Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Outside Topic Way OT: Ukraine (/thread-23071.html)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - jonnyss - 03-18-2022

(03-17-2022, 07:39 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  Dabigv… apparently one of the generals was communicating over an open line that the Ukrainians were able to tap into and triangulate his position.

BC

reminds me that when you have a war in which both sides speak the same language, you can act very quickly without waiting for a translator.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 03-18-2022

Unconfirmed reports that another Russian general was killed. That would make 5, a quarter of deployed general staff.

Also worth remembering that most of Russia's losses so far are in their combat units, and most heavily in their best units which led their initial assault. Taking cities with conscripts and reservists from a supplied, veteran, high morale force is not going to work out well for the conscripts and reservists.

Good thread on state of play-
[Tweet]https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1504927427230904320?s=20&t=KV-xHMBHZlVK3CBuC_Jnww[/tweet]

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 03-18-2022

Another factor in the disproportionate number of generals killed is that they are in unusually forward positions. I saw a theory that said that because of the Russian strategic blunders, forward command has been unwilling or unable to take decisive action, requiring the generals to become the forward command and making them vulnerable to being picked off.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 03-18-2022

Or maybe the death of generals is a feature, not a bug, from Putin’s perspective.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1493968165717561346?s=21[/tweet]

Another long twitter thread worth reading, though, as always, take it with a grain of salt.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 03-18-2022

[tweet]https://twitter.com/darthputinkgb/status/1504795613388578825?s=21[/tweet]

The entire account is hilarious.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Treefence - 03-18-2022

(03-18-2022, 03:16 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Unconfirmed reports that another Russian general was killed. That would make 5, a quarter of deployed general staff.

Also worth remembering that most of Russia's losses so far are in their combat units, and most heavily in their best units which led their initial assault. Taking cities with conscripts and reservists from a supplied, veteran, high morale force is not going to work out well for the conscripts and reservists.

Good thread on state of play-
[Tweet]https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1504927427230904320?s=20&t=KV-xHMBHZlVK3CBuC_Jnww[/tweet]

Also important to note, this was reportedly in Chornobayivka, a town just north of Kherson.  Apparently the Ukrainians have been gaining back ground in that area.  If they are able to retake Kherson, essentially the only major city Russia has been able to take so far, it could be the beginning of the end for Russia.  Long way to go for that to happen, but the fact that Ukraine is still performing counter offensives, this late into the war, with Russia mostly stalled, is an incredible sign.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Mick - 03-18-2022

(03-18-2022, 03:16 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Unconfirmed reports that another Russian general was killed. That would make 5, a quarter of deployed general staff.

By the Ukrainians, or....?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - fullmetal - 03-18-2022

NATO electronic intelligence aircraft are undoubtedly contributing to the geolocation efforts for high-value Russian targets.  Russia was supposed to have deployed an advanced encrypted radio platform some years ago, but most people in the know are confused as to why it's not being used.  (Was embezzlement involved, as it seems to have been from Russian military food rations?)

Additionally, where the US military places greater responsibility for decision-making in its lower-ranking officer corps and NCO corps, the Russians are pretty top-heavy when it comes to decision-making, which means that the higher-ranking officers need to be out and about making things happen because no one else wants to be held accountable for "mistakes" or standing out in the wrong ways.  Also...you might imagine that things like "initiative" make you also stand out in ways that mark you as a target later.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 03-19-2022

(03-18-2022, 09:42 PM)Mick Wrote:  

(03-18-2022, 03:16 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  Unconfirmed reports that another Russian general was killed. That would make 5, a quarter of deployed general staff.

By the Ukrainians, or....?

Well the Ukrainians seem to have gotten him, but ultimately Putin is responsible for all the dead generals because of a political objective that was never feasible for the Russian armed forces to achieve.

Of course not just generals are dying. The young officer corps of Russia's elite units is being decimated. The special military-technical operation of Putin's will set his army back for a decade at least.

Another good Rob Lee thread. These folks are all confirmed dead by Russia, perhaps why they are pretty much all contract servicemen, not conscripts.
[Tweet]
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1505177677929631746?s=20&t=TczHAZkx9kqofqZOIe0xAw[/tweet]

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BigJohn043 - 03-19-2022

In my view the best evaluation of the Ukraine war situation.

Russia is almost totally stalled at this point and in some situations Ukraine is counter attacking.  I think the real question is if the Russians will reinforce their units and they could easily double or triple the number of units on the battlefield.

https://twitter.com/JominiW/status/1505043913652027393

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 03-19-2022

(03-19-2022, 08:24 AM)BigJohn043 Wrote:  In my view the best evaluation of the Ukraine war situation.

Russia is almost totally stalled at this point and in some situations Ukraine is counter attacking.  I think the real question is if the Russians will reinforce their units and they could easily double or triple the number of units on the battlefield.

https://twitter.com/JominiW/status/1505043913652027393

They have more forces available, but they are having trouble supplying the ones the have already deployed. More troops may just make the supply problem worse. This will be especially true if things are done ad hoc without an overall plan, which right now seems to be the Russian MO.
Unfortunately the Ukraine has essentially no ability to strike into Russia, so Russia can keep firing missiles unto Ukraine until they run out of them. That won't be soon. It is unclear which approach Russia is going to use, flood the area with more troops or stand off and blow things up. Either one is possible. Adding more troops carries the most risk, as casualties could increase significantly as lower quality formations are used. No telling what Putin will do. Doing both makes little sense, as it increases risks more than benefits.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Mick - 03-19-2022

What do you think China is learning from the Ukraine v. Russia war, particularly as it relates to Taiwan?

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 03-19-2022

Russia has devoted 3/4 of its all combat troops to Ukraine. It really has no more to add, which is why it is trying to import Syrian fighters.

That being said, word is that the Russians have entered Mariupol.  If they can hold it (big if), then those soldiers can be freed to try to encircle Ukrainian soldiers on the Eastern front.

BC

---

(03-19-2022, 09:39 AM)Mick Wrote:  What do you think China is learning from the Ukraine v. Russia war, particularly as it relates to Taiwan?

Hopefully they are learning the right lesson, which is to not try to conquer a country who is likely to resist you by force.

Russia had started out able to encircle Ukraine on three sides, and is still having trouble. An amphibious assault of Taiwan seems like it would be even tougher, though given how poorly tanks have performed in this war (and in the recent war between Armenia and Azerbaijan) over Nagorno-Karabakh, maybe that’s a plus.

If I am Taiwan, I invest in anti-ship misiles, drones, and other technologies.

BC

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 03-19-2022

(03-19-2022, 09:48 AM)BostonCard Wrote:   though given how poorly tanks have performed in this war (and in the recent war between Armenia and Azerbaijan) over Nagorno-Karabakh, maybe that’s a plus.

Taiwan is horrible tank country. It is hills and hills, even more so than Italy. Tanks aren't going to be much use there, independent of anti-tank weapons. 2/3 of the country is mountains. It is an infantry fight, which doesn't directly favor technological approaches. As you say, preventing the infantry from getting there is your best bet.

Quote:If I am Taiwan, I invest in anti-ship misiles, drones, and other technologies.

BC

Anti-ship weapons and stand-off weapons to keep the invader out and to make it difficult to supply his forces if he lands is the best approach. If he lands and can build up numbers, you are going to lose. Slowly perhaps, but you will lose. The US invasions in the pacific islands show clearly that once an island is invaded by a sustainable force and cut off from reinforcement, it is all over. Lots of people will die in the fight, but the result is not in doubt.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - thatboy - 03-19-2022

(03-19-2022, 10:12 AM)Goose Wrote:  

(03-19-2022, 09:48 AM)BostonCard Wrote:   though given how poorly tanks have performed in this war (and in the recent war between Armenia and Azerbaijan) over Nagorno-Karabakh, maybe that’s a plus.

Taiwan is horrible tank country. It is hills and hills, even more so than Italy. Tanks aren't going to be much use there, independent of anti-tank weapons. 2/3 of the country is mountains. It is an infantry fight, which doesn't directly favor technological approaches. As you say, preventing the infantry from getting there is your best bet.

Quote:If I am Taiwan, I invest in anti-ship misiles, drones, and other technologies.

BC

Anti-ship weapons and stand-off weapons to keep the invader out and to make it difficult to supply his forces if he lands is the best approach. If he lands and can build up numbers, you are going to lose. Slowly perhaps, but you will lose. The US invasions in the pacific islands show clearly that once an island is invaded by a sustainable force and cut off from reinforcement, it is all over. Lots of people will die in the fight, but the result is not in doubt.

I've long thought that China will not invade Taiwan, but instead eventually blockade the island and use their own form of economic sanctions against Taiwan. They could isolate the island physically and economically -- basically like a siege at a castle -- until the Taiwanese are forced to negotiate and make some kind of agreement.

Perhaps such a blockade is unrealistic. I don't know much about naval strategy and how easily or difficult it would be to enforce such a blockade, but that is my best uneducated guess.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - Goose - 03-19-2022

(03-19-2022, 11:11 AM)thatboy Wrote:  I've long thought that China will not invade Taiwan, but instead eventually blockade the island and use their own form of economic sanctions against Taiwan. They could isolate the island physically and economically -- basically like a siege at a castle -- until the Taiwanese are forced to negotiate and make some kind of agreement.


Perhaps such a blockade is unrealistic. I don't know much about naval strategy and how easily or difficult it would be to enforce such a blockade, but that is my best uneducated guess.

It is certainly an option. It has been conventional wisdom that close blockade is impossible (since WWI) because submarines (and later aircraft) would impose unsustainable losses on the blockading force. More distant blockade has worked, but it requires a much larger navy. China is building that navy. It also requires the ability to maintain sea control over a wide area. If the US (and allies) decided to challenge a wide-area blockade, Taiwan would have a pretty good chance. Alone, they would have no chance as they could not inflict enough damage on the blockading force to open viable routes to the island.
The other issue would be that a wide-area blockade could severely damage Chinese trade. If the US and it's allies imposed economic sanctions on China for such a blockade, that might impose such a cost on China that it couldn't sustain the blockade. If the US and it's allies imposed a counter-blockade (at a greater distance), China would have to fold or start a naval war. China relies too much on imports to weather a blockade. Even if the population would accept it, the industrial collapse it would produce would be intolerable (IMHO).
What the US would actually do is an unknown. Strategic ambiguity is probably our only reasonable position. If we say what we will and won't do, it allows China to target weaknesses in the chosen strategy without worrying (as much anyway) that we will respond differently. However, we do need to have a planed response. It will be difficult to add-lib and time does matter in blockades. Just make sure nobody knows what it is.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - gailtate - 03-19-2022

The best analysis yet of The Russia Cluster:  https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/18/opinion/ukraine-russia-war-nato-iraq-policy.html
(paywall)

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - dabigv13 - 03-19-2022

(03-19-2022, 01:15 PM)gailtate Wrote:  The best analysis yet of The Russia Cluster:  https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/18/opinion/ukraine-russia-war-nato-iraq-policy.html
(paywall)

That author must watch a lot of Zvezda. Even without more support than the west is currently providing, Ukraine will not lose Kiev and Russia's negotiating position is only going to worsen as time goes on.

Alternatively, the Institute for the Study of War has assessed Ukraine has defeated the initial Russian campaign. 

https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-19

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BigJohn043 - 03-19-2022

(03-19-2022, 09:48 AM)BostonCard Wrote:  Russia has devoted 3/4 of its all combat troops to Ukraine. It really has no more to add, which is why it is trying to import Syrian fighters.

That being said, word is that the Russians have entered Mariupol.  If they can hold it (big if), then those soldiers can be freed to try to encircle Ukrainian soldiers on the Eastern front.

BC

I don't think this is right.  Russia has an army of roughly ~900K active members and they have only committed ~200K to Ukraine so far.  There are questions as to the quality of those troops, but my best understanding is that they can commit more.

---

(03-19-2022, 08:56 AM)Goose Wrote:  

(03-19-2022, 08:24 AM)BigJohn043 Wrote:  In my view the best evaluation of the Ukraine war situation.

Russia is almost totally stalled at this point and in some situations Ukraine is counter attacking.  I think the real question is if the Russians will reinforce their units and they could easily double or triple the number of units on the battlefield.

https://twitter.com/JominiW/status/1505043913652027393

They have more forces available, but they are having trouble supplying the ones the have already deployed. More troops may just make the supply problem worse. This will be especially true if things are done ad hoc without an overall plan, which right now seems to be the Russian MO.
Unfortunately the Ukraine has essentially no ability to strike into Russia, so Russia can keep firing missiles unto Ukraine until they run out of them. That won't be soon. It is unclear which approach Russia is going to use, flood the area with more troops or stand off and blow things up. Either one is possible. Adding more troops carries the most risk, as casualties could increase significantly as lower quality formations are used. No telling what Putin will do. Doing both makes little sense, as it increases risks more than benefits.

Additional units would likely have their own logistics capabilities.  There is a real issue in the north that the mud is making them stick to the roads and there are no more roads.

I think the other problem is that even if Russia throws another ~100K troops at Kiev it isn't enough to take or even encircle the city.

Right now it looks like the Russians are digging into their current positions.  New troops are being fed into existing positions rather than being used to open new lines of attack.  This could change but that is what is happening now.

With the war at a stalemate, Russia will continue to fire rockets and artillery at the cities.  OTOH, Ukraine is going to relentlessly attack Russian supply lines.  It feels unlikely that Russia will ever reach its targets.  OTOH, it is possible that the Russian army could essentially collapse due to lack of supply and being encircled by Ukraine units.

It strikes me that time is not Putin's friend.  All the talk of a potential cease fire is the best evidence we have of how poorly the Russians are doing.

---

RE: Way OT: Ukraine - BostonCard - 03-19-2022

This was the reference:
https://theweek.com/russo-ukrainian-war/1011404/putin-has-committed-75-percent-of-russias-total-military-to-the-ukraine

Quote: The U.S. estimates that Russian President Vladimir Putin has "around 75 percent of his total military committed to the fight in Ukraine," the official said, clarifying later that the 75 percent figure mostly refers to "battalion tactical groups, which is the units that he has primarily relied upon."

Later in the article, it quotes this article: https://cepa.org/the-next-10-days-will-decide-this-war/

Quote: There is no suggestion that the Russians have big units lurking in the woods somewhere (and the Pentagon has said it sees no signs of significant reinforcements.) So it’s apparent that the notional 900,000 strength of the Russian military is a hollow number. 

Elsewhere, on twitter (so take it with a grain of salt) there were reports of Russian soldiers self-mutilating by shooting themselves in the foot to avoid going to the front.

BC

---