Russian Invasion of Ukraine - tactics and logistics

[Bronzeage]

This is the first time a post Soviet Russian army has faced a peer army and it has fallen miserably short.

Future historians will call the economic policies which led to this disaster "Putinism". There will be thousands of academic papers written about how Putin turned the Russian economy over to selected experts and measured their performance by how much his personal wealth increased. By this metric, they did very well.

The Russian Army is the guy who thinks he's in good condition, maybe could lose a few pounds, but gets around with no problems, and then has a heart attack on the treadmill during his 40th birthday physical.

Future economists will carefully document the percentage of Russia's GDP which was spent on the military budget, and compare it to what the military actually received. The difference will be labeled the "Oligap" and be measured in Super Yachts(SY), where one SY is equal to 10 Trump Tower Condos(TTC).

When the Russian Army inevitably withdraws back to Russia, the oligap can no longer be supported by the Russian economy. This means it is not possible to either rebuild the military or support the lifestyles of oligarchs. Putin cannot do anything about this because it would mean jailing the people who keep him in power and he can't trust their replacements. The Russian Army will be a toothless tiger, fully aware they are perceived as impotent by the Western world.

This soup has all the necessary ingredients for a palace coup. It's just a matter of time.

 

[Jayjay]

Problematic to "save face" when you started it, and the only way to "save face" is to give them territory they have no right to, and should owe money to Ukraine for the damage. Indeed, Russia is the weakest it has looked in a long time. There is little that can be done to make Russia not look like a giant bag of dumbasses.

I think the only "face saving" move that the western leaders should be talking about is recognition of Crimea as Russian and reversing some of the sanctions, if Russia withdraws back to February 23rd borders. But it should also be coupled with a threat that if the war continues to the point that Ukraine forces Russia to withdraw and reaches the Crimean border, the offer is no longer on the table.

I think Scholz and Macron are trying to find a face-saving way out for themselves, more than for Putin.

 

[steve_bank]

I think it can be argued that the lack of meaningful response to Crimea may have emboldenedPutin to invade Ukraime. Nobody was going to fight over Crimea.

Russians in military uniforms without insignia were operating in Ukraine a ways back. Putin said anybody can buy unifroms in a surplys store.

Napoleon, Mussolini, Tojo, Hitler. It is irrational to see Putin as a rational leader. I listneed to a Russian expat historian talk about Putin. As he put it Putin sees himself in the line of past Russian conquerors. He used the term 'Russian mystic'. Destiny and power.

Just look at his statement that Ukraine does not exist and is legitimately open for conquest.

 

[Jarhyn]

Problematic to "save face" when you started it, and the only way to "save face" is to give them territory they have no right to, and should owe money to Ukraine for the damage. Indeed, Russia is the weakest it has looked in a long time. There is little that can be done to make Russia not look like a giant bag of dumbasses.

Nukes? Pulling the trigger on fomented foreign political and social strife?

I mean their primary weapon has been troll factories, opinion mills, and money in elections foreign to Russia, as if the concept of "election" is not foreign to Russian leadership already.

They will pull out all the stops and dump every toxicity they can at western culture before they are done, unless Putin is made dead by an oligarch before that happens

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

A Russian friend sent me this. He says Putin's spell has been broken. Nobody is buying his bullshit anymore. It seems like the governments threatening statements about Finland and Sweden are making people worried Russia will be in endless wars.

That's what he says

Putin is in his late 60s the people in the video are half or one third his age. The older crowd supports him by a vast margin. Or maybe they don't support him so much as they are afraid of him and so voice their support. But the younger crowd certainly seems to get it based on the video.

 

[DrZoidberg]

A Russian friend sent me this. He says Putin's spell has been broken. Nobody is buying his bullshit anymore. It seems like the governments threatening statements about Finland and Sweden are making people worried Russia will be in endless wars.

That's what he says

Putin is in his late 60s the people in the video are half or one third his age. The older crowd supports him by a vast margin. Or maybe they don't support him so much as they are afraid of him and so voice their support. But the younger crowd certainly seems to get it based on the video.

What he says is that people are speaking out against the war on television. Ie, the state controlled censored television where most Russians get their news. And that the people speaking out aren't punished. Plus that previously hard line propagandists are more quiet now.

So something has shifted pretty high up.

All Russians have free access to the Internet. If they can be bothered to use it. So they have access to the same information we do

 

[DrZoidberg]

Nobody deals well with humiliation, but the main driver of this war appears to be the humiliation that Putin and Russian nationalists still feel over the collapse of the Soviet empire. They wanted to regain their self-image as the dominant power in eastern Europe, but their image is now lower than it ever was in the past. What the EU leaders worry about is how that feeling of humiliation will fester after the fighting stops in defeat.

NATO countries have donated large quantities of weaponry to Ukraine. With that in mind, I think it would be fairly easy for Putin to internally spin the loss as a result of NATO meddling, and double down on that NATO is an existential threat to Russia. Ie, the classic fascist rhetoric. So inside Russia he can probably hold on nicely to power.

The worse news for Russia is that a loss will severely lighten the weight of future Russian threats to their neighbours. This will have all kinds of knock on effects. Right now all ex-Soviet states that haven't joined NATO yet, are under the thumb of Russia and have to take Russian interests into account when doing anything. You know, like how colonialism or vassal kingdoms used to work. Make no mistake, this war is the result of Ukraine trying to break out of the Russian choke hold.

Putin isn't wrong in that NATO is a threat to Russian interests. But of course, that threat only lies in that NATO protects NATO members from Russian imperialism. It doesn't replace one oppressor for another. It simply removes the Russian oppressor. Of course, Putin doesn't like that.

It can be compared to what the US loss in the Vietnam war meant. It emboldened all kinds of leftist nationalist movements. Khmer Rouge taking power in Cambodia is a direct result of US failures in Vietnam. As is a bunch of armed uprisings in Africa (though less easy to neatly trace to Vietnam).

The outcome of the Ukraine war is going to shape foreign policy for decades to come. A decisive Russian loss will lead to a very peaceful century. It's going to make China into a cute and cuddly pussycat.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Nobody deals well with humiliation, but the main driver of this war appears to be the humiliation that Putin and Russian nationalists still feel over the collapse of the Soviet empire. They wanted to regain their self-image as the dominant power in eastern Europe, but their image is now lower than it ever was in the past. What the EU leaders worry about is how that feeling of humiliation will fester after the fighting stops in defeat.

NATO countries have donated large quantities of weaponry to Ukraine. With that in mind, I think it would be fairly easy for Putin to internally spin the loss as a result of NATO meddling, and double down on that NATO is an existential threat to Russia. Ie, the classic fascist rhetoric. So inside Russia he can probably hold on nicely to power.

The worse news for Russia is that a loss will severely lighten the weight of future Russian threats to their neighbours. This will have all kinds of knock on effects. Right now all ex-Soviet states that haven't joined NATO yet, are under the thumb of Russia and have to take Russian interests into account when doing anything. You know, like how colonialism or vassal kingdoms used to work. Make no mistake, this war is the result of Ukraine trying to break out of the Russian choke hold.

Putin isn't wrong in that NATO is a threat to Russian interests. But of course, that threat only lies in that NATO protects NATO members from Russian imperialism. It doesn't replace one oppressor for another. It simply removes the Russian oppressor. Of course, Putin doesn't like that.

It can be compared to what the US loss in the Vietnam war meant. It emboldened all kinds of leftist nationalist movements. Khmer Rouge taking power in Cambodia is a direct result of US failures in Vietnam. As is a bunch of armed uprisings in Africa (though less easy to neatly trace to Vietnam).

The outcome of the Ukraine war is going to shape foreign policy for decades to come. A decisive Russian loss will lead to a very peaceful century. It's going to make China into a cute and cuddly pussycat.

Good post. I agree with you. Although I would add that Russia is to blame for the countries moving towards Nato and the west. These countries are much closer to Russia and should have natural alliance with Russia. Russia has great resources to sell. But instead Russia bullies the border countries demanding that they cede to their threats and accept Russian zones of influence. Fuck Russia. It is losing long standing allies because it is such a brutish state.

Below is a story about a very pro-Russian mayor of Ukraine's third largest city turning his back on Russia:

Pro-Russia Mayor of Ukraine's 'Crime Capital' Turns His Back on Putin

www.msn.com

 

[TV and credit cards]

Pro-Russia Mayor of Ukraine's 'Crime Capital' Turns His Back on Putin

www.msn.com

I've wondered about this as Ukrainian forces advance into what is/was considered pro-Russian areas. Have attitudes changed? It could play a significant role.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Nobody deals well with humiliation, but the main driver of this war appears to be the humiliation that Putin and Russian nationalists still feel over the collapse of the Soviet empire. They wanted to regain their self-image as the dominant power in eastern Europe, but their image is now lower than it ever was in the past. What the EU leaders worry about is how that feeling of humiliation will fester after the fighting stops in defeat.

NATO countries have donated large quantities of weaponry to Ukraine. With that in mind, I think it would be fairly easy for Putin to internally spin the loss as a result of NATO meddling, and double down on that NATO is an existential threat to Russia. Ie, the classic fascist rhetoric. So inside Russia he can probably hold on nicely to power.

The worse news for Russia is that a loss will severely lighten the weight of future Russian threats to their neighbours. This will have all kinds of knock on effects. Right now all ex-Soviet states that haven't joined NATO yet, are under the thumb of Russia and have to take Russian interests into account when doing anything. You know, like how colonialism or vassal kingdoms used to work. Make no mistake, this war is the result of Ukraine trying to break out of the Russian choke hold.

Putin isn't wrong in that NATO is a threat to Russian interests. But of course, that threat only lies in that NATO protects NATO members from Russian imperialism. It doesn't replace one oppressor for another. It simply removes the Russian oppressor. Of course, Putin doesn't like that.

It can be compared to what the US loss in the Vietnam war meant. It emboldened all kinds of leftist nationalist movements. Khmer Rouge taking power in Cambodia is a direct result of US failures in Vietnam. As is a bunch of armed uprisings in Africa (though less easy to neatly trace to Vietnam).

The outcome of the Ukraine war is going to shape foreign policy for decades to come. A decisive Russian loss will lead to a very peaceful century. It's going to make China into a cute and cuddly pussycat.

Good post. I agree with you. Although I would add that Russia is to blame for the countries moving towards Nato and the west. These countries are much closer to Russia and should have natural alliance with Russia. Russia has great resources to sell. But instead Russia bullies the border countries demanding that they cede to their threats and accept Russian zones of influence. Fuck Russia. It is losing long standing allies because it is such a brutish state.

Below is a story about a very pro-Russian mayor of Ukraine's third largest city turning his back on Russia:

Pro-Russia Mayor of Ukraine's 'Crime Capital' Turns His Back on Putin

www.msn.com

Totally.

I can also add to this that what Putin is doing, looking at world history, is being normal. The strong bullying the weak is business as usual. The western countries used to do it. The ONLY thing that has made the west stop is the fact that the western economic head start will mean that in an open and peaceful world they will keep their dominance and get ever richer. It's just historical dumb luck that this is also in the best interest of people outside the west. If free market capitalism would stop being in the president of USA's best interest, of course USA would stop being the world police and try their best at being world conquers, just like any nation with an edge, has ever done. Human nature being what it is.

Up to this point in human history you were either the bully or the bullied. There was nothing else. This new free market open society isn't particularly old either. It was made in the decades following WW2 when Great Britain dismantled their empire. The fact that we got used to it really fucking fast doesn't mean it's natural or normal. It's a monumental paradigm shift, that we're still trying to adapt to. It's also very important to understand that it's also new to USA. They weren't always so friendly and nice. They used to be just as much of an asshole as everyone else. There's little difference between what Putin is doing now, and what USA did in the Banana Wars.

Banana Wars - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[DrZoidberg]

Pro-Russia Mayor of Ukraine's 'Crime Capital' Turns His Back on Putin

www.msn.com

I've wondered about this as Ukrainian forces advance into what is/was considered pro-Russian areas. Have attitudes changed? It could play a significant role.

As far as I understand, this isn't so much an ethnic thing as a question of money. When Crimea became Russian Crimean pensioners got higher pensions. Crimean state employees got higher salaries. The Russian economy is in a better shape than Ukraine's (thanks to Russian natural resources). I think both Ukrainians and Russians are about as skeptical about the trustworthiness of their "chosen" leaders. Both countries are corrupt to a bizarre degree. I think Ukrainian cynicism is pretty high. And when you don't trust anyone anyway, you will trust cold hard cash. Which Russia gives them more of.

I also know that the Crimea has been in an economic slump following the Russian take-over. It turns out that Russia pumped in tremendous amount of money into Crimea that... surprise surprise... ended up not benefitting the Crimeans that much. Yay, corruption. They did get higher state salaries and pensions, but local businesses took a hit. So for the private sector, joining Russia has been a bad experience.

So, it's complicated. Of course. It always is.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Pro-Russia Mayor of Ukraine's 'Crime Capital' Turns His Back on Putin

www.msn.com

I've wondered about this as Ukrainian forces advance into what is/was considered pro-Russian areas. Have attitudes changed? It could play a significant role.

As far as I understand, this isn't so much an ethnic thing as a question of money. When Crimea became Russian Crimean pensioners got higher pensions. Crimean state employees got higher salaries. The Russian economy is in a better shape than Ukraine's (thanks to Russian natural resources). I think both Ukrainians and Russians are about as skeptical about the trustworthiness of their "chosen" leaders. Both countries are corrupt to a bizarre degree. I think Ukrainian cynicism is pretty high. And when you don't trust anyone anyway, you will trust cold hard cash. Which Russia gives them more of.

I also know that the Crimea has been in an economic slump following the Russian take-over. It turns out that Russia pumped in tremendous amount of money into Crimea that... surprise surprise... ended up not benefitting the Crimeans that much. Yay, corruption. They did get higher state salaries and pensions, but local businesses took a hit. So for the private sector, joining Russia has been a bad experience.

So, it's complicated. Of course. It always is.

I'm just thinking how indiscriminate bombing may have changed the equation. For example, if a person living in Odesa is pro-Russian and a missile destroys where they work or shop, they might have a change of heart. I know if the Democrats bombed my neighborhood, I'd seriously consider voting Republican.

 

[Copernicus]

...Putin isn't wrong in that NATO is a threat to Russian interests. But of course, that threat only lies in that NATO protects NATO members from Russian imperialism. It doesn't replace one oppressor for another. It simply removes the Russian oppressor. Of course, Putin doesn't like that...

I just wanted to comment on your expression "Russian interests", an expression that we all toss around a lot. I wonder what Russian interests really are, because it isn't clear that it is in Russian interests to be an imperialist power. In hindsight, that behavior has brought disaster down on Russia and its neighbors. The country is worse off for it. I would see NATO as a threat to the interests of Russian imperialists--Vladimir Putin, the oligarchs, ultranationalists, and various other self-centered segments of Russian society. I wouldn't confuse the interests of that crowd with the interests of the Russian nation as a whole. What is really in Russian interests is a stable peaceful and mutually profitable relationship with other countries. Russia doesn't pursue its own interests when it drives other countries to seek membership in NATO, and that is exactly what it has been doing. Russia under Putin has become a threat to its own national interest and those of other countries.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

...Putin isn't wrong in that NATO is a threat to Russian interests. But of course, that threat only lies in that NATO protects NATO members from Russian imperialism. It doesn't replace one oppressor for another. It simply removes the Russian oppressor. Of course, Putin doesn't like that...

I just wanted to comment on your expression "Russian interests", an expression that we all toss around a lot. I wonder what Russian interests really are, because it isn't clear that it is in Russian interests to be an imperialist power. In hindsight, that behavior has brought disaster down on Russia and its neighbors. The country is worse off for it. I would see NATO as a threat to the interests of Russian imperialists--Vladimir Putin, the oligarchs, ultranationalists, and various other self-centered segments of Russian society. I wouldn't confuse the interests of that crowd with the interests of the Russian nation as a whole. What is really in Russian interests is a stable peaceful and mutually profitable relationship with other countries. Russia doesn't pursue its own interests when it drives other countries to seek membership in NATO, and that is exactly what it has been doing. Russia under Putin has become a threat to its own national interest and those of other countries.

Yes. It isn't Russia anymore so much as it is Putinstan or Oligarchia. It certainly isn't a place where one is free to express one's interests. It is not a nation of laws that benefit everyone equally. And it is unfortunate because Russia should be for Russians, not Putinistas. Stalin and Putin and their ilk seem to have destroyed the Russian spirit for their own gain. It has been repeated ad naseum that if Russia wanted to influence its neighbors it could do that easily by helping them, not bullying them. Time and the availability of information will workd against that present behavior.

 

[Jayjay]

A Russian columnist recently appeared on television and gave a damning assessment of the situation in Ukraine from Russia's perspective.

Watch the video. This guy is telling it like it is. Completely rational saying it looks very bad for Russia particularly because they are so isolated. Lots of other good stuff. A great read.

Now he is backtracking:

Former Russian colonel contradicts earlier statements criticizing Russia's military operations in Ukraine

The evacuation mission at the Azovstol steel plant in Mariupol continues, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said. It follows the end of Ukrainian forces' "combat mission" at the complex. Follow here for live news updates.

edition.cnn.com

Retired Russian colonel Mikhail Khodarenok said any talk about Ukraine being able to counterattack is a "big exaggeration," just a day after he criticized Russia's military operations in Ukraine saying the situation for Russia could "get worse."

Speaking to a Russian state TV channel on Wednesday, Khodarenok said, "When people talk about Ukraine acquiring the ability to counterattack, well it's a big exaggeration. And as concerns the actions of our supreme command, there is every reason to believe that the implementation of these plans will in the very near future give Ukraine an unpleasant surprise."

I guess Kodarenok has had a visit from FSB.

 

[DrZoidberg]

...Putin isn't wrong in that NATO is a threat to Russian interests. But of course, that threat only lies in that NATO protects NATO members from Russian imperialism. It doesn't replace one oppressor for another. It simply removes the Russian oppressor. Of course, Putin doesn't like that...

I just wanted to comment on your expression "Russian interests", an expression that we all toss around a lot. I wonder what Russian interests really are, because it isn't clear that it is in Russian interests to be an imperialist power. In hindsight, that behavior has brought disaster down on Russia and its neighbors. The country is worse off for it. I would see NATO as a threat to the interests of Russian imperialists--Vladimir Putin, the oligarchs, ultranationalists, and various other self-centered segments of Russian society. I wouldn't confuse the interests of that crowd with the interests of the Russian nation as a whole. What is really in Russian interests is a stable peaceful and mutually profitable relationship with other countries. Russia doesn't pursue its own interests when it drives other countries to seek membership in NATO, and that is exactly what it has been doing. Russia under Putin has become a threat to its own national interest and those of other countries.

There's also the resource curse. The economy of a country shapes behaviours and priorities. For a natural resource rich country, where most of the GNP comes from a single or few natural resources there's a huge incentive to control that natural resource. And once you do, your leverage of power will allow you to very effectively control the entire country. This is Russia.

Resource curse - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

When western nations were helping guide Russia from communism to capitalism they were greedy, short sighted and naive. Above all, they were bizarrely naive and forgiving when it came to Yeltsin, who was given a free pass to derail the Russian democracy and economy without anybody reacting. I read an analysis book of the transition from communism and that author listed all the things Yeltsin said he was for and would do, did none of it. He only was purely hellbent on enriching himself and his cronies. They/We gave him a free pass because the communist government was so inefficient that just stopping the really really stupid planned economy stuff made Russian growth numbers look impressive. In the west we still fail to grasp just exactly how hated Yeltsin was and is. And Gorbachev. In our minds these two are Russian heroes. They are by the Russians today considered villains.

Russia is of course very much a product of it's economy and history.

I argue that we in the west don't really understand the secret sauce that makes our democracies work. This makes us draw simplistic conclusions about why Putin does the stuff he does. It was the same story following 9/11, the rise of ISIS or the return of the Taleban. Aææ took the west completely by surprise, even though both were loudly telegraphed well in advance.

The healthiest democracies are so in countries that, traditionally, had weak kings/central power structure. Where the king had to ask nicely to get their vassals to do their bidding, because he hadn't much leverage if they said no. In northern Europe the temperature limited food production which prevented dense populations. Subjects were more spread out, which weakened central power. This created a proactive culture where people, to a greater extent, solved their own problems. Corruption was lower because misbehavior would impact your local community. These are farming communities. So they are pretty stable. Long term planning is incentivized. These are all facts from history. It might be that this culture is the secret sauce that makes democracy work.

Russia is a nation borne out of step nomads. Ie political realities can change rapidly. Tribal alliances are volatile. Long term planning is a waste of time. Farmers will always be dominated by the horseback herders. ie always bled dry. The step nomads always take as much as they can. They never know when their dominating position will end. It's a different type of culture. Russia became an agrarian culture very late. This might explain why Russia today is what it is?

 

[steve_bank]

If the CNN report is right a captured Russian soldier admitted to shooting n unarmed civilian.

The soldier says he was ordered to shoot a man on a biccycle holding a phone because he might report a tank paoition.

That pretty much says it all about the Russia army.

 

[Elixir]

When Pootey says NATO is a threat to Russian interests, it is a plain and simple admission that "Russia's interests" include invading and seizing territory that belongs to NATO Countries.

There is no other Russian "interest" that is threatened by NATO.

If Russia (Putler) insists that Russia is justified to invade other countries that have shown no aggression toward Russia, then dismantling Russia in its entirety would be a completely justifiable action for the rest of the world to undertake.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

When Pootey says NATO is a threat to Russian interests, it is a plain and simple admission that "Russia's interests" include invading and seizing territory that belongs to NATO Countries.

There is no other Russian "interest" that is threatened by NATO.

If Russia (Putler) insists that Russia is justified to invade other countries that have shown no aggression toward Russia, then dismantling Russia in its entirety would be a completely justifiable action for the rest of the world to undertake.

It should be unmistakably obvious to anyone with even half a brain the Russia's little Hitler is the one and only problem. Russia's legacy of oppression is something that is amenable to change but it won't ever happen if a murderous tyrant and his thieving cronies control the affairs of state. Your typical guy is just going to be afraid to speak his mind because he doesn't want to lose what little freedom he has.

It is strange to me how so few in the west understand the difference between the little Russian Hitler's interests and Russian national interests. We even conflate the two as if they are the same thing. I don't know why we don't think about this and chose our words more carefully so be more accurate with our speech. The pen is really mightier than the sword.

I agree with Zoid that we did a poor job in the early 90s and Putin's rise to power is proof of that. Maybe we'll get it right eventually.

 

[Copernicus]

I am usually a bit more skeptical than most Americans (and even Europeans) who think that the US sort of controls everything that happens in the world. The claim that the US won the Cold War by causing the breakup of the Soviet Union and bringing down the Berlin Wall is really a myth, in my opinion.

The US did not bring Gorbachev to power, and it did not cause the economic mess that the Soviets got themselves into with their bungled attempts to control their economy and suppress the national aspirations of people within their empire. I'm sorry, but Boris Yeltsin was no more the fault of the US than Mikhail Gorbachev was. Yeltsin came to power on his own and stayed in power without the help of the US government. He wasn't controlled by the US, and Putin's rise to power had very little to do with the US. It is always true that one can identify mistakes in hindsight, but I just don't see how Vladimir Putin's rise can really be pinned on the US bungling its Russia policy. Gorbachev was delusional to think that he could hold all of those vassal states together without force of arms to suppress dissent and opposition to Soviet rule. Yeltsin was an incompetent, corrupt drunkard, who needed the help of a ruthless henchman, Vladimir Putin, to help him keep control. Vladimir Putin, was a corrupt criminal sociopath who saw an opportunity to seize control of a failing government by scapegoating Chechens with manufactured terrorist attacks.

I just don't see what the US and other Western governments could have done to stop Putin's rise to power, even if they had had the ability to see into the future. Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and Putin all came to power because of internal conditions in the Russian-dominated Eastern European bloc at the time. NATO always existed as an organization that opposed the military expansion of Soviet power into western Europe. Former Soviet-bloc nations rushed to join it after the collapse of the Soviet Union, because they feared a renewed attempt by Russia to regain its lost territories and vassal states. Before Putin's invasion of Ukraine, the NATO organization was really struggling to maintain its relevance, but that changed pretty quickly, once Putin made clear his expansionist intentions. NATO didn't plan its own revival. That was an unforced error brought about by Vladimir Putin's incompetence.