Ukraine Analysis Why Russia will lose this war

[Mis_TR_Like]

I wrote this tonight, to a good friend of mine in FB-


That is a lot of pissed off guys, with a lot of guns, and some of them are really really smart, smarter than the Russian plods in the tanks, and on the ground...

and a lot of guns,
and all those windows...
...so, so many windows.

I dunno,
but I think the Ukraine
standing citizen army
may stand a chance.

No doubt that NLAWs and Javelins are doing a ton of damage to Russian tanks and armored vehicles.

But Russia is starting to use weapons like the TOS-1 to completely destroy Ukraine’s defences. If they manage to bring in a lot of artillery this could get real ugly.

Ukraine needs all the drones (and MAM-L) it can get. Russia's artillery looks like it will be its greatest asset. If Ukraine can keep a large amount of TB2s in the air at all times, they could knock out any rocket artillery before they get into firing range of major cities like Kiev.

 

[Jo Barbed Wire]

No doubt that NLAWs and Javelins are doing a ton of damage to Russian tanks and armored vehicles.

But Russia is starting to use weapons like the TOS-1 to completely destroy Ukraine’s defences. If they manage to bring in a lot of artillery this could get real ugly.

Ukraine needs all the drones (and MAM-L) it can get. Russia's artillery looks like it will be its greatest asset. If Ukraine can keep a large amount of TB2s in the air at all times, they could knock out any rocket artillery before they get into firing range of major cities like Kiev.

Rightio, I looked "TOS-1" up.

 

[Jo Barbed Wire]

Rightio, I looked "TOS-1" up.

Ukraine looks pretty flat.

 

[Jo Barbed Wire]

Are there any forests?

 

[Mis_TR_Like]

Are there any forests?

There's forests in the north and west, and some smaller forests near the centre. That doesn't matter though, Russia only needs to capture Kiev for this to be over. If they get desperate, they could flatten entire city blocks with TOS-1.

 

[Jo Barbed Wire]

There's forests in the north and west, and some smaller forests near the centre. That doesn't matter though, Russia only needs to capture Kiev for this to be over. If they get desperate, they could flatten entire city blocks with TOS-1.

Ooo this is extremely complicated and interesting lol

 

[Gary]

There's forests in the north and west, and some smaller forests near the centre. That doesn't matter though, Russia only needs to capture Kiev for this to be over. If they get desperate, they could flatten entire city blocks with TOS-1.

This is very premature, urban warfare are very different from open terrain warfare. Flattening Kiev would turn the entire city into rubble and that will impede the movement of the attackers.

Stalingrad was bombed so heavily by the Luftwaffe that those rubbles turned into fortifications.

 

[Mis_TR_Like]

This is very premature, urban warfare are very different from open terrain warfare. Flattening Kiev would turn the entire city into rubble and that will impede the movement of the attackers.

Stalingrad was bombed so heavily by the Luftwaffe that those rubbles turned into fortifications.

Seeing Russia's track record in the past few decades, turning Kiev into rubble isn't out of the question. I believe Kharkiv is already being bombarded by MLRS. If they aren't repelled, and they bring a large quantity of MLRS (such as TOS-1 or BM-30) near Kiev, the city could be devastated. The goal is to kill or frighten Zelensky into submission. But it's proving to be a difficult task. The missile barrage on day 1 was supposed to scare Ukraine into surrendering.

 

[Glass🚬]

If someone finds the original article please post it.

it’s excellent so I thought it deserved to be posted outside the conflict thread where it’ll drown and be forgotten.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1497993363076915204

 

[Nilgiri]

No doubt that NLAWs and Javelins are doing a ton of damage to Russian tanks and armored vehicles.

But Russia is starting to use weapons like the TOS-1 to completely destroy Ukraine’s defences. If they manage to bring in a lot of artillery this could get real ugly.

Ukraine needs all the drones (and MAM-L) it can get. Russia's artillery looks like it will be its greatest asset. If Ukraine can keep a large amount of TB2s in the air at all times, they could knock out any rocket artillery before they get into firing range of major cities like Kiev.

Yep.

But there are severe deficiencies cropping up with russia's traditional arty-rich force structure....in this particular strategy they have employed with Ukraine.

- Urban warfare propensity is one factor...(i.e the escalation into civilian casualties)...is Russia prepared to have that scale of blood on its hands?

- Arty ideally is for all out continued advancement (or dynamic fighting retreat) and for targetting mass enemy formation....but Russia has more or less stagnated on that now and Ukraine's formations have elected to be more nimble and dynamic (responding to the overall theatre's parameters)....offering no potent target rich environment arty would otherwise revel in (in say like an all out fight with NATO).

- Vulnerability to Tb2 and drones....especially when the above points are taken into account along with the stagnant/saturated logistic chains that are getting interdicted at some rate already.

We shall see how Russia adjusts to this in the next few days, if they do at all.

 

[Joe Shearer]

It is actually super key thing in the end. You need to be working out in regular deployments to get things smooth and slick on such stuff....2nd nature in the head and training....and also knowing your logistics inside out for each intensity level (and make use of defensive advantage on that etc).

NATO found this out when it analysed REFORGER each time afterwards too (down to minute detail in the before and after to get final %'s on wargame reality and re-insert the lessons in relevant areas)....

i.e which units mobilised and performed the best...which ones did not....and crucially why (and address it). They are really only power at scale that has done this on planet Earth.

The other (non western p5) powers (i.e China and Russia) of note simply have not done so ....because they:

a) need to spend that resource to do so (and trade this off in their mindset with other spending they do in military or non-military domains)...and enjoying bulk deterrence that might be counter-productive to this (compared to smaller and especially threatened-feeling countries).

b) their varying/lacking level of development+experience in military institutions developed to handle and address failures rather than make it "someone elses problem" in the ladder or simply cover it up etc.

Thus it is wartime when these things get called out and fleshed out in the end....for all to see for themselves, whatever the strategy and context that is opted for past it.

Indian mobilisations of scale (brasstacks and then parakram) are somewhat complicated story of their own...again there were major issues baked in.

An immediate reaction (literally - this is not a considered, thought-through response) is that apparently the Army has increased its investment in Rashtriya Rifles from 50 (@1,000 per formation, 50,000 troops) to 75, a 50% increase.

As you perhaps know, I am hugely opposed to the entire RR concept, for two reasons, but I shall mention the bigger one.

Counter-insurgency plays hell with the war-fighting ability of the Army. The discipline required, the inter-operation with other units, the use of weapons systems of more than platoon level, the command responsibility for melding a number of differently equipped formations into one, smooth-functioning organisation - none of these are available in COIN.

The discipline is of a lesser degree; COIN, as practised now, consists of following up on the information laid by a network of informers, that is, cornering and neutralising an outgunned, untrained enemy exposed to a few weeks weapons training at Muridke and with no other exposure to weapons.

Inter-operation with other units amounts to, at most, interaction with the local policemen at the site.

Weapons systems are restricted to infantry battle rifles or assault rifles, at worst, a sub-machine gun, perhaps a sniper rifle. And grenades, of course.

Command responsibility, too, reduces to a single officer, maybe two, trying to keep a small team focussed towards the detected infiltrators, to pull together a small squad. The very doorstep of a full-featured command responsibility.

But China and Russia have not done that kind of mobilisation relative to their force structures (till Russia just did now and now finding out problems real time).

Other countries (of smaller scale) have to keep things rotating well to stay prepped and relevant as they can....and when threatened in some way....often do just that. They generally manage a lot better than bigger countries overall on this as you can imagine.

@Joe Shearer @Paro @AlphaMike

BTW the related contents here also doesn't deserve to be lost in the large RUS-UKR war thread...and may be of use for audience in this thread to get some detail on what people are seeing with the Russian approach (at least in their first phase):

 

[Ryder]

It is actually super key thing in the end. You need to be working out in regular deployments to get things smooth and slick on such stuff....2nd nature in the head and training....and also knowing your logistics inside out for each intensity level (and make use of defensive advantage on that etc).

NATO found this out when it analysed REFORGER each time afterwards too (down to minute detail in the before and after to get final %'s on wargame reality and re-insert the lessons in relevant areas)....

i.e which units mobilised and performed the best...which ones did not....and crucially why (and address it). They are really only power at scale that has done this on planet Earth.

The other (non western p5) powers (i.e China and Russia) of note simply have not done so ....because they:

a) need to spend that resource to do so (and trade this off in their mindset with other spending they do in military or non-military domains)...and enjoying bulk deterrence that might be counter-productive to this (compared to smaller and especially threatened-feeling countries).

b) their varying/lacking level of development+experience in military institutions developed to handle and address failures rather than make it "someone elses problem" in the ladder or simply cover it up etc.

Thus it is wartime when these things get called out and fleshed out in the end....for all to see for themselves, whatever the strategy and context that is opted for past it.

Indian mobilisations of scale (brasstacks and then parakram) are somewhat complicated story of their own...again there were major issues baked in.

But China and Russia have not done that kind of mobilisation relative to their force structures (till Russia just did now and now finding out problems real time).

Other countries (of smaller scale) have to keep things rotating well to stay prepped and relevant as they can....and when threatened in some way....often do just that. They generally manage a lot better than bigger countries overall on this as you can imagine.

@Joe Shearer @Paro @AlphaMike

BTW the related contents here also doesn't deserve to be lost in the large RUS-UKR war thread...and may be of use for audience in this thread to get some detail on what people are seeing with the Russian approach (at least in their first phase):

Im really curious how China would fare in a real war.

 

[Gessler]

You are mistaken.
Russia will win this war but lose everything else.

Agreed.

Unless there is a direct intervention by Western forces using airpower, its a matter of time before Kiev falls. It's increasingly becoming a prestige issue for Putin and that means they'll start taking off the gloves wrt leveling cities. They'll throw everything they have and Kiev is not equipped for that, not for long. Yes, the weapons being sent in will help in creating an insurgency afterwards but they can't stop a conventional takeover & removal of current regime.

 

[RogerRanger]

It isn't about overrating the Russian army. Or the Ukraine army or the political goals. Its about what's actually happening.

The Russians are using modern 3rd generation maneuver warfare. They are not using German or American or even old Russian operational doctrine.

Modernistic 3rd generation warfare comes from the Rhodesian Bush war, where out of necessity the Rhodesians had to use light infantry, light aircraft and small force numbers. The Russians out of necessity are having to use small forces, they don't have the same level of mass production and economic production. So they have changed the people in charge, the doctrine and equipment. Focusing on high quality, rather than quality in quantity.

The Russians are doing exactly what a modern 3GW handbook would tell you to do. Use many short jabs through enemy lines, from many different directions, bypassing enemy positions. Encircling company and battalion sized forces, allowing them to keep fighting and then surrender. The goal of modern 3GW is to prevent 4GW breaking out and the delegitimazation of the state. The goal of 3GW from Napoleon to the Germans in WW2, the Russians in WW2, the Confederate American states and the British at different times was to defeat superior numbers and firepower with operational maneuver.

So to understand modern 3GW you need to forget things like who kills more of the enemy, in modern 3GW taking causalities is a positive, not killing the enemy is the goal and not killing civilization, in fact no even harming them in anyway. You bypass fights and the destruction of the enemy. You allow them to attack you and kill your troops, to put up a good fight, which allows them to surrender with honour. All of the Russian 'supply issues' are actually just them stopping after a certain point to encircle small pockets of enemy forces.

This is why the western media can't understand what's going on, why aren't the Russians just flattening the Ukrainians with artillery and moving onto the next town. Its because nobody in the west understands modern 3GW or 4GW. The Russians have already defeated the Ukrainian army and the Ukrainian state, Russian victory is successfully preventing 4GW. That is the only Russians political/economic/military goal here, prevent 4GW.

 

[RogerRanger]

Agreed.

Unless there is a direct intervention by Western forces using airpower, its a matter of time before Kiev falls. It's increasingly becoming a prestige issue for Putin and that means they'll start taking off the gloves wrt leveling cities. They'll throw everything they have and Kiev is not equipped for that, not for long. Yes, the weapons being sent in will help in creating an insurgency afterwards but they can't stop a conventional takeover & removal of current regime.

In terms of direct western intervention. That would take the Americans moving a couple carrier groups into the Black sea, a British/France/US Marines armoured division, so three divisions with full all support. And it would take that just to stop the Russians, not push them back or defeat them.

I also don't think the Russians will 'throw everything they have at the cities', as they run counter to modern maneuver warfare which the Russians are clearly using in Ukraine.

 

[Gessler]

In terms of direct western intervention. That would take the Americans moving a couple carrier groups into the Black sea, a British/France/US Marines armoured division, so three divisions with full all support. And it would take that just to stop the Russians, not push them back or defeat them.

I also don't think the Russians will 'throw everything they have at the cities', as they run counter to modern maneuver warfare which the Russians are clearly using in Ukraine.

Not entirely - Kharkiv & Kiev for example will be facing just that. Kharkiv is already facing it as we speak:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1498274194970517505

While the rest of the country may see maneuvers avoiding population centres (like Mariupol for example), Kiev will be the exception as the Ukrainian leadership will be entrenched and the only way to remove them (and by extension, the current regime) would be to go in.

But it's not entirely clear to me why Kharkiv is getting so much strategic focus in that regard - yes its the 2nd biggest city but not the seat of political power.

 

[Saithan]

It isn't about overrating the Russian army. Or the Ukraine army or the political goals. Its about what's actually happening.

The Russians are using modern 3rd generation maneuver warfare. They are not using German or American or even old Russian operational doctrine.

Modernistic 3rd generation warfare comes from the Rhodesian Bush war, where out of necessity the Rhodesians had to use light infantry, light aircraft and small force numbers. The Russians out of necessity are having to use small forces, they don't have the same level of mass production and economic production. So they have changed the people in charge, the doctrine and equipment. Focusing on high quality, rather than quality in quantity.

The Russians are doing exactly what a modern 3GW handbook would tell you to do. Use many short jabs through enemy lines, from many different directions, bypassing enemy positions. Encircling company and battalion sized forces, allowing them to keep fighting and then surrender. The goal of modern 3GW is to prevent 4GW breaking out and the delegitimazation of the state. The goal of 3GW from Napoleon to the Germans in WW2, the Russians in WW2, the Confederate American states and the British at different times was to defeat superior numbers and firepower with operational maneuver.

So to understand modern 3GW you need to forget things like who kills more of the enemy, in modern 3GW taking causalities is a positive, not killing the enemy is the goal and not killing civilization, in fact no even harming them in anyway. You bypass fights and the destruction of the enemy. You allow them to attack you and kill your troops, to put up a good fight, which allows them to surrender with honour. All of the Russian 'supply issues' are actually just them stopping after a certain point to encircle small pockets of enemy forces.

This is why the western media can't understand what's going on, why aren't the Russians just flattening the Ukrainians with artillery and moving onto the next town. Its because nobody in the west understands modern 3GW or 4GW. The Russians have already defeated the Ukrainian army and the Ukrainian state, Russian victory is successfully preventing 4GW. That is the only Russians political/economic/military goal here, prevent 4GW.

Interesting I guess preventing Russians gaining control of the areas would be the only way forward. Like pushing them back and retaiing control.

 

[Barzani]

Interesting I guess preventing Russians gaining control of the areas would be the only way forward. Like pushing them back and retaiing control.

Well the ukranians can't maneuver at all as the helicopters get them.

All those arms the west are supplying have to go to the west Ukraine which isn't a target. They have more logistics issues than Russia and will likely run out of ammunition in the east.

 

[Nutuk]

I don't expect that Russia will lose the war.

I think however that Russia made an exceptional stupid move, probably they expected that the Ukraine gov. would flee and the army surrender.

Russians have send in huge convoys of reserve forces with conscript soldiers who do not have combat experience, they were obviously expecting to roll in like that and do police work until a new puppet government was installed.

But all of that turned sour when the Ukrainian gov. did not flee and her army did put up a resistance. Putin must have face palmed himself for such a grave failure.

Personally I expect the Russians will replace these reserve forces soon with combat forces and we will witness a different Russian army.

 

[Isa Khan]

Putin "may" win the war if he can recover from the mess he made but occupation/puppet government may not last long because of the massive resistance and sanctions. How long you can continue this when people are not with you at all.