Battle of Bakhmud won by Russia

[toomuchtime_]

Anyone who has spoken/dealt with Putin would verify to you; he is a very intelligent person and his favorite strategy is intimidation - not just by words but rather via actions.
Russia's military leadership; anyone who has spoken or dealt with Russian commanders from Brigade-level upward, would verify that they are just as capable as their NATO opposites. They are very well aware about which units are useful/capable (core units) and which ones primarily serve statistical purposes.

Therefore, there is absolutely no way that the Russian MoD and it's respective heads of staffs would have told Putin; yes Boss, 95,000 Russian combat troops are enough to conquer and occupy Ukraine. Europe's second largest country with it's Armed Forces (around 90,000 combat troops) and around 75,000 reservists mostly on a 24h alert since 6 month.

So it's up to you to work out some 'theories" as to why Putin ordered that kind of numbers to attack Ukraine - foremost Kiev. And not some Western Media bull - 3 days and so on.

Actually shows that you got no idea as to why this war got started in the first place. And that Russia would be willing to loose a million man for that and more.

This is truly a bizarre post. First, why compare the competence of Russian officers to NATO officers when the Russia is fighting Ukraine, not NATO?

The gross incompetence of Russia's political and military leadership is undeniable. A competent leadership would never have launched the invasion on Feb 24 when the ground was too soggy with melting winter snow to move tanks and heavy trucks across country and required them to stay on highways in huge convoys that made easy targets for the one modern weapon Ukraine had a good supply of, shoulder fired anti tank missiles, and a competent Russian leadership would not have left the supply lines for its advanced forces unprotected as Russia did so that that its advanced forces ran so low on food, fuel and ammo that when they were routed from Kiev and fled back toward the Russian border, they had to leave tanks and trucks behind for lack of fuel.

The big question is, why didn't Putin send in Russian forces to secure the supply lines of the advanced forces sent to try to encircle and capture Kiev? And the only answer that makes any sense is that Putin believed the war would be over so quickly, there was no need to secure them. Perhaps three days is too short a time, but certainly Putin must have thought the war would be over within a week or he would certainly have secured those supply lines.

I agree with you that intimidation is Putin's favorite weapon and more, his most effective weapon, and before he war that whole world was intimidated by the Russian military's reputation, but this war has exposed the utter mediocrity of the Russian military and intelligence service and Russia's political leadership so that now, no one is intimidated by Russia. That's why we see such frequent threats of nuclear war, because even the Russians have lost confidence in the ability of the Russian political and military leadership to win this war.

It's true that I have no idea what Russia could possibly gain from Ukraine that would justify the terrible cost it is suffering by pursuing it, and clearly neither do you or you would have posted it. Putin has been feeding crap about Russia to the Russian people for years, and you're still saying, yum yum.

 

[gipper]

His "facts" are wrong. Ukraine has outnumbered he Russian force inside Ukraine from day one of this war. When the invasion began, Ukraine quickly mobilized all its security forces, which numbered 265,000, to Russia's initial 120,000, and the Ukrainian forces quickly grew to 700,000, greatly outnumbering the Russian forces inside of Ukraine, but Russia out gunned Ukrainian forces, so Russia made some progress for a short time. Ukraine has 12,000,000 people of military age in a highly motivated population, and the numbers of its military forces have remained strong.

Setting aside the Russian bombardment of civilian targets which has no military value, Russian forces have been unable to make any progress at all in Ukraine, and in most instances, it is Russian soldiers trying to storm, fortified Ukrainian positions so common sense and the world's experience in trench warfare tells us that the attacking Russians are suffering much higher casualties than the defending Ukrainians.

Everything you know is wrong.

Here’s something you know nothing about.

 

[para bellum]

Everything you know is wrong.

Here’s something you know nothing about.

You know Zelensky suspended conscription back in October, right?

Ukraine scraps conscription for compulsory military service in wartime

The Verkhovna Rada has abolished conscription for compulsory military service while martial law is in effect, Member of Parliament from the Holos (Voice) parliamentary faction Yaroslav Zheleznyak said on Telegram on Oct. 18.

news.yahoo.com

 

[gipper]

You know Zelensky suspended conscription back in October, right?

Ukraine scraps conscription for compulsory military service in wartime

The Verkhovna Rada has abolished conscription for compulsory military service while martial law is in effect, Member of Parliament from the Holos (Voice) parliamentary faction Yaroslav Zheleznyak said on Telegram on Oct. 18.

news.yahoo.com

Yet they’re kidnaping men on the streets.

 

[para bellum]

Yet they’re kidnaping men on the streets.

I don't know when that was shot. They said it was Odesa, and the people from the recruitment center were themselves conscripts, and were removed from their positions over it.

I may be wrong- it strikes me as old footage, from back when it was more chaotic.

I know that today they have put together 7 new assault bde's of volunteers, only those with prior combat experience and Ukrainian citizenship were eligible to apply. That's 28K, the ranks are filled and the excess are being assembled as reserve bde's or bn's. And there is battalion-level training taking place in several western countries.

Ukraine does not appear to me to have a problem finding enough volunteers- the limitation is (and has always been) equipping them.

 

[gipper]

I don't know when that was shot. They said it was Odesa, and the people from the recruitment center were themselves conscripts, and were removed from their positions over it.

I may be wrong- it strikes me as old footage, from back when it was more chaotic.

I know that today they have put together 7 new assault bde's of volunteers, only those with prior combat experience and Ukrainian citizenship were eligible to apply. That's 28K, the ranks are filled and the excess are being assembled as reserve bde's or bn's. And there is battalion-level training taking place in several western countries.

Ukraine does not appear to me to have a problem finding enough volunteers- the limitation is (and has always been) equipping them.

Are there any young men left to push to the front? I read some time ago that roughly half the population of Ukraine prior to the war have left the country.

 

[Ringo]

Ukraine does not appear to me to have a problem finding enough volunteers

You mean foreign mercenaries hired with american taxpayer's money? Probably.
And ahead of them will be the cannon fodder caught on the streets of Ukraine.
Very democratic and according to the laws of the free world.

 

[José]

Why are the Ruskies waiting for their victory?

This is what several military experts have been saying about the war in Ukraine (to explain why the war is still going on):

Ukraine possesses an old but very efficient soviet air defence system that was improved with additional western military hardware.

The combination of both has been denying Russia air superiority critical to a quick victory. Most of the russian airforce is grounded due to the ukrainian air defense systems.

Those experts also said that the US never faced in recent history an adversary with such a powerful air defence (Serbia, Lybia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc...).

According to them if the roles were reversed and America were waging war on Ukraine and Russia were helping her neighbor with defensive systems the US would also be bogged down in a never ending artillery war not much diferent from the one Russia is facing.

I'm no military expert so I don't know if all the above is:

1 - An accurate description of reality.

2 - A pathetic excuse to hide the utter incompetence and weakness of the russian army.

3 - Partially correct. Something that explains the artillery war up to a certain point.

 

[Litwin]

Ruskies

 

[para bellum]

According to them if the roles were reversed and America were waging war on Ukraine and Russia were helping her neighbor with defensive systems the US would also be bogged down in a never ending artillery war not much diferent from the one Russia is facing.

I'm no military expert so I don't know if all the above is:

1 - An accurate description of reality.

2 - A pathetic excuse to hide the utter incompetence and weakness of the russian army.

3 - Partially correct. Something that explains the artillery war up to a certain point.

This might be true, or at least partially. But first, Iraq had much better IADS than Ukraine.

Regardless-

Russia did conduct an extensive air campaign at the outset, and targeted air defenses and the Ukrainian air bases. It was not effective for a couple reasons. Ukraine had advance warning, and dispersed their aircraft before the strikes. The Russians failed to crater the runways, so the air bases were left usable.

Most of Ukraine's air defenses were mobile batteries, and they also relocated them in the days running up to Feb 24. Russia's intel was several days old, and the airstrikes hit the targets they had identified, but there was nothing there to take out.

They did not conduct battle damage assessments and follow-on strikes- they asked the pilot if they hit their targets, the pilots said "yes, I saw it hit", and the planners assumed the air defenses were taken out.

The fixed air defenses were taken out, and some no-longer-mobile S-300's. But the mobile S-300's, and Buk's and Tor's, survived the airstrikes and proceeded to shoot down Russian aircraft when they ventured in range.

That left the "40 mile convoy" without air cover, and the Ukrainian TB2's had a turkey shoot on the Russian trucks and AFV's.

If the US had been the attacking force, we would have conducted the BDA's and would have done follow-on strikes to target what we missed the first time. We would make sure the runways were unusable, and we would try to destroy the planes on the ground. We'd keep going back until we were satisfied.

Whether or not we would have been able to prevent Russia from bringing in replacements as fast as we could destroy them, I don't know. Probably not, but that would depend on a lot of things.

 

[skye]

The exent that the Left have become total supporters of this corrupt sick war is disgusting!

 

[Kruska]

The key word was encircle. It was exactly what they were trying to do since May.

Encircle a heavily fortified front-line with stepped up 15-25 km in depth trench defense lines? what PC war-game army did you serve in?

Read up on Kursk 1943 - in regards to the Wehrmacht trying to encircling Soviet units that had 5-6 month time to prepare formidable defenses - and then take into account that the UAF had 8 years time, to prepare and set up their defenses.

Lyman had more to do with Izum army grouping that tried to extend the curve through Barvinkove southward to encircle Sloviansk-Kramatorsk agglomeration. If this move had been successful, alongside with 'southern' grouping moving northward through Ugledar, the Ukrainian army units in this agglomeration would have been encircled.

The RF push onto Lyman was entirely directed onto eliminating the main transport and supply-hub of the UAF towards Lysychansk and Sievierodonesk. The RF then even manged to trick the UAF into believing that they intend to strike onto Sloviansk - IIRC it was the first time the Ukraine government/Zelinsky himself ordered a civilian evacuation.!!
As I stated before; upon the RF having taken Lysychansk, holding onto Lyman became meaningless.

Overall, it is amusing to see how your ilk is making a poker face while talking about 'useless' territories. Yeah, Kharkiv oblast and the bridgehead around Kherson were absolutely useless. A feint, obviously.

It is indeed very amusing to see that you can't grasp the issue of RF forces retreating and regrouping - taking up far more defensible positions, due to simply not having the manpower to attack Odessa, Mykolaiv, Kharkiv, Lysychansk, Sieverodonesk, Zaporizhznia, Vuhledar, Avdivka, New-York/Zalizne, Bakhmut, Krasna-Hora, and Sieversk, all at the same time. Take a map and start to place colored pins or unit tactical signs on it, to get an idea as to what you are talking and judging about.

 

[Kruska]

.... and clearly neither do you or you would have posted it. Putin has been feeding crap about Russia to the Russian people for years, and you're still saying, yum yum.

Any learned and open minded person knows as to what this Ukraine issue is about. Only deniers and ignorant fools can't admit to those issues. And instead flee into democracy and freedom of the Ukraine people diversion.
Any responsible politician (our West doesn't have any) very latest since 2014 would have invoked a neutrality of Ukraine towards NATO and CIS. Setting clear assurances/guarantees as to what e.g. NATO or the EU will do in case Russia should attack Ukraine. In such a scenario Ukraine would have never been placed into the present disastrous situation. Russia's military in the event of an attack onto Ukraine would have been literally annihilated within 6 month and Putin couldn't and wouldn't use nukes, since he couldn't have justified his attack onto Ukraine with the arguments he used since Feb. 2022 in the first place.

With Ukraine being neutral, Putin would have had no reason to attack Ukraine - he and the West would have simply continued with destabilization attempts onto Ukraine's government and society.
Just as it is being done all over the world, every single day, by all countries without necessarily resulting in a war. Only totally incompetent politicians get themselves dragged into a war due to "diplomatic games".

But hey, why risk Western commitment towards democracy/freedom and (God forbid) own lives - if a proxy war is sooo much more fun for our totally incapable and dumbfucked Western politicians.

 

[Kruska]

But first, Iraq had much better IADS than Ukraine.

 

[para bellum]

You are just here to make an ass of yourself?

Coalition Fixed-Wing Attrition in Desert Storm

rjlee.org

 

[Kruska]

You are just here to make an ass of yourself?

Coalition Fixed-Wing Attrition in Desert Storm

rjlee.org

To late, you already proved to be an ignorant www-wisdom ass yourself. What is that "source" of yours supposed to proof?

That the coalition forces lost less then 30% of what the RF has lost in Ukraine on fixed wing aircraft? therefore in your screwed up opinion, Iraq in 1990 had a better IADS then Ukraine in 2022?
How many cruise-missiles, tomahawks, helicopters did the Iraqi AAA or SAM defense shoot down? Compared to Ukraine results towards Russian cruise, ballistic missiles and helicopters ?

comparing 1990's SAM missiles, AAA systems and radar technology with 2022

 

[para bellum]

comparing 1990's SAM missiles, AAA systems and radar technology with 2022

The AA weapons in Ukraine are the same era as the ones Iraq had in 1991, and US F-teens are the same generation AC as the Flankers and MiG's Russia and Ukraine are using today. It's just that Iraq's air forces were 7X the size of Ukraine's, and the the ADS was integrated by Thales.

But you are a troll and a poser and a waste of pixels, so I will just put you on ignore. You are too childish and I don't have the patience for your stream of bullshit.

 

[BackAgain]

Update. The stale OP is still wrong. Even now.

 

[Kruska]

The AA weapons in Ukraine are the same era as the ones Iraq had in 1991,

Bullshit

and US F-teens are the same generation AC as the Flankers and MiG's Russia and Ukraine are using today.

Bullshit, Russia isn't using MiG 29's in Ukraine and most of it's Su 30's and it's derivatives came into service from the 2000's onward.
Obviously you have also not the faintest knowledge in regards to antenna measurements and RCS of 1980 - 1991 aircraft compared to those 2005-2022.

It's just that Iraq's air forces were 7X the size of Ukraine's, and the the ADS was integrated by Thales.

Iraqi air-force? you mean the one that got disintegrated in the first 2 weeks and the rest parking in Iran?
What ADS Thales system did Iraq use in 1991? God you are just a non-stop bullshitter.

But you are a troll and a poser and a waste of pixels, so I will just put you on ignore. You are too childish and I don't have the patience for your stream of bullshit.

Stop always placing yourself first when it comes to personal descriptions - Ignore? already done by me.

 

[Litwin]

This might be true, or at least partially. But first, Iraq had much better IADS than Ukraine.

Regardless-

Russia did conduct an extensive air campaign at the outset, and targeted air defenses and the Ukrainian air bases. It was not effective for a couple reasons. Ukraine had advance warning, and dispersed their aircraft before the strikes. The Russians failed to crater the runways, so the air bases were left usable.

Most of Ukraine's air defenses were mobile batteries, and they also relocated them in the days running up to Feb 24. Russia's intel was several days old, and the airstrikes hit the targets they had identified, but there was nothing there to take out.

They did not conduct battle damage assessments and follow-on strikes- they asked the pilot if they hit their targets, the pilots said "yes, I saw it hit", and the planners assumed the air defenses were taken out.

The fixed air defenses were taken out, and some no-longer-mobile S-300's. But the mobile S-300's, and Buk's and Tor's, survived the airstrikes and proceeded to shoot down Russian aircraft when they ventured in range.

That left the "40 mile convoy" without air cover, and the Ukrainian TB2's had a turkey shoot on the Russian trucks and AFV's.

If the US had been the attacking force, we would have conducted the BDA's and would have done follow-on strikes to target what we missed the first time. We would make sure the runways were unusable, and we would try to destroy the planes on the ground. We'd keep going back until we were satisfied.

Whether or not we would have been able to prevent Russia from bringing in replacements as fast as we could destroy them, I don't know. Probably not, but that would depend on a lot of things.