• Xenforo Cloud is upgrading us to version 2.3.8 on Monday February 16th, 2026 at 12:00 AM PST. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Russia/Ukraine Megathread V6

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t think there’s any seismic conversation to be and about Russia winning a conventional war against the US.

It would’ve seemed a massive stretch before the invasion of Ukraine, but now it just seems proper fantasy land stuff. They’ve struggled massively with a neighbouring country with a comparatively tiny force, whilst possessing a military force almost tailor made for such an invasion.

They’ve made the US invasions of Iraq/Afghanistan look like a flawless victory in comparison.
 
Anti air and air force is better than ukr, on ground especially at infantry level things start running out especially anti tank weapons.

Lack of combat experience is big problem too
Tanks in big numbers have pretty narrow path to Finland and as far as I know the defence is based on tank mines to slow the columns down and then target them with anti tank weapons. I doubt we'd run out just like Ukrainians have not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lsa
I don’t think there’s any seismic conversation to be and about Russia winning a conventional war against the US.

It would’ve seemed a massive stretch before the invasion of Ukraine, but now it just seems proper fantasy land stuff. They’ve struggled massively with a neighbouring country with a comparatively tiny force, whilst possessing a military force almost tailor made for such an invasion.

They’ve made the US invasions of Iraq/Afghanistan look like a flawless victory in comparison.

When was the last time there was a successful invasion of another country in this manner though?

The Armed Forces of the world can talk all they want about weaponry and technology, but when did a country (including the US) invade another and just cleanly defeat any army that chose to fight back?

Look how long Afghanistan rumbled on for with no conclusion.

There isn't an Armed Forces anywhere in the world that's capable of a clean invasion of an angry populace.

Russia's failure is only surprising because of the response it got.
 
I was under the impression the initial plan was to liberate them east parts?

When was the plan shifted to a full take over?

Do we even know what the plan was?

This whole thing is confusing as fuck. So many stories floating about.
I don't think we can know what the plan was but it sure has been a costly decision for them to invade. Even if they gain control over the eastern parts of Ukraine it's unlikely they'll gain international recognition or relief from sanctions.
 
So there are reports that two Russian officers have been run over by tanks...

"Western officials have said they believe a Russian commander was run over by mutinous forces during the fighting in Ukraine, in a sign of what they described as the “morale challenges” faced by the invading forces.

They highlighted – and repeated – reports from earlier this week from a Ukrainian journalist that a colonel of the 37th separate guards motor rifle brigade was run over by a tank. Some reports said he had died of his injuries.

One official said they believed that the brigade commander was “killed by his own troops” as “a consequence of the scale of losses that had been taken by his brigade” in the bitter fighting."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ny-commander-ukraine-report-western-officials

This happened west of Kiev. With any luck the northern front will collapse any day now and most of the troops will be moved to east. Hold tight Mariupol!
 
Erh... this article does not claim that the attack on Kyiv was a feint.


If this is indeed the focus of Russia’s approach, then the emphasis on Russia‘s ability to take major cities as a metric of success will have been an analytical error, as Russia appears more intent on pinning Ukrainian forces in cities like Kharkiv while it bypasses them

Is Kiev a major city? What would you call sending troops to threaten a city that the goal of isn't to capture? I use feint.

If they had made easy gains in Kiev would they have taken advantage? Undoubtedly but I still don't believe that was the goal.. as for reasons I've stated. Are you really shocked that Putin/ Russia would throw lives away on a feint?


I could easily be wrong. But your comment on no military analysis believing Kiev wasn't and isn't a goal is incorrect.

Actually some go further and believe the demilitarisation could be completed with still armed defence in Kiev.

Not quite sure I buy that definition of " demilitarisation " personally


Viewed in conjunction, these advances present a troubling picture whereby the Ukrainian forces opposite Donetsk and Luhansk are at risk of encirclement on the eastern side of the Dnieper. If this is indeed the focus of Russia’s approach, then the emphasis on Russia's ability to take major cities as a metric of success will have been an analytical error, as Russia appears more intent on pinning Ukrainian forces in cities like Kharkiv while it bypasses them. Indeed, preparations for an amphibious assault on Odessa may have been a feint, given that the ground forces such an assault could have linked up with appear to be moving north.


A strategy of exterior lines presents challenges too, however, it lends itself to some Russian strengths and is closer in theory to Russian assessments of modern conflict. As observed by Alex Vershinin, Russian logistics are not designed to operate at range from their railheads, and they lack the airlift to overcome short-term deficiencies. Their truck fleet is also limited in its ability to support Russian operations and could be overwhelmed if Russian forces advanced more than 90 km from their staging posts. Exterior lines can address logistics problems by requisitioning and looting the needed supplies from the population, which has been observed in Ukraine. In addition, exterior lines have enabled the Russian army to divide Ukraine’s forces, leading to the diversion of some critical resources such as air defence systems to Kyiv and leaving frontline forces exposed. Using exterior lines, Russia is also better able to concentrate forces to overwhelm and defeat Ukrainian units at critical points. Furthermore, any successes can be reinforced, bringing local numerical superiority that the Ukrainians are unable to match. The movement of elements from the 336th Naval Infantry Brigade into the south of Ukraine is early evidence of this.

Altogether, this suggests that Russia has deliberately pursued a strategy of exterior lines in the hope of dividing and thereby weakening Ukrainian resistance. As stated above, the Russian army has positioned itself to defeat Ukraine’s military in line with the goal of ‘demilitarisation’.


 
Looks like here we're not only not giving Russians visas to enter the country, but will not be extending temporary residency permits of those russians who are already living here, so once they expire, they have to get out.

Those guys better marry some locals, or else they'll be punted across the border, lol

https://eng.lsm.lv/article/society/...-permit-issuance-to-russian-citizens.a449195/

Probably do what Israel's doing soon then..

No sneaky marriages to stay in the country

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/11/israels-knesset-passes-law-barring-palestinian-spouses

Legislators approve law denying naturalisation of Palestinians from the West Bank or Gaza who are married to Israeli citizens.
 
If this is indeed the focus of Russia’s approach, then the emphasis on Russia‘s ability to take major cities as a metric of success will have been an analytical error, as Russia appears more intent on pinning Ukrainian forces in cities like Kharkiv while it bypasses them

Is Kiev a major city? What would you call sending troops to threaten a city that the goal of isn't to capture? I use feint.

If they had made easy gains in Kiev would they have taken advantage? Undoubtedly but I still don't believe that was the goal.. as for reasons I've stated. Are you really shocked that Putin/ Russia would throw lives away on a feint?


I could easily be wrong. But your comment on no military analysis believing Kiev wasn't and isn't a goal is incorrect.

Actually some go further and believe the demilitarisation could be completed with still armed defence in Kiev.

Not quite sure I buy that definition of " demilitarisation " personally


Viewed in conjunction, these advances present a troubling picture whereby the Ukrainian forces opposite Donetsk and Luhansk are at risk of encirclement on the eastern side of the Dnieper. If this is indeed the focus of Russia’s approach, then the emphasis on Russia's ability to take major cities as a metric of success will have been an analytical error, as Russia appears more intent on pinning Ukrainian forces in cities like Kharkiv while it bypasses them. Indeed, preparations for an amphibious assault on Odessa may have been a feint, given that the ground forces such an assault could have linked up with appear to be moving north.


A strategy of exterior lines presents challenges too, however, it lends itself to some Russian strengths and is closer in theory to Russian assessments of modern conflict. As observed by Alex Vershinin, Russian logistics are not designed to operate at range from their railheads, and they lack the airlift to overcome short-term deficiencies. Their truck fleet is also limited in its ability to support Russian operations and could be overwhelmed if Russian forces advanced more than 90 km from their staging posts. Exterior lines can address logistics problems by requisitioning and looting the needed supplies from the population, which has been observed in Ukraine. In addition, exterior lines have enabled the Russian army to divide Ukraine’s forces, leading to the diversion of some critical resources such as air defence systems to Kyiv and leaving frontline forces exposed. Using exterior lines, Russia is also better able to concentrate forces to overwhelm and defeat Ukrainian units at critical points. Furthermore, any successes can be reinforced, bringing local numerical superiority that the Ukrainians are unable to match. The movement of elements from the 336th Naval Infantry Brigade into the south of Ukraine is early evidence of this.

Altogether, this suggests that Russia has deliberately pursued a strategy of exterior lines in the hope of dividing and thereby weakening Ukrainian resistance. As stated above, the Russian army has positioned itself to defeat Ukraine’s military in line with the goal of ‘demilitarisation’.


The article does not claim that the attack on Kiyv was a feint. You do not commit - and lose - major amounts of personnel and material to a feint.
 
The article does not claim that the attack on Kiyv was a feint. You do not commit - and lose - major amounts of personnel and material to a feint.

I didn't say it went well lol. As I said I think they hoped their big ass column was intimidating enough.

You think they literally tried to take Kiev with soldiers who were told they were on a training mission?

That's logical isn't it....?
 
I know it is unimaginable and I could understand why someone would say this but think about it for a second. If you had enough power-fire to do it? Will it not be easy taking out the mother load and then return to pick up the scattered children states spread around Europe without much chellenge..

How will you fight WW3 from their perspective? Would you go for the resourceful supplier of the smaller states or the smaller states constantly being re-supplied by the resourceful element. Hence destroying the US will mean by default the fall of Europe
I'm not saying the US can't be destroyed, but this sucker punch idea is just silly, we'll have time to counterstrike even if it's with planes or subs. So what you're looking at is the end of civilization as we know it.
 
I know about these submarines and the second strike policy but here is the thing no country puts all of it's nuclear weapons into the ocean but only few perhaps fewer then 30-40 at times meaning if you get sucker punched it will hurt massively and existential and yes the second strike policy will do damage but not nearly able to fuck up someone like the one who pulls the trigger first.

Do the math eating 2000 warheads within an hour vs eating 50 warheads in return from the second strike capability? Which one do you wanna be? the guy being GnP 'ed or the one landing few from below..

It is not remotely the same thing...

China, Russia and North Korea could completely destroy the US within hours the capability is there and combined they are more lethal
Do you want to be the guy that got shot 2000 times in the chest or the guy that got shot 50 times in the chest? If your scenario plays out we will all be dead.
 
Do you want to be the guy that got shot 2000 times in the chest or the guy that got shot 50 times in the chest? If your scenario plays out we will all be dead.

I personally don't really care after the first 5.
Might as well go for a record
 
Well there is no practical reason to push your forces to 15 miles outside of Kyiv, stretch your supply lines to the breaking point, and lose thousands of troops and equipment if your only goal was Donbas. You just concentrate your forces there.

This isn't very complicated unless your bending over backwards to excuse a piss-poor russian performance. They overestimated Ukraine, got their asses handed to them, and now they see the writing on the wall. So they quit and pretend this utter clusterfuck was all part of the plan.

I'm honestly amazed anyone would buy it, but I guess putin's gotta say something.
I'm not buying anything. I've never ever liked Putin.

I'm just genuinely confused with the situation.
 
I didn't say it went well lol. As I said I think they hoped their big ass column was intimidating enough.

You think they literally tried to take Kiev with soldiers who were told they were on a training mission?

That's logical isn't it....?

I think they believed it would be like 2014 and that the Ukranians would give up without a fight. I think Putin only speaks to a very small circle of advisors and keeps decisions close to his chest, which means even fairly high ranking commanders aren't sure what he is thinking. That is a far more logical explanation for what has happened, yes.
 
I think they believed it would be like 2014 and that the Ukranians would give up without a fight. I think Putin only speaks to a very small circle of advisors and keeps decisions close to his chest, which means even fairly high ranking commanders aren't sure what he is thinking. That is a far more logical explanation for what has happened, yes.

Yeah I'd imagine if they were allowed in easily they would have taken advantage of it.. other than that I personally think they're just there to keep ukrainian weapons and military there while they isolate the east.

We shall have to agree to disagree mate. All the best we've chewed up enough posts itt
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top