ADVERTISEMENT

Russia-Ukraine war has begun

larsIU said:
If this goes poorly for Russia, in the sense they don’t quickly achieve their goals and an insurgency arrises, is Putin in trouble internally. I mean, it’s basically the mob anyway, so does he get whacked by one of his own.
Click to expand...
Never say never but …

Social media and modern communication will make social pressure more relevant than in the past, but history says no, and Putin is not taking this step without a plan and the desire to do whatever it takes. Ukraine is a start, not a finish.

His generals are gonna win and get rich, or die, and the protesters in Russia don’t have guns. And he doesn’t give a shit about protests anywhere. He’s KGB.
 
  • Like
Reactions: larsIU
T.M.P. said:
I hope the Ghost of Kyiv is real.
Click to expand...
Me too. There's some good inspirational stuff coming out of this nightmare.

Snake Island holdouts told Russian warship to xxxx themselves. The heavyweight boxer brothers vow to fight. Ghost of Kyiv. And an old woman told Ukrainian fighters to put seeds in their pockets so their corpses sprout flowers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Baller23Boogie and Bill4411
mcmurtry66 said:
Me too. There's some good inspirational stuff coming out of this nightmare.

Snake Island holdouts told Russian warship to xxxx themselves. The heavyweight boxer brothers vow to fight. Ghost of Kyiv. And an old woman told Ukrainian fighters to put seeds in their pockets so their corpses sprout flowers.
Click to expand...
I've already started working on a screenplay about Snake Island.

@T.M.P.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411 and T.M.P.
MyTeamIsOnTheFloor said:
Wrong. They can finish Ukraine. The tanks aren't rolling yet. They’ve probed and knocked out a few sites, but Russia hasn't even put the gloves on, ,much less taken them off. It’s about to get real and ugly. And the introduction of Stingers to shoot at jets will make them go brutal early.

Sanctions won’t save Ukraine. Might bank a rebuild in 20 years, but this shit will last a decade minimum. Unless Putin is deposed, which ain’t happening.
Click to expand...
Yes they control airfields and some city centers. Beyond them individual soldiers and volunteers will start killing Russian soldiers without end.
 
IUCrazy2 said:
Based on the first few days of this invasion, not impressed with Russia's conventional forces at all. Take the nuclear arms off the table and in a potential war with NATO, they would have a real problem.
Click to expand...
How do you know? I've been watching about 75 percent Fox News and 25 percent MSNBC and I can't discern much. I'm a little surprised there isn't more actual footage. Maybe I assumed with technology. Or I just don't know any better
 
  • Like
Reactions: TMFT
IUCrazy2 said:
Based on the first few days of this invasion, not impressed with Russia's conventional forces at all. Take the nuclear arms off the table and in a potential war with NATO, they would have a real problem.
Click to expand...
Was thinking the same. Not advocating troops at this point, but can't help but wonder if we/others did. This may have been over quick.
 
IUCrazy2 said:
Based on the first few days of this invasion, not impressed with Russia's conventional forces at all. Take the nuclear arms off the table and in a potential war with NATO, they would have a real problem.
Click to expand...

IF things like losing the airfield and the bridge are true (and since CNN has someone standing at the bridge it seems probable), one has to wonder what the morale is in the Russian military. Troops fighting to conquer have different motivational needs.

Radio Free Europe seems to suggest Belarusians were not impressed by the Russians staging in their country:

www.rferl.org

'They Drink A Lot, Sell Their Fuel': Belarusians Give Low Marks To Russian Troops Deployed For Drills

Russian soldiers in southeastern Belarus "settled in the surrounding forests," one local resident said. "They drink a lot and sell a lot of their diesel fuel."
www.rferl.org www.rferl.org

IF they are literally selling their diesel fuel I would think that is a sign of a military lacking some combination of pay/morale.
 
  • Like
Reactions: iuwclurker, DANC and IUCrazy2
IUCrazy2 said:
Based on the first few days of this invasion, not impressed with Russia's conventional forces at all. Take the nuclear arms off the table and in a potential war with NATO, they would have a real problem.
Click to expand...
Russia does not want and in fact can’t absorb the costs of large-scale, long lasting occupation of the whole of Ukraine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC and Marvin the Martian
Marvin the Martian said:
IF things like losing the airfield and the bridge are true (and since CNN has someone standing at the bridge it seems probable), one has to wonder what the morale is in the Russian military. Troops fighting to conquer have different motivational needs.

Radio Free Europe seems to suggest Belarusians were not impressed by the Russians staging in their country:

www.rferl.org

'They Drink A Lot, Sell Their Fuel': Belarusians Give Low Marks To Russian Troops Deployed For Drills

Russian soldiers in southeastern Belarus "settled in the surrounding forests," one local resident said. "They drink a lot and sell a lot of their diesel fuel."
www.rferl.org www.rferl.org

IF they are literally selling their diesel fuel I would think that is a sign of a military lacking some combination of pay/morale.
Click to expand...
Corruption in the Russian military? I'm shocked, shocked to find gambling is going on in here!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marvin the Martian
Marvin the Martian said:
IF things like losing the airfield and the bridge are true (and since CNN has someone standing at the bridge it seems probable), one has to wonder what the morale is in the Russian military. Troops fighting to conquer have different motivational needs.

Radio Free Europe seems to suggest Belarusians were not impressed by the Russians staging in their country:

www.rferl.org

'They Drink A Lot, Sell Their Fuel': Belarusians Give Low Marks To Russian Troops Deployed For Drills

Russian soldiers in southeastern Belarus "settled in the surrounding forests," one local resident said. "They drink a lot and sell a lot of their diesel fuel."
www.rferl.org www.rferl.org

IF they are literally selling their diesel fuel I would think that is a sign of a military lacking some combination of pay/morale.
Click to expand...
Noodle said they're on Tinder. Maybe they aren't getting many connections. That would impact morale for sure. If they were on Bumble they'd probably abandon the entire mission

Okay military Marv. I read they sent 100,000 troops. That's the equivalent of a full Ohio Stadium. Doesn't seem like much for the physical size of Ukraine
 
Zelensky and Ukraine impressive so far. Russia's military resembles the Iraq Republican guard so far. Saddam=Putin.
 
mcmurtry66 said:
Noodle said they're on Tinder. Maybe they aren't getting many connections. That would impact morale for sure.

Okay military Marv. I read they sent 100,000 troops. That's the equivalent of a full Ohio Stadium. Doesn't seem like much for the physical size of Ukraine
Click to expand...
Kiev is roughly the population of LA. LA has 10,000 police officers. Think about how many more would be required to take and hold LA. 100,000 isn't enough if they want to occupy the cities. That's why I don't think it is likely.

A quick look, in 1941 Army Group South was tasked with taking Ukraine. The Germans used about 30 corps (plus many smaller units). A German Corps had three divisions, German divisions had at least 12,000 men (early in the war before casualties reduced that greatly). So that means Germany used at least 720,000 men to take Ukraine in 1941.

Now technology has reduced those requirements greatly. But for taking and holding cities, I doubt it has reduced it enough that 100,000 is sufficient. Fighting in modern skyscrapers cannot be easy. I'll let Ranger address that issue as I am positive he knows far more about urban combat requirements.

My current belief, the Russians believed that the Ukrainian government was not popular. They believed a quick incursion would activate mass numbers of Ukrainians to flock to their cause and topple the current government. This sort of thinking has happened often, in their invasion of Kentucky the Confederacy was worried about what they would do with all the volunteers they were going to receive.

It may be they haven't had a real plan to take Ukraine, it may be they had a plan to trigger a revolt and that plan has failed. And I'll back that up with a commentator this morning on CNN suggesting the Russians were doing poorly because Ukraine still has an air force, still has armored formations, still has command and control. In US doctrine both would have been disrupted before entering. But in my theory, the Russians wanted command and control to survive to order troops to surrender. They wanted not to destroy the Ukrainian military as doing so would harden the attitudes away from Russian support. Russia thought a quick trip in and Ukraine would fall.

One thing we don't know, how many of those troops are from Belarus. Russia may have used more Belarus troops and those may not be as motivated/good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC, T.M.P., larsIU and 1 other person
mcmurtry66 said:
How do you know? I've been watching about 75 percent Fox News and 25 percent MSNBC and I can't discern much. I'm a little surprised there isn't more actual footage. Maybe I assumed with technology. Or I just don't know any better
Click to expand...
Compare their shock and awe with what we did in Serbia in 1999 or more recently in Iraq. Strategically you can kind of see what their invasion plan has been but it seems rather ham fisted. Maybe they are holding back a little bit but they seemed way to reliant on helicopters early on without establishing their air superiority. Taking that airfield early and the bridge only to have to abandon it because they had no plan to hold it (no supply lines, apparently no air cover, etc.)

I am no great general, but Russia has been building and planning this invasion for months. They should have an idea of concentrations of Ukrainian troops. They should have been monitoring their movements. The opening round should have focused heavily on hitting command and control, communications, the electric grid, and quickly using the mobility of their armor to cut off and encircle pockets of the Ukrainian military. The first day did not seem really coordinated from afar.

Then if the stuff noodle posted is true, hitting Ukrainian women up on Tinder? Outside of the idea that Tinder uses geolocation to give you potential dates in your area, how are these dumbasses thinking with their dicks going to meet them? Good way to get yourself killed. I have seen Tik Tok videos of their airborne troops apparently en route. The Belarussians were complaining about the forces staying in Belarus being sick drunkards.

They are using mostly BMPs and T72's for their armor from what I can tell. The Russians have better tanks but they apparently cannot make enough of them to put them into service.

People are saying they are the number 2 military in the world (Don't know if I believe that). If that is the case though, there is light years of space between 1 and 2.
 
IUCrazy2 said:
Based on the first few days of this invasion, not impressed with Russia's conventional forces at all. Take the nuclear arms off the table and in a potential war with NATO, they would have a real problem.
Click to expand...
Marvin the Martian said:
Kiev is roughly the population of LA. LA has 10,000 police officers. Think about how many more would be required to take and hold LA. 100,000 isn't enough if they want to occupy the cities. That's why I don't think it is likely.

A quick look, in 1941 Army Group South was tasked with taking Ukraine. The Germans used about 30 corps (plus many smaller units). A German Corps had three divisions, German divisions had at least 12,000 men (early in the war before casualties reduced that greatly). So that means Germany used at least 720,000 men to take Ukraine in 1941.

Now technology has reduced those requirements greatly. But for taking and holding cities, I doubt it has reduced it enough that 100,000 is sufficient. Fighting in modern skyscrapers cannot be easy. I'll let Ranger address that issue as I am positive he knows far more about urban combat requirements.

My current belief, the Russians believed that the Ukrainian government was not popular. They believed a quick incursion would activate mass numbers of Ukrainians to flock to their cause and topple the current government. This sort of thinking has happened often, in their invasion of Kentucky the Confederacy was worried about what they would do with all the volunteers they were going to receive.

It may be they haven't had a real plan to take Ukraine, it may be they had a plan to trigger a revolt and that plan has failed. And I'll back that up with a commentator this morning on CNN suggesting the Russians were doing poorly because Ukraine still has an air force, still has armored formations, still has command and control. In US doctrine both would have been disrupted before entering. But in my theory, the Russians wanted command and control to survive to order troops to surrender. They wanted not to destroy the Ukrainian military as doing so would harden the attitudes away from Russian support. Russia thought a quick trip in and Ukraine would fall.

One thing we don't know, how many of those troops are from Belarus. Russia may have used more Belarus troops and those may not be as motivated/good.
Click to expand...
It's been 36 or 48 hours of actual combat? Don't think we have enough information to draw any conclusions. There is very little reporting and footage of what's actually happening on the ground. Personally, I think Ukraine is probably not doing well based on the tone of Zelensky and his repeated desire to negotiate. Not a big fan of his criticisms of the United States. And as mentioned, they should have call for a general mobilisation much sooner.

What I don't understand is that supposedly Ukraine has 200k+ active yet Russia is already on the doorsteps of Kiev with relatively little resistance?

As for Russia's performance, a significant number of their soldiers are conscripts. They aren't hard fighting professionals. Random young guys they pick off the street.
 
IUCrazy2 said:
Compare their shock and awe with what we did in Serbia in 1999 or more recently in Iraq. Strategically you can kind of see what their invasion plan has been but it seems rather ham fisted. Maybe they are holding back a little bit but they seemed way to reliant on helicopters early on without establishing their air superiority. Taking that airfield early and the bridge only to have to abandon it because they had no plan to hold it (no supply lines, apparently no air cover, etc.)

I am no great general, but Russia has been building and planning this invasion for months. They should have an idea of concentrations of Ukrainian troops. They should have been monitoring their movements. The opening round should have focused heavily on hitting command and control, communications, the electric grid, and quickly using the mobility of their armor to cut off and encircle pockets of the Ukrainian military. The first day did not seem really coordinated from afar.

Then if the stuff noodle posted is true, hitting Ukrainian women up on Tinder? Outside of the idea that Tinder uses geolocation to give you potential dates in your area, how are these dumbasses thinking with their dicks going to meet them? Good way to get yourself killed. I have seen Tik Tok videos of their airborne troops apparently en route. The Belarussians were complaining about the forces staying in Belarus being sick drunkards.

They are using mostly BMPs and T72's for their armor from what I can tell. The Russians have better tanks but they apparently cannot make enough of them to put them into service.

People are saying they are the number 2 military in the world (Don't know if I believe that). If that is the case though, there is light years of space between 1 and 2.
Click to expand...
Interesting info. As for Noodle's post I have no idea if that's true or not, but assuming for argument sake it's even a half truth, coupled with the drinking, maybe it's a generational thing. Maybe these soldiers' are millenials and gen z and not of the same ilk as prior generations that were hardened. Times are different. I say the foregoing in jest but perhaps there's some truth to it
 
Marvin the Martian said:
Kiev is roughly the population of LA. LA has 10,000 police officers. Think about how many more would be required to take and hold LA. 100,000 isn't enough if they want to occupy the cities. That's why I don't think it is likely.

A quick look, in 1941 Army Group South was tasked with taking Ukraine. The Germans used about 30 corps (plus many smaller units). A German Corps had three divisions, German divisions had at least 12,000 men (early in the war before casualties reduced that greatly). So that means Germany used at least 720,000 men to take Ukraine in 1941.

Now technology has reduced those requirements greatly. But for taking and holding cities, I doubt it has reduced it enough that 100,000 is sufficient. Fighting in modern skyscrapers cannot be easy. I'll let Ranger address that issue as I am positive he knows far more about urban combat requirements.

My current belief, the Russians believed that the Ukrainian government was not popular. They believed a quick incursion would activate mass numbers of Ukrainians to flock to their cause and topple the current government. This sort of thinking has happened often, in their invasion of Kentucky the Confederacy was worried about what they would do with all the volunteers they were going to receive.

It may be they haven't had a real plan to take Ukraine, it may be they had a plan to trigger a revolt and that plan has failed. And I'll back that up with a commentator this morning on CNN suggesting the Russians were doing poorly because Ukraine still has an air force, still has armored formations, still has command and control. In US doctrine both would have been disrupted before entering. But in my theory, the Russians wanted command and control to survive to order troops to surrender. They wanted not to destroy the Ukrainian military as doing so would harden the attitudes away from Russian support. Russia thought a quick trip in and Ukraine would fall.

One thing we don't know, how many of those troops are from Belarus. Russia may have used more Belarus troops and those may not be as motivated/good.
Click to expand...
Got it. Makes sense
 
mcmurtry66 said:
Interesting info. As for Noodle's post I have no idea if that's true or not, but assuming for argument sake it's even a half truth, coupled with the drinking, maybe it's a generational thing. Maybe these soldiers' are millenials and gen z and not of the same ilk as prior generations that were hardened. Times are different. I say the foregoing in jest but perhaps there's some truth to it
Click to expand...
They have not fully committed their forces. Looks like they were hoping for a quick hit and end to this without suffering significant losses. The guys selling oil are probably conscripts. Conscripts are not serious soldiers. One point I forgot to make was that it appears Russia is doing their best to avoid civilian casualties which I believe is intentional to avoid angering the population to a greater degree and leaving civilian infrastructure in tact. Looks a lot different than their behavior in Syria.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
The Russian cyber-counter may decide a lot. If they take US banks off-line, what then?

I don’t think Russia has thrown all their weight into the attack yet, which is also a strange way to invade.

None of this makes sense yet. What is the goal? Ukraine or the old USSR? Invade to negotiate? Would Putin really invade “Just to make a point?” Break NATO by forcing it to fight or quit?

The fog of war is still thick. But it’s clear Russia is not yet “all in.” That decision is coming.

And is Putin crazy enough to go nuke, even just battlefield tactical nuke? The Russians fell for the “Reagan is nuke crazy” story, and gave up nukes because of it. Is Putin trying that angle?

Best play? Take him at his word and act accordingly - he wants the USSR back and will try nukes if NATO starts to win. So be it. Until that threat is gone, he’s the target.
 
mcmurtry66 said:
Interesting info. As for Noodle's post I have no idea if that's true or not, but assuming for argument sake it's even a half truth, coupled with the drinking, maybe it's a generational thing. Maybe these soldiers' are millenials and gen z and not of the same ilk as prior generations that were hardened. Times are different. I say the foregoing in jest but perhaps there's some truth to it
Click to expand...
We had Millenials and Gen Z fighting in wars for the past 20 years. I don't think this is a generational thing, I think it is a poorly trained, low morale, bunch of conscripts (like Toasted pointed out up above) who are given a gun and told where to go.

The Russians have some really good units in their military, but it sure seems like their filler is subpar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC and mcmurtry66
MyTeamIsOnTheFloor said:
The Russian cyber-counter may decide a lot. If they take US banks off-line, what then?

I don’t think Russia has thrown all their weight into the attack yet, which is also a strange way to invade.

None of this makes sense yet. What is the goal? Ukraine or the old USSR? Invade to negotiate? Would Putin really invade “Just to make a point?” Break NATO by forcing it to fight or quit?

The fog of war is still thick. But it’s clear Russia is not yet “all in.” That decision is coming.

And is Putin crazy enough to go nuke, even just battlefield tactical nuke? The Russians fell for the “Reagan is nuke crazy” story, and gave up nukes because of it. Is Putin trying that angle?

Best play? Take him at his word and act accordingly - he wants the USSR back and will try nukes if NATO starts to win. So be it. Until that threat is gone, he’s the target.
Click to expand...
You have probably seen that Anonymous has declared their desire to attack Russia.

Russia has to know that if our banks are hit, theirs will be. I have to suspect our cyber capability dwarfs theirs. Granted, MAD may not work in cyber warfare as it does in nuclear. But I heard Senator Warner yesterday say that the US is not necessarily limiting its response to a cyberattack to just cyberwar, we reserve the right to use a military response.
 
toastedbread said:
What I don't understand is that supposedly Ukraine has 200k+ active yet Russia is already on the doorsteps of Kiev with relatively little resistance?
Click to expand...

Best case for the Ukrainians is they have pulled back into the city and are setting up there. Draw the Russians in. Bloodbath.

Edit: including civilians.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
TMFT said:
Corruption in the Russian military? I'm shocked, shocked to find gambling is going on in here!
Click to expand...
A guy I work with grew up in Soviet controlled Lithuania. Talked to him this morning. He said Russians only think with their balls and would sell their mothers out for a ruble. Then he called them animals and something I couldn't decipher.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
MyTeamIsOnTheFloor said:
The Russian cyber-counter may decide a lot. If they take US banks off-line, what then?

I don’t think Russia has thrown all their weight into the attack yet, which is also a strange way to invade.

None of this makes sense yet. What is the goal? Ukraine or the old USSR? Invade to negotiate? Would Putin really invade “Just to make a point?” Break NATO by forcing it to fight or quit?

The fog of war is still thick. But it’s clear Russia is not yet “all in.” That decision is coming.

And is Putin crazy enough to go nuke, even just battlefield tactical nuke? The Russians fell for the “Reagan is nuke crazy” story, and gave up nukes because of it. Is Putin trying that angle?

Best play? Take him at his word and act accordingly - he wants the USSR back and will try nukes if NATO starts to win. So be it. Until that threat is gone, he’s the target.
Click to expand...
I don't think Nukes but chemicals-yes. What was good for Syria will be fine with Russia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I

David Frum: Trump has turned GOP into party of Russia

Replies
91
Views
5K
The Water Cooler
IU_Hickory
IU_Hickory
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back