Is the Donbas about to fall?

[mindlight]

Hard to underestimate it. People are really bad in reacting to threats that do not seem imminent. It is evolutionary trait to concentrate on immediate survival.

Besides all of those countries are in NATO so not like they have to worry that their lands are gonna get sliced away.

To be fair if US got belligerent and started nabbing pieces of Mexico I doubt Ukraine would have been that eager to throw their full support for Mexico either.

There were couple more of good videos from the current war by same youtuber

Some really useful information in these and the previous one on the Russian infantry. It took me a while to wade through these so these are only the highlights that made me think.

Corruption seems like a significant weakening factor on the Russian war machine through the Russians are lucky to have a vast supply of surplus equipment and munitions from the Soviet Union to draw on. Corruption is an endemic cultural weakness on every level that has massive impacts on military effectiveness. I liked the example of Fortress versus [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-Box 1980 without the metal plates example. But they still have massive advantages of scale.

There is something deeply dysfunctional about Russia. It is not something that is new the Soviet Union had the same degree of political self-sabotage to it. The USSR's sheer economies of scale and educational and scientific capabilities were always balanced by political stupidity. Russia is smaller, but it seems just as self-sabotaging.

Russia has overestimated its military effectiveness and given its almost inevitable economic decline, this military capability is set to see a significant reduction over time. Russia is an economic pygmie relative to NATO countries. The ruble is weak and this gives issues with the payment of the foreign debt, high inflation, and interest rates. The economy is fragile with a plummeting GDP, and growing unemployment. The capacity of the NATO countries to support Ukraine through this conflict is de facto unlimited by contrast. The clock is ticking because Russian infrastructure is set up for European trade and that is now dwindling and may even be set to be reduced to zero by European countries annoyed at Russia's failure to honor contracts and use of energy as a political weapon. No one really trusts Russia so why would investors want to put any money back into the country? Some of their industries require the more advanced technology that only the West provides. Things will start to break the longer this war goes on and after it is over also. The Russians did not think things through. Capturing Ukrainian energy resources is useless if they can neither extract them nor sell them. Some countries like China and India will continue to buy their oil and gas and supply some of the parts they need but those markets are not as big as the European market for which the Russians are currently geared up. Ukraine has a good rail network to provide logistical support for its forces but it is constrained by the naval blockade on its coast, especially for grain exports. Opening Odessa is a priority to avoid global famine.

The supply video was interesting highlighting the sheer quantities of materiel that the Russians have access to. They can basically lose a lot of stuff with some indifference and this war can last a long time before NATOs scale of supply makes a difference. This war seems like a really good way to finally clean out all those old Warsaw Pact munition dumps. In the long run, NATO has an advantage here and can supply Ukraine with unlimited supplies, though getting the stuff through is a logistical challenge. The Russians have the bulk supplies but may be missing key supplies like precision-guided missiles for example. But they do have a well-developed albeit heavily indebted defense sector with some really capable people.

I was interested in the design questions about what the future military will look like in Ukraine and indeed in NATO as a result of this war. Obviously, Ukraine is moving towards NATO equipment as the War-Pac supplies will eventually be exhausted and they will not be buying new stuff from Russia. Drones and missiles, artillery, and AT weapons have all shone in this war but also the value of the trained infantryman with adequate body armor and weaponry. A Ukraine military configured on NATO lines would have massive advantages over Russia. Ukraine needs to diversify its grain distribution infrastructure possibly working more with rail than sea transport for instance.

If Russia is too humiliated or too weakened by this war it could become a client state of China with new kinds of risk for the international order or alternatively, it might lash out with its nuclear arsenal. Russia has an interest in early peace and normalizing relations with the West. But Ukraine is unlikely to accept this without some kind of a good deal from the Europeans to compensate for any loss of territory. The offer of EU membership is pretty basic as well as a rebuild package. It is possible the European countries have been a little too timid during this conflict and too fearful of an improbable nuclear escalation or more probable gas supply cut-off. As I write Gazprom has cut gas by 60% to Germany over the last week. If Russia goes for it on its threats then there is of course no more rationale for timidity in the scale of support from European countries for Ukraine.

 

[mindlight]

This one debunks the view the Russians are not sending their best forces. He analyses verifiable equipment losses to see that modern stuff is overrepresented in casualties. I guess a picture of a broken T-90 is more likely to be taken than that of a T-72 though. Modern equipment losses are diverse including aircraft etc. Many of the earlier casualties that we can verify were of elite forces e.g. paratroopers. A great many senior officers have been killed in this war.

This one looks at the reserve and irregular force balance of both sides. He looked at the numerical disparity between the two sides. Russia is the larger nation but has chosen to fight this war in a way that does not necessarily utilize this advantage because they refuse to define this as a war and cannot, therefore, call on a General Mobilization. Putin, it seems deliberately avoided Russian conscripts in body bag images. It is easier to train people for defense than offense. The Ukrainians have the people behind them. Russia's nominal numbers might not be easily mobilized while they exclude paramilitary forces, Donbas forces, Chechens, Syrians (no evidence on the frontline yet), and others that can be more quickly mobilized. The ability to mobilize these forces may be undermined by the readiness of reserve materiel which has been compromised by corruption and a lack of preventative maintenance. Ukraine by contrast has no such limits on national mobilization. The Russians have avoided street fighting in major towns but as a result, Ukrainian forces use them as bases to take out Russian logistics. The Ukrainians can use civilians for support roles like kitchen duties for example increasing numbers on the frontline. Ukrainians are using social media very effectively to gather intelligence.

This next one looks at drone usage and the lessons to be learned from the Ukrainian war experience.
Ukraine uses TB-2 (Turkish drone) a lot. There are cost advantages and a large power magnifier in the use of drones, especially for smaller powers fighting larger ones. Been used for ground attack roles e.g. on air defense systems, and fuel trains. Highly expensive systems are being destroyed by cheaper drones for little loss. Decoy drones, micro, and civilian loiter munitions, recon, artillery correction, and strike duties are all being employed. The Russians are using these with some effect also. Drones are cheaper, to purchase and maintain, more tolerant of where it is based, have smaller logistical and supply footprint including gas consumption, and save your own side's lives. Pilots can "home office"
There are a lot of drone producers. The advent of drones in warfare gives advantages to smaller powers over larger ones as the economic weight, military-industrial complex, and research advantages of larger powers are neutralized by them. There are worries about how they might be used by terrorists also.

 

[mindlight]

That's actually analyzed in a lot of detail in many places by historians, and one can read up on their findings, as I did a few months back. If we considered Ukraine to really be Russian because once Moscow and Kiev were together as the Rus, then by a similar measure of comparing time as part of the Rus vs time being fully independent and non-Rus later....that standard would imply something about the United States it seems to me. For a very long time the land of the current United States belonged entirely to Native American tribes, and we've been an independent nation relatively much less time than the Native Americans controlled the land.

Ergo, if Kiev is supposed to belong to Moscow now, then....here in the U.S., a similar standard in my personal view would suggest to me by the same standards that this land should be controlled entirely then by Native Americans.

But I don't think it should. Rather, we should compensate for any cheated out of land, even now by reparations to their descendents, but the U.S. should not stop being its own new nation.



I predict Ukraine will continue to make Russian troops pay for being there until they leave. In time they will have to leave, as Ukraine will gain more and more military ability. The Ukrainians won't give up. And at least for now I don't think Russia will try to murder 20 or 30 million Ukrainians.

Current ethnic reality and choice might be more important than historical domination as a basis for sovereignty moving forward. Crimea wants to be Russian but Kyiv, Odesa, and Kharkiv clearly do not.

 

[mindlight]

Russia has a history of fighting wars using untrained people as cannon-fodder. It largely surprised Hitler that Russia was willing to throw millions of untrained soldiers into the Nazi battle all the while mobilizing a million more for a counter-offensive. They threw thousands of tanks manufactured in Siberia outside of bombing range into battles against far superior Panzers and Tiger tanks and largely won based on expendable numbers.

If they used similar tactics they could throw a few million troops at the Ukrainians and overwhelm them, uncaring about their own soldiers well-being for the sake of victory. The difference is that, kind of like WW1, the general population would not tolerate it and revolt as all the deaths were totally unnecessary. (Unlike WW2 in which they could make the case of struggling for their own survival against Germany.)

When the population began starving in WW1, Russia was doomed. Sanctions are not enough to cripple Russia in that way today, partly because many countries are not cooperating so they aren't isolated enough. It might eventually work, but it would likely take years for local Russians to feel enough pain to cause a revolt. Losing McDonald's and IKEA isn't enough for a civil uprising. The west isn't willing to bomb their infrastructure into oblivion, which is what it would take in the end. So there is this game of chicken going on where Russia is protected against homeland attacks from the west due to the threat of nuclear escalation, even to the extent that Ukraine is given restrictions on attacking Russian land as a condition for receiving defensive weapons. (Which is wrong in my opinion. A column of supply trucks moving south from Belgorod in these circumstances should be a legitimate target, regardless of whether they've actually crossed the border yet.)

And Russia knows it can't set foot inside of Poland or other Baltic states even though all the weapons are coming through that country, as that would legitimize the Ukrainian arguments against capitulation and shock NATO into real action.

Sanctions are unlikely to win this war or force its end and the Russians have enough self-sufficiency built into their economy to survive (though not to thrive). Attacking Russia is an escalation that most Ukrainian and NATO analysts consider inappropriate at this stage of the current configuration of this conflict. Russia stands no chance against NATO and it seems the Ukrainians will bleed them dry long before they reach the borders anyway.

 

[mindlight]

That is largely a myth. Even at the height of WWII Soviet Union used months of training to get the conscripts up to some proficiency before sending them to front lines. Also the German tanks were far from superior being often over engineered like Tiger and had strictly limited supply of fuel.

Soviet tanks may have been bit rough on edges with Soviet doctrine estimating that tanks reaching the front line had a life expectancy measured in weeks so it made no sense to build them to last or polish them up.

They were tools that were good enough to do the job and by the end of 1945 Soviet Union had built almost 60 000 T 34s. Consider this to under 2000 Tiger Is and IIs Germany ever managed to build ; tanks they had no fuel to run, spare parts to repair nor experienced crews to man.

Then you consider they were also fighting in the West and South. Pure hubris.

In this war Russia does not have millions of soldiers nor means to equip them even if they drafted them. Which is one of the reasons they don't do it leaving aside social instability and the economic blow it would cause.

The T-34 was reliable and easy to maintain while the Tigers were a better tank handicapped by having no fuel and being too complicated / so they would break down without the support personnel. If anything modern Russian armor looks more like the Tiger tank than the T-34 in this war with abandoned vehicles strewn across Ukraine running out of fuel or with inadequate numbers of engineers to maintain them. Some of the Donbas conscripts do not look trained, the Chechens are very ill-disciplined and were in part responsible for Bucha. The poor state of Russian forces robbing Ukrainian houses illustrates a corrupt army culture and also a very poor state of discipline and supply in the Russian forces. That said they still have the weight to take and hold the Donbas, Crimea, and Kherson regions. The Ukrainians have played a poor hand brilliantly. This war could still go either way but right now the Russians still have the advantage.

 

[mindlight]

This one explores the possibility of a nuclear war being the outcome of the Ukraine conflict and concludes the nuclear taboo remains intact in this current conflict. No one wins a nuclear war. The Russian use case doctrine applies to a direct nuclear threat, or measures designed to destroy Russia's nukes or to a conventional threat to the existential survival of the Russian state. This is not challenged by the Ukraine war. The Russian media can convince its people they won even if they lose this war thus ensuring the survival of the regime. There is no military utility here and the international repercussions would be mainly negative for Russia. NATO for example could use the use of nukes in Ukraine as a reason for airstrikes on Russian targets inside Ukraine. Mutually assured destruction makes usage mad. Much of this is just public posturing. The Russians do have some sophisticated nuclear systems. But historically no country has used them since they proliferated beyond the USA. Putin has generally been responsible for reducing the risk rather than increasing it. Joining NATO is a simple solution for a nonnuclear small state.

So Russian usage in this crisis is unlikely unless there is a direct invasion of Russia and a threat to the Russian state's very existence. UN efforts against proliferation have not been very successful recently: North Korea, Pakistan, India, and Israel have them illegally.

 

[SuperCow]

That is largely a myth. Even at the height of WWII Soviet Union used months of training to get the conscripts up to some proficiency before sending them to front lines. Also the German tanks were far from superior being often over engineered like Tiger and had strictly limited supply of fuel.

"Untrained" was an exaggeration. Insufficiently trained (by comparison) may have been a better phrase to use.

Soviet tanks may have been bit rough on edges with Soviet doctrine estimating that tanks reaching the front line had a life expectancy measured in weeks so it made no sense to build them to last or polish them up.

They were tools that were good enough to do the job and by the end of 1945 Soviet Union had built almost 60 000 T 34s. Consider this to under 2000 Tiger Is and IIs Germany ever managed to build ; tanks they had no fuel to run, spare parts to repair nor experienced crews to man.

This kind of is my point. The T-34 was much easier to manufacture than the stronger German tanks. Even if they lost tanks at a 10:1 ratio to the German tanks, they could still overwhelm them by numbers.

Then you consider they were also fighting in the West and South. Pure hubris.

Agreed. Opening up the Russian front was Germany's downfall. (And Japan's was bringing the USA into the war.)

In this war Russia does not have millions of soldiers nor means to equip them even if they drafted them. Which is one of the reasons they don't do it leaving aside social instability and the economic blow it would cause.

That's because they were trying to win a short war, which failed. If they (and their population) accepted a prolonged multi-year war they could draft millions of soldiers, but then the government's popularity would plummet, which would destroy them internally. The electronic warfare of today requires some parts that are more advanced than what Russia has access to on its own, so without foreign parts it can't build advanced weaponry (though if China got involved this could change too), but it probably could easily replace tanks that have a 20 or 30 year old design.

 

[FireDragon76]

That is largely a myth. Even at the height of WWII Soviet Union used months of training to get the conscripts up to some proficiency before sending them to front lines. Also the German tanks were far from superior being often over engineered like Tiger and had strictly limited supply of fuel.

Soviet tanks may have been bit rough on edges with Soviet doctrine estimating that tanks reaching the front line had a life expectancy measured in weeks so it made no sense to build them to last or polish them up.

They were tools that were good enough to do the job and by the end of 1945 Soviet Union had built almost 60 000 T 34s. Consider this to under 2000 Tiger Is and IIs Germany ever managed to build ; tanks they had no fuel to run, spare parts to repair nor experienced crews to man.

Then you consider they were also fighting in the West and South. Pure hubris.

In this war Russia does not have millions of soldiers nor means to equip them even if they drafted them. Which is one of the reasons they don't do it leaving aside social instability and the economic blow it would cause.

Good point. The Soviet T-34 tank's performance in WWII was legendary.

Modern day Russia of course is not the Soviet Union. Modern Russia in many ways is a weaker political entity and doesn't have the military power of the Soviet Union. Russia is not a superpower.

 

[Halbhh]

This one explores the possibility of a nuclear war being the outcome of the Ukraine conflict and concludes the nuclear taboo remains intact in this current conflict. No one wins a nuclear war. The Russian use case doctrine applies to a direct nuclear threat, or measures designed to destroy Russia's nukes or to a conventional threat to the existential survival of the Russian state. This is not challenged by the Ukraine war. The Russian media can convince its people they won even if they lose this war thus ensuring the survival of the regime. There is no military utility here and the international repercussions would be mainly negative for Russia. NATO for example could use the use of nukes in Ukraine as a reason for airstrikes on Russian targets inside Ukraine. Mutually assured destruction makes usage mad. Much of this is just public posturing. The Russians do have some sophisticated nuclear systems. But historically no country has used them since they proliferated beyond the USA. Putin has generally been responsible for reducing the risk rather than increasing it. Joining NATO is a simple solution for a nonnuclear small state.

So Russian usage in this crisis is unlikely unless there is a direct invasion of Russia and a threat to the Russian state's very existence. UN efforts against proliferation have not been very successful recently: North Korea, Pakistan, India, and Israel have them illegally.

Yes, that's a good analysis. Another factor I'd add is that if Russia ever did use tactical battlefield nukes, that would psychologically open the door for other parties in the future to do so...including against Russia.... It's not a benefit to Russia to break that psychological barrier. It would lose much more than it gained, by decreasing it's own safety in the future against some small scale nuclear attack by some group.

 

[Nithavela]

Good point. The Soviet T-34 tank's performance in WWII was legendary.

Of course it was. The Sowjet Union had an entire propaganda department devoted to spreading that legend.

In truth, the T-34 is massively overrated. They had huge failures in almost all departments and a horrible rate of attrition even outside of combat. Its lack of proper sights and ergonomics made operating them very hard, costing many crews their life and preventing most crewmembers from developing experience.

 

[Homeowner]

In truth, the T-34 is massively overrated. They had huge failures in almost all departments and a horrible rate of attrition even outside of combat.

As mentioned they were not built to last because their life expectancy was estimated to be some weeks after reaching front lines so made a lot more sense to build tens of thousands of them instead of fewer but more durable machines.

Fun fact. Tanks sent by allies as military aid to Soviet Union were used as training vehicles because of their durability (and they weren't really a match for Soviet armor performance anyway).

 

[Nithavela]

As mentioned they were not built to last because their life expectancy was estimated to be some weeks after reaching front lines so made a lot more sense to build tens of thousands of them instead of fewer but more durable machines.

I would love to link you to a very interesting and entertaining Youtube video about the T-34 and its many failings, as well as this "quantity over quality" argument. Sadly, that video contains a lot of bad words.

If you are interested, you can find it yourself under the title "The T-34 is not as good as you think", by a guy calling himself (and perhaps being a) LazerPig. If you want to discuss that video, I suggest the comment section of YT.

 

[Homeowner]

I would love to link you to a very interesting and entertaining Youtube video about the T-34 and its many failings, as well as this "quantity over quality" argument. Sadly, that video contains a lot of bad words.

If you are interested, you can find it yourself under the title "The T-34 is not as good as you think", by a guy calling himself (and perhaps being a) LazerPig.

Probably seen it. There are dozens of those though. Armchair generals love that tank.

 

[Nithavela]

Probably seen it. There are dozens of those though. Armchair generals love that tank.

Some are less enthusiatic.

 

[Homeowner]

Some are less enthusiatic.

Yeah, but they too love to talk about the tank for better or worse. For general information the TANKS series is actually pretty good for general overview of WW II tank warfare.

 

[Halbhh]

I think the smartest plan if you are a Russian tank crew is on the first sign of Ukrainians near, climb out of the tank as soon as possible and run.

 

[FireDragon76]

Of course it was. The Sowjet Union had an entire propaganda department devoted to spreading that legend.

In truth, the T-34 is massively overrated. They had huge failures in almost all departments and a horrible rate of attrition even outside of combat. Its lack of proper sights and ergonomics made operating them very hard, costing many crews their life and preventing most crewmembers from developing experience.

Other Allied tanks had similar problems. Compared to the Sherman, the T-34 was far superior for taking on German tanks.

 

[Nithavela]

Other Allied tanks had similar problems. Compared to the Sherman, the T-34 was far superior for taking on German tanks.

The Sherman hat better ergonomics (higher crew efficiency), better armor (both werent really a match for german guns, but the T-34 armor was very prone to spalling, leading to a far higher crew fatality rate when hit), had a good enough gun with better shells and a far higher reliability (it was a bit slower, but suffered far less breakdowns).

In what way was the T-34 better?

Besides, just being the better tank isnt everything. Sowjet logistics were bad and their tank doctrine as well.

 

[mindlight]

I think the smartest plan if you are a Russian tank crew is on the first sign of Ukrainians near, climb out of the tank as soon as possible and run.

The Ukrainians are not inclined to give them that much warning.

 

[Halbhh]

The Ukrainians could keep on fighting but they would lose far more men in an offensive war than they are even now.

I'm not at all sure Ukraine would spend a lot of troops on offence even in donbass, once they get enough firepower. Sure, it would be costly to just storm the trenches. So they won't, I'd expect. Also, it may be that there are a lot of asymmetric things Ukraine can do. We probably haven't seen even all the kinds yet. I think it's going to be difficult for Russia to hold the territory long run, if they even want to after Putin dies.

Anyway, I just was reading this interesting article I think you'd find of interest also:

"I’ve been thinking about Russia and Ukraine my whole career, and I know the languages and I go to the places, and I’m sometimes shocked by how certain people are about things.
....
...I think somebody wins in the end. I think Putin will win by declaring victory. And I think what a lot of commentators miss is that his power is 100 percent coextensive with his ability to change the story. So he can say he’s won in Russia almost no matter what happens on the battlefield.

Which is why a lot of this hand-wringing that we do in the West about whether we let him save face or give him off-ramps to climb down is just completely beside the point. Because he can decide today that he’s won. He can decide tomorrow he’s won. He could have decided last month that he’s won. He could decide next month that he’s won. And then the Russian people will believe him, or they’ll pretend to believe him, which amounts to the same thing.

The Ukrainians, though, can only win on the battlefield. Zelenskyy is a democratic elected politician. He doesn’t operate in virtual reality. He has to operate in the real reality and he could only win when his people allow him to win, or you can only end the war when his people allow them to end the war. So it’s an asymmetrical situation in that sense, but I think the Ukrainians can win. They know what they’re fighting for. It’s quite literally the existence of their state and of their people that’s at stake. And that’s why they’re fighting the way they are. And that’s why they’ll fight whether we arm them or not.

(continues.... Has a lot in it. example
...The Ukrainians have definitely bought us some time to think about all this. If Kyiv had really fallen at the end of February of this year, this would have been a very dark spring for democracies. If an extreme right-wing regime in Russia managed to destroy democracy in Ukraine that would have had effects for everyone. ...
(continues...)
Ukraine and the problem of “futurelessness” (msn.com)