Like it took a night for the Russians to wipe out Ukraine (which has been lacking modern weapons)? The Russian invasion of Ukraine has shown how weak the Russian army is in reality. They have no chance against NATO whatsoever. Poland and Baltics are also arming themselves to teeth now.
>>>The Russian invasion of Ukraine has shown how weak the Russian army is in reality.
For context: Germany invaded Poland (population ~31 million) with 60+ divisions, and that invasion required almost a month to succeed, with the Soviets jumping in partway through to quicken the end.
Russia has invaded Ukraine (population ~41 million) with ~13 divisions, less favorable weather, and vastly more urbanized terrain to fight through. While they have made some absolutely embarrassing mistakes, they are fielding the largest army seen in a generation, and still conducting offensive operations.
Not even the US has put 13 divisions into a theater since....Vietnam? Korea? Desert Storm was ~9 US divisions + allies. The big difference is we can show up with ~9 divisions that will be well-supplied and well-motivated anywhere in the world (and with endless air support to make up in bombs what we might lack in manpower), while Russia has a terribly motivated and already-hungry army even in their own backyard, and surprisingly not enough ordnance to make up for it.
I certainly agree that you don't want to declare it over at this point but is there any counterpart in the German example to the logistical failures we've seen so far? The Russian army seems like they didn't just start with less but are losing a significant amount of equipment and are struggling to use what they have in the field effectively in most of the battlefield. Nothing we've seen so far looks like they're going to be able to pick up the pace, especially since the attacks on civilians they've made seem likely to have increased rather than reduced the number of Ukranians who are willing to fight.
>>>is there any counterpart in the German example to the logistical failures we've seen so far?
One early vid featured a Ukrainian civilian driving up to a stopped Russian APC. The Russian crew said they were out of gas. Your vehicle has a 300km+ fuel range and you ran outta gas 50km from the Russian border? WTF? Did you leave your Assembly Area with a 1/4 tank of fuel?! No I don't think the Germans ever launched an invasion with such poor preparation.
>>>struggling to use what they have in the field effectively in most of the battlefield
We've been discussing some examples at work (with an Iraq-veteran Staff Sergeant and a recent infantry company commander): videos of just absolutely terrible security habits from the Russians. I don't care if they are unmotivated conscripts: you've gotta realize by now that you are in "Indian country". You need to keep your head on a swivel and watching your surroundings if you simply want to NOT DIE. There were parked tanks getting knocked out by ATGMs at fairly close range.....doesn't make sense when the T-72B3 has a thermal imager, and it's winter, so body heat should stand out at a reasonable distance. The crew should be scanning the treelines periodically with the thermal.
There's some aspects of the war where I'm willing to give the Russians the benefit of the doubt because, as I said, nobody has done this in 30+ years, maybe even 50+. But there are FAR too many flaws where we are sitting shocked and thinking "You guys suck so bad at your JOB, that I'm embarrassed for you."
Well, by all accounts (and I'd love to read others that diverge from this) this was actually Russia's exact strategy. Move to Kyiv quickly, destroy the existing government, install a new puppet government, and announce it to the world quickly before the west could react. Russia doesn't have the manpower deployed to actually occupy Ukraine. 200,000 soldiers is not enough when the Ukrainian state is actively resisting. This is why they tried some absolutely suicidal paratrooper missions and they are having all of these apparent logistical issues (again if there are other sources I'd like to learn more please share).
I think if I were to summarize the "Russia is failing" narrative it's that Russia expectations of a quick, easy victory were completely unmet, and now even if Russia does want to occupy Ukraine it's not going to be the quick and easy decapitation strike that they thought it would.
Keeping in mind that Russia of course isn’t going to come out with a 1-pager on their strategy, there are a lot of sources on this. Understandably if you are hung up on the 24 hours thing I mean there isn’t a source for that but suffice to say the sooner the better was their goal.
Thank you, that's interesting to know. I had the impression that the Russian plan was to just get there and just never leave until Ukraine kind of surrenders or whatever.
Have the Russians proven they are weak? Certainly the war in the northeast has proven incompetent, but the war in the south seems like a far more solid military operation. It's also the more important operation, Odessa for example is a major logistical point for foreign military aid.
Yes. They have shown they are not well organized, have poor leadership, have defective planning, are terrible at logistics, have poor discipline in the ranks.
In fairness to the Russian military they are probably pretty unmotivated. A lot of them seem to have no idea why they were there having been told they were taking part in exercises. Also had Putin let on they were suppose to kill their peaceful neighbours for his self aggrandisement they probably would not have been enthusiastic.
"Certainly the war in the northeast has proven incompetent,"
Eh. I don't understand others military analysis. Russia is doing the right thing to just sit a convoy north of Kyiv. Ukraine doesn't have air power anyway. If they rolled into Kyiv it would be a urban combat meat grinder. They are better off waiting until the forces from the south and east meet south of Kyiv. Then they can surround Kyiv and shell it to rubble [what they learned in berlin]. Wait for white flags, then roll it. Ukraine needs to wipe out that northern convoy NOW.
They arent tactically waiting in that convoy, they got stuck and are being picked off little by little. You must realize how fucked you are when some random farmers are towing away $25mil worth TOR SAM systems away https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xD8z_kGe7rs pretty regularly now. This is the third one documented on video.
The Russians are incompetent beyond belief. I thought the farmers were lucky when they confiscated the first tank, but now it's happening all the time. Have you ever seen Iraqi farmers towing away American tanks?
Incompetent or can't be arsed? If you were conscripted into the Russian military what would you do? Personally I'd be happy to go for a tea break while some farmer towed the vehicle.
Yes. They are going to switch to vacuum explosives. They wont risk their tanks getting to close to Kyiv. They will just level Kyiv from a distance using dummy explosives. That is why everything is parked north. They are trying to bring up more TOS carriers from the south and east.
Hello from Kyiv, Ukraine - I need to be completely open minded, and unbiased, to what is happening here (for my own life, and those around me).
In reality, this is an almost total disaster for Russia so far. No matter what, Russia will not recover from the last 12 days in the next fifty years. International support for Ukraine will only grow stronger. The scale of verified Russian losses was NEVER predicted by anyone prior to this invasion. Prior to invasion, the reports were almost entirely about how fast Ukraine would fall.
Now, everything is about "Russia is yet to send it's best, it's early days, etc" - from the same "experts" and talking heads.
With regards to what you have said, of course never underestimate your enemy, and yes it may sadly be on the early days, but you could do this to get one single data point of what is happening:
1)research and find the most likely estimate of Russian troop deaths so far.
2)using that number, estimate the number of injured Russian troops (military experts can help you here, wars are somewhat predicable with death/injured ratios).
3)add those two numbers together.
What number do you come up with, and show your workings please.
A friend of mine has a 100+ dev team in Ukraine. He said about 30 have evacuated while the rest are staying to fight. Currently, he said the main problem is getting money in the hands of his people. They're all still paid and there's lots of funds available but getting actual currency in their hands is the hard part. He's able to stay in touch over Slack which
implies inet is working at least. Can you confirm? Also, what is the single most effective thing regular, but well connected (both politically and logistically), people in the US can do to help the situation?
Hi, I would be happy to tell you what is happening here in Kyiv.
For context, I have some hard currency, but I'm not spending it as yet. Electronic means of payment are fully functional - spend at the supermarkets, or pharmacies, without issue (other than supply issues at supermarkets of course). I haven't yet tried an international bank transfer into Ukraine, but I suspect it would be OK. I use an EU issued bank card, it works no problem (I also have a UA bank card as backup)
At the moment, therefore, the best thing to do: get money into the hands of regular Ukrainians. Personally, I have been raising funds from abroad and using the money to either give directly to Ukrainians (via bank transfers), or purchasing food etc and delivering it (in my local area) to the most vulnerable. At the moment, if people run out of money, they will run out of food.
Keeping people fed, keeps people sane. It's the most effective thing for Ukrainians that are remaining in Ukraine.
I would say the second most effective thing, is asking your politicians to do more - that may be providing lethal aid, humanitarian aid, or money, to Ukraine.
Further - logistics are incredibly compromised now, in every possible way. For the moment, money is the most effective solution. The situation is fluid - what Ukraine needed yesterday, is possibly not what they will need tomorrow. Money can be used immediately to help purchase what needed, with respect to what is actually available.
thank you, i'm going to copy/paste this to my colleague to see if it can help with him and his team.
Edit
> purchasing food etc and delivering it (in my local area) to the most vulnerable.
is there more information here? a way to do this over the inet that can be verified as legit and not a scam? If so, i can see this being very useful. I've been seeing people rent AirBnbs in Ukraine all of social media to get money in people's hands. I'm wary of fraud though, it's a situation ripe for fraudsters to take advantage.
The problem is, I see we both have our contact details empty on HN.
If you can suggest a way for me to contact you, I will reach out. I don't want to be compromised (which for me, is a bigger threat than normal right now).
Unlike a sports game with voluntary competitors, you should judge a military operation early, preferably even before the aggressor plans it. Sounds like Art of War 101.
China is providing some kinds of assistance, for example they are substituting their own (and India's) banking system for the SWIFT cut-off. So far, no military assistance, but that is not really needed; the RF has a huge military of which only a tiny fraction has been committed to the Ukraine action.
Did you perhaps grew up under Russian occupation, like I did, and not learn in school about Molotov–Ribbentrop Pacts? We were only taught the part after 1941 where Russia gloriously liberates Europe.
Yeah, I did, I grew up in Romania, which was also heavily and negatively affected by the the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact (we lost everything East of the river Prut, Northern Bukovina and the county of Herța in June 1940, as a result of a Soviet ultimatum). Nevertheless, we did learn that USSR got into the war in 1941, i.e. when the Germans together with some of their allies (including us, Romanians) attacked them.
I did personally know a person that was close to me (he passed away about a decade ago) who had been a soldier on that front, he was in Odessa, in Crimea and all the way East to the Don river. He considered that the war started when his commander in chief at the time, marshal Antonescu, had ordered him and his fellow Romanian soldiers to pass the Prut and attack the Soviets, in June 1941. As it happens marshal Antonescu is considered a war criminal, and he was indeed a war criminal if you look at what he did to the Jewish population from Romania. That didn't count for people like that close person of mine I had told you about, who regarded him as a hero because marshal Antonescu was one of the the only persons who really wanted "to defeat the Bolsheviks" (I'm quoting my close acquaintance on this). That's why history around these parts of the world is really, really complicated, is not black and white all the time.
Ukraine didn't have modern weapons in 2014, but they do now.
Regardless, I don't think anyone has ever thought the post-Soviet Russian military could take on NATO in conventional warfare, but that doesn't matter because they have nukes.
> Ukraine didn't have modern weapons in 2014, but they do now.
And the Ukrainians don't even have a full complement of modern weapons. IIRC, they're mainly getting sent infantry heavy-weapons at the very last minute. Even the US was pretty stingy with things like Javelins until very recently, out of fear of "provoking" the Putin.
Since the Baltics are in NATO, I doubt they'll have as many issues with getting more/better weapons. Hopefully they'll also take some lessons from Ukraine (e.g. really, really beef up their reserve forces and military training for their civilian population).
Also, since they're actually in NATO, they can hopefully count on better support from their allies than what the Ukrainians have gotten.
HAD been lacking :). the most popular pet name in Ukraine right now is Bayraktar. But of course, as others mentioned, it will take only a few blown up 1$bln warships before things turn nuclear.
Most likely Russians will have a demo nuclear 'test' in neutral waters sometimes this year. There aren't any 'cooler heads' to prevail in this situation - just bloodlust and enablement
Once the nuclear taboo is crossed it could happen near-instantly. I imagine Russia would prefer to be bordered by nuclear wastelands as a DMZ rather than EU states, which create a existential cultural threat just by existing.
At that point you'd have to ask yourselves: who would risk nuclear escalation to retaliate for Latvia or Estonia? not the US. Would the UK bomb Russia with London on the line? probably not.
Just about everyone has more to lose than Russia at this point, which is an incredibly dangerous situation to be in.
You'd have to ask yourself: once a country becomes so deranged that it's willing to nuke non-aggressive neighbors to remove a "threat", is it really safe to just back down and potentially show weakness to that nation? What if they decide that further strategic aims can be accomplished with additional nuclear strikes?
I'm not saying I know the answer. But this is what strategists on the US/NATO side would be thinking about, and Russia sure knows they would be thinking about it. It would be madness to gamble on this strategy working out in the long run.
The P5 issues a joint statement on Jan 3rd, 2022 that they won't use nuclear weapons. I am not sure if this is an annual announcement for P5 or just well wishes for 2022 by the nuclear armed permanent members of UNSC. (possibly /s)
Obviously Russia would not start a nuclear war. It will simply take steps that either need to be conventionally opposed or dare US/NATO to go nuclear. Sanctions are hoped to collapse the economy of Russia and put the fear into the Chinese and other fence sitters. It's like running the clock down in a game. US probes for incremental steps (the famous "salami slicing") to ramp up counter force. Nothing should happen until we have Russia's promised counter-sanction response this Tuesday. After that next move is getting planes into Ukraine and possibly NFZ. What follows will be a non-nuclear hypersonic attack on NATO airfields used. And so on. Until someone lobs a nuke.
Oh no, that wouldn't be their objective. Which would be rather 1) military (obliterate resistance) and 2) political (show the resolve to use whatever means they deem necessary).
>Obviously Russia would not start a nuclear war. It will simply take steps that either need to be conventionally opposed or dare US/NATO to go nuclear.
I think the major conclusion from the Ukraine war is that the Russian army is not in a particularly strong condition, and certainly would not fare well against superior NATO forces (particularly the air forces.) And this is assuming they are not further degraded by a long, bloody occupation in Ukraine. Nuclear first-use is a move from weakness, not strength.
I have no idea about their condition. That's state level knowledge and requires military training, & I'm just a dog (with an interest and some talent in CS ;) on the internet and pretty much assume most if not all info prepared for me by the media (of all sides) is dog food. At least that's what it tastes like to me :)
Is it safe to back down and allow Russia to take Ukraine? A similar thing seems to be happening now on a smaller scale. We have a rough idea that they have larger ambitions. I don't think the west would back down if Poland were attacked, but again I have to ask... who specifically would retaliate on the behalf of Estonia and Latvia? I guess it would be a true test of NATO membership, but based on their reluctance to shut down Ukrainian airspace I don't see it happening.
> who specifically would retaliate on the behalf of Estonia and Latvia?
All of NATO
NATO have been quite clear that the line is attacking a NATO member. Russia is pushing that line by invading a country they believed was about to join NATO, but they have not yet attacked a NATO country
If all of NATO wasn't brought to bear to defend Estonia or Latvia then NATO is worthless. I understand your point though, risk civilization over very small nations with low populations? I think the answer still has to be yes.
They are not going to hit a city of course but a piece of the military infrastructure should NATO forces get involved. (And the target will not be in one of the Baltic states, I am sure.)
I'm not so sure NATO membership matters as much as people think, at present it seems like a convenient excuse to not intervene.
If the US retaliated with a bomb on Russian soil, would the expectation not be full-out nuclear war? Would it be smart for the US to enter that because Russia bombed Latvia?
Attacking a NATO member in a significant manner would trigger nuclear war. That's the actual meaning of the alliance, the treaties make retaliation compulsory, if the action is a clear attack by a nation-state. Refusing to carry it out would immediately result in effective disbandment of the alliance, with massive effects on the economy of Europe and the US.
This logic doesn't really track... you think the US would directly invoke nuclear war for the sake of an agreement that includes baltic states because if it doesn't... it could hurt the economy? I have no doubt that "hurt the economy" would be preferred to "destroy parts of the country"
NATO doesn't have multiple tracks - a member is a member. The US and their allies understood very well what that meant when they accepted those new members. NATO is about retaliation after external (and generally accepted to mean Russian, in practice) attack, or it isn't at all.
This is not a case of Turkey whining about a few kurds blowing up a few police stations, this is the raison d'etre for the whole thing. Renouncing NATO duties would be the worst loss of dignity the US ever experienced, and would jeopardize its richest partner market, with uncalcolable losses.
How is it the US "invoking nuclear war" if Russia nukes a US ally first? No, Russia's the one starting that war if they do that. Yes, the US would retaliate.
Yes they will. Don't have a single doubt about that. If they don't then their treaties aren't worth more than toilet paper for Putin to use. Make no mistake, NATO will protect its member countries.
What makes you so confident? Treaties have been broken for lesser reasons throughout history. It seems unlikely a country would be willing to enter a nuclear conflict for an ally with a GDP 500 times smaller.
it does matter, that's why it's so hard to get in. One step across a NATO border and the Russians will have started WW3. Don't have any doubt about that.
I think Russia could even get away with "peace keeping" a "Russian separatist group" in a Nato country like Latvia.
Which is what makes this war so strange. Russia could've easily stolen Donbas - and NO ONE in the world would've cared. They could've taken away one state at a time, and NO ONE would have cared. There was no reason to rush.
But if Russia nuked a NATO population center, or even just invaded to this degree a NATO country - that's MAD.
But, what this war has exposed is how bad the russian army is trained, and how not so great their equipment is. While a prolonged war would be hard for any country, they struggled from the get go.
I hope this doesn't embolden the US and Europe to be more aggressive. I really hope that cooler heads eventually prevail.
WRT to the really really far fetched ( I hope ), that Russia would launch any nuclear strike. The missile defense systems that NATO and the US have were built exactly to counteract Russian missiles in a situation like this. This will even accelerate the development of hypersonic interceptors ( afaik, already in final stages) .
It would mean total annihilation of russia, as their in flight missies would be intercepted, and it would guarantee a total attack by the us. ( we as a nation tend to over react... and not go tit for tat ).
I hope this never happens. The reason why countries need leadership changes often. And why stable leaders are needed everywhere :-/
If nobody launches a nuclear retaliation, then Russia knows it can nuke with impunity. What are the rules they are playing with? Literally just hope they don't invade or nuke London first.
Well, they probably can’t nuke Western Europe with impunity.
But it’s not clear what NATO membership’s really worth for Eastern Europe. I’m from EE and I don’t understand why the US or the UK would risk their countries or even WE getting nuked for EE.
I have the feeling that EE was accepted into NATO just to piss off the Russians and put some space between them and WE. Just like with Ukraine before it went sideways.
Because we know that we aren't far behind if such a madman is allowed to exist. It's better to go out with a boom than let a dictator win. --Love, an american
I don't think that's the plan. Also, no one is going to use tactical nukes against a city. The last thing Putin wants is to look like a mere terrorist. (And no, the Russian forces aren't using terrorist tactics in Ukraine.) So, the first one will probably be used against a military installation (a weapons depot, a radar station, a war ship, etc.), most likely in Poland.
>At that point you'd have to ask yourselves: who would risk nuclear escalation to retaliate for Latvia or Estonia? not the US.
That is the point behind asking for US soldiers to be permanently based. They are a sign of commitment. An "engagement ring" if you will. Without the US soldiers there it becomes much easier to ignore an attack.
> who would risk nuclear escalation to retaliate for Latvia or Estonia?
That's the very point of the existence of NATO. If NATO doesn't retaliate, it could as well not exist. Fortunately the Western reaction to Putin's invasion helped to unite NATO and everybody knows that if we give in, there is no reason why Putin should stop at any defined point.
"Who would risk nuclear escalation as millions of people are wiped off the face of the Earth?" - I think if this question is being asked, it's only a matter of times before nukes fly beyond these select boarding countries as escalation would almost certainly continue. Putin is already declaring the sanctions as an act of war while NATO/EU countries begin to rearm.
"who would risk nuclear escalation to retaliate for Latvia or Estonia? not the US."
If a President as unpredictable as Trump happens to be in office, I wouldn't be so sure.
That's not to mention the drastically increased risk of accidents once even a one-sided nuclear war has begun.
Think of how close the world came to nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis.[1] Once nukes start flying the risk grows much higher, even if there are still (presumably rational, cautious, and non-hawkish) adults in control.
> One could argue a crazy irrational leader is a better defense against the start of conflict than a rational leader
One could argue anything, but I don't think there is a good argument for that position. In fact, I think it's painfully obvious that such a leader makes it less likely that efforts at avoiding conflict will be successful.
I would be shocked (and likely dead shortly after) if NATO launched all out nuclear retaliation for the sake of the baltic states. It's a very convenient threat until you're faced with the reality of pushing the button.
i don't believe it would go from zero to nuclear instantly. However, the thought is in a NATO vs Russia fight either side will resort to nuclear weapons before surrender. The thinking is it would be hard to stop a fight from escalating to an eventual nuclear war.
