages to unfuck it's long-term pipeline of supplies. at best improvements will be made to recruitment and training, at worst there might be a limited window in which to make gains before a frozen front is unavoidable. this is just an excerpt, it's a long article https://time.com/6329188/ukraine-volodymyr-zelensky-interview/quote:By the time Zelensky returned to Kyiv, the cold of early fall had taken hold, and his aides rushed to prepare for the second winter of the invasion. Russian attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure have damaged power stations and parts of the electricity grid, leaving it potentially unable to meet spikes in demand when the temperature drops. Three of the senior officials in charge of dealing with this problem told me blackouts would likely be more severe this winter, and the public reaction in Ukraine would not be as forgiving. “Last year people blamed the Russians,” one of them says. “This time they’ll blame us for not doing enough to prepare.” as always, there is expectation management and warnings of difficulties to induce support for expanded aid, but it does seem like there is some angst about this summer's lack of progress. as always, we won't really know the balance for years if not decades i do find the characterization of the early tdf recruitment as fair weather soldiers joining for a quick heroic victory rather odd. the mass sign-ups were occurring under very bleak circumstances as kyiv, mauripol, kharkiv, and other major cities were being surrounded. though i can believe that initial patriotic spirit is cooling as the war drags on
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 18:50
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Despite Joshi's ruminations in July about the value of technology and insistence that "mass still counts", the Russian offensive at Avdiivka is a clear failure. The Avdiivka op is only a few weeks old and just like how pundits and goons bent over backwards to say that it was too early to judge the AFU summer campaign stalling out, the same should be said here. Ridiculous stories of "10 to 1" kill ratios in Bakhmut also overtook pundits and goons alike and 4 months later the RuAF managed to gain the city. Whether Avdiivka turns out to be another Bakhmut or is a failed op like the ones Russians have experienced up north in Kreminnia remains to be seen at this point. OAquinas posted:They've failed to secure vast swathes of territory, but.... This sounds an awful lot like the copium that Ru fans were smoking on Twitter as when the redeployment out of the Kyiv sector was announced shortly after the Russians decided they have had enough of that debacle. We know what the minimum operational goals were. It was Melitipol. They couldn't even breach the lines to reach Tomak, an initial interim objective. It's OK to accept and call the AFU summer campaign for what it is....a failure. That won't change all the ancillary positives gained through that failed attempt but there shouldn't be some wierd aversion to state the very obvious fact that clear goals set by the Ukrainians themselves were not met. In any other situation where people are honest with themselves, it is called failure.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 18:56
|
|
|
Melitipol was the minimum goal?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 18:58
|
|
|
Yes, it failed to achieve objectives. My point is it's not "welp, total waste of people and materials, Ukraine is toast, nothing was gained" that some people here seem to be espousing--there were tangible results from the offensive. That they did not live up to the hype and expected operational goals is a given. What has the russia done to advance its position since 2022? At best, they took Bakhmut--a leveled nigh-uninhabitable town. And they've lost a lot of people and equipment to do that and hold their lines. Can they afford to keep that up? That's the real question for the next 6 months. Russian logistics are terrible, and they keep getting hammered. Wars of attrition are stalemates...until they're not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 19:05
|
|
|
Another difficulty has been Russia's willingness to absolutely trash the hell out of Ukrainian land with excessive amounts of mines. Which if Russia were keeping land would make it pretty strongly hostile if not uninhabitable even if Ukraine fully repels Russia to take land back.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 19:12
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:Melitipol was the minimum goal? I thought Tokmak was considered the minimum goal?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 20:23
|
|
|
Dandywalken posted:Melitipol was the minimum goal? Tokmak was. Melitipol was the overall operational objective for the campaign.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 21:20
|
|
|
So long as the salient north of Avdiivka remains under Russian occupation i dont see how UA can expect to hold the town in the long term. Doesnt matter how well a plqce is fortified if its being shot from all sides.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 21:33
|
|
|
I just finished watching the final video in a four part series on the origins of the war: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OFyn_KSy80 Don't be put off by the title, the video is about the conspiratorial mindset of Putin that led to the war and traces it back to conspiracy theories from the US but without a particular "USA bad" angle. Now I understand if you are sceptical about an hour long youtube video by a random guy but I've found it to be pretty convincing and well put together (the whole series is). I am curious what people think about the video who are more knowledgable than me on the background (for example knowing if the snippets that are shown from Russian media are really representative enough for the narrative).
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 22:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 12:34 |
|
|
true.spoon posted:I just finished watching the final video in a four part series on the origins of the war: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OFyn_KSy80 I haven't watched the videos but I think I've been making a similar point here. Putin's ideology, if there is one, is more about being the real Europe or the real Western civilisation, of which America is the most prominent example, than whatever brand of Eurasianism some prefer to focus on. A lot of it is a simple aspiration to be specifically a great Western empire as envisioned by anti-imperialist propaganda. America did terrible things all over the world, therefore, to be great, Russia must do some terrible things or be left behind, etc. This is partly why far-right European parties and people like Tucker Carlson are such mainstays in popular political discourse in Russia. They are viewed as someone who represent that mythical 'real West' thing that Putin wants Russia to be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2023 22:26
|
|