How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[DrZoidberg]

Russia isn't going to run out of trucks or trains any time soon either. At best, Ukraine can make the logistics a bit harder, and force ammunition dumps to be farther from the front line and more decentralized, which is what it has been done for the past year. But despite that, Russia still has artillery advantage over Ukraine.

Trucks aren't particularly consumed, so there's no running out of. Rather, they are a logistics limit. The stuff isn't self-transporting, Russia has a limited number of trucks to haul it to the front. Russia is heavily dependent on trains for hauling things around--but if they put the transfer point within range of Ukrainian weapons it goes boom. Trucks are effectively immune from long range attack so they operate unmolested, but they have a limited capacity and the farther back the transfer point is the longer per run and thus the fewer runs.

We don't see the transfer points going up very much but that doesn't prove the problem isn't real--Russia knows not to do it within range of Ukrainian weapons. The staging points only go boom when Russia doesn't realize it's within range.

I wouldn't be surprised if Ukraine is targetting trucks with their HIMARS and artilery. They want to make this war as expensive as possible for Russia. You get a lot of bang for your buck by wrecking supply trucks.

That was Germany's main strategy against the UK with their uboat fleet in the Atlantic. That strategy was very effective for Germany. Side note, the British troop type with the, on average, shortest lifespan in WW2 was a British merchant sailor. They were at the time comemorated and honored as the most bravest British soldiers. Often forgotten today.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'd say Jayjay's posting has been valuable and insightful. They are a lot more local

More local than what? Finland is a thousand miles from Ukraine.

The Finns have reasons, more than most to keep themselves really up to date with the situation in Russia. Us Swedes are really really grateful that Finland is in the way. I have no doubt Finns are better informed than most

edit: (formatting fixed by moderator)

 

[TV and credit cards]

Russia isn't going to run out of trucks or trains any time soon either. At best, Ukraine can make the logistics a bit harder, and force ammunition dumps to be farther from the front line and more decentralized, which is what it has been done for the past year. But despite that, Russia still has artillery advantage over Ukraine.

Trucks aren't particularly consumed, so there's no running out of. Rather, they are a logistics limit. The stuff isn't self-transporting, Russia has a limited number of trucks to haul it to the front. Russia is heavily dependent on trains for hauling things around--but if they put the transfer point within range of Ukrainian weapons it goes boom. Trucks are effectively immune from long range attack so they operate unmolested, but they have a limited capacity and the farther back the transfer point is the longer per run and thus the fewer runs.

We don't see the transfer points going up very much but that doesn't prove the problem isn't real--Russia knows not to do it within range of Ukrainian weapons. The staging points only go boom when Russia doesn't realize it's within range.

I wouldn't be surprised if Ukraine is targetting trucks with their HIMARS and artilery. They want to make this war as expensive as possible for Russia. You get a lot of bang for your buck by wrecking supply trucks.

That was Germany's main strategy against the UK with their uboat fleet in the Atlantic. That strategy was very effective for Germany. Side note, the British troop type with the, on average, shortest lifespan in WW2 was a British merchant sailor. They were at the time comemorated and honored as the most bravest British soldiers. Often forgotten today.

This is the silent killer. This is more than just trucks moving goods to dug in defenses. Russia's budget has been clipped and a lot of it needs to go toward the war now at the expense of the rest of Russia's economy, infrastructure projects, social support, etc. China will spring for the infrastructure projects but it will cost Russia dearly. The loss of social support stirs the natives.

Feeding the meat grinder of war means less of a manufacturing force. Worrying that you might get caught up and pressed into military service keeps working/fighting age men at home and unproductive. And of course there was the brain drain suffered. All this affects logistics. Russia needs more than just a pool of dumb labor, it needs knowledgeable/trained individuals to manufacture all that a fighting force needs and the individuals that can manufacture the equipment that transports it. And do so under the sanctions of whatever electrical/electronic parts these trucks may have employed in the manufacturing process that were purchased from western nations.
And consider the type of and quantity of trucks needed to go the last mile to get food, ammunition, and equipment to 100,000 men over an 800km frontline. A commercial semi can only go so far. They need to stay on relatively smooth roads. The more abuse they are subjected to the shorter their lifespan.

My take on it all is Russia is able to manufacture/obtain the necessary kit and food for the individual soldier but not in sufficient quantities. But that's it, everything else is a struggle. Meanwhile Ukraine has a sugar daddy bringing all that is needed. So much more of their human capital can be focused on making soldiers.

CBR warfare aside, poorly equipped and poorly fed soldiers behind defensive fortifications is what Russia has left. The war of attrition favors Ukraine.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Interesting reading on ISW today.

Here's a good bit of gouge:

Lukashenko likely seeks to use the Wagner Group in Belarus to buy maneuvering space to balance against the Kremlin campaign to absorb Belarus via the Union State. Lukashenko described at length how he inserted himself into the Putin-Prigozhin conflict in a way that - if Lukashenko’s account is true - demonstrates that Lukashenko is a politically savvy actor capable of exercising influence within the upper echelons of Russian politics. Lukashenko described how he managed to broker the deal between Putin and a livid Prigozhin, who refused to answer Putin’s phone calls, by skillfully engaging both parties directly and through Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yunus-Bek Yevkurov and Russian FSB Director Alexander Bortnikov.[8] Lukashenko’s elaborate account suggests that Lukashenko successfully mediated a crisis within Putin‘s own inner circle that Putin could not.[9] Lukashenko intervened to mediate likely in part to signal to Putin and other senior Kremlin officials that Moscow should not trifle with Lukashenko and that Lukashenko has the ability to operate successfully and independently within Russian politics. Lukashenko’s boasting about his ability to manipulate power brokers within Putin’s innermost circle is humiliating for Putin, whether or not it is true. The fact that Putin has not challenged Lukashenko’s presentation of events and has in fact publicly thanked Lukashenko is even more humiliating.

Alpha dog is weak and the pack knows it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'd say Jayjay's posting has been valuable and insightful. They are a lot more local

More local than what? Finland is a thousand miles from Ukraine.

More local as in closer than most of us. Also, the shared history regarding Russian territorial incursions is also of interest.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Alpha dog is weak and the pack knows it.

Warlords and Game Theory.

It's no secret that the Belarussian dictator tolerates the Russian dictator because he needs him to maintain power at home. But the little dog doesn't want to become part of the big dog's home, a threat he is always under. Wagner assets in Belarus is a very good thing for the little dog at this point and a bad thing for the big dog. I don't think big dog thought this one through. If he did it demonstrates a very real weakness in his grip on power.

 

[Copernicus]

This NYT story suggests that Prigozhin may have relied on help from his erstwhile allies, General Surovikin and Lt. Gen. Vladimir Alekseyev. They may have played a role in the rebellion. Of course, this is information coming from the US government, so it may be an attempt to weaken the Russian military (which the article admits). Surovikin has been replaced by Gerasimov and his patron, Shoigu. The rivalry between these two groups in the Russian military is well known. However, a functional Wagner force sitting in Belarus has to be taken as a threat by Putin, who has now officially reneged on his agreement to drop criminal charges against Prigozhin.

See:

Russian General Knew About Mercenary Chief’s Rebellion Plans, U.S. Officials Say​

Some US commentators are saying that Lukashenko depends so heavily on Putin's patronage that Belarus will be more of a jail for Prigozhin than a safe haven. However, I doubt that the Belarusian military is capable of suppressing the Wagner force, which is well-funded. I'm not sure where Wagner forces will get their supplies from, but there is a lot of graft and corruption surrounding Russian supply chains. And Prigozhin reportedly has a lot of money.

 

[Elixir]

Prigs also has thousands of operators in Africa helping to prop up Putler’s regime with augmented cash flow. Pootey wont do anything to jeopardize that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Russia to investigate Wagner pay.

Man Putin is falling. Guy starts to wage a mutiny against his military... and Putin's response is an audit?!

 

[James Brown]

They don't make autocratic tyrants like they used to.

 

[Elixir]

They don't make autocratic tyrants like they used to.

Remember: everything Trump touches, dies. Pootie let him get a little too close.

 

[TV and credit cards]

They don't make autocratic tyrants like they used to.

Remember: everything Trump touches, dies. Pootie let him get a little too close.

"The pee tape is in... is in..."

Fade out

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I wouldn't be surprised if Ukraine is targetting trucks with their HIMARS and artilery. They want to make this war as expensive as possible for Russia. You get a lot of bang for your buck by wrecking supply trucks.

That was Germany's main strategy against the UK with their uboat fleet in the Atlantic. That strategy was very effective for Germany. Side note, the British troop type with the, on average, shortest lifespan in WW2 was a British merchant sailor. They were at the time comemorated and honored as the most bravest British soldiers. Often forgotten today.

Disagree--HIMARS don't have seeker heads, they aren't capable of hitting moving targets.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I wouldn't be surprised if Ukraine is targetting trucks with their HIMARS and artilery. They want to make this war as expensive as possible for Russia. You get a lot of bang for your buck by wrecking supply trucks.

That was Germany's main strategy against the UK with their uboat fleet in the Atlantic. That strategy was very effective for Germany. Side note, the British troop type with the, on average, shortest lifespan in WW2 was a British merchant sailor. They were at the time comemorated and honored as the most bravest British soldiers. Often forgotten today.

Disagree--HIMARS don't have seeker heads, they aren't capable of hitting moving targets.

This is just pure speculation on my part, but if I was trying to hit a supply truck I would wait until they have arrived to the supply depot. It's a place I know in advance they're going to. So I could line up my weaponry in advance and just wait for the right moment for when to pull the trigger.

The territory occupied by Russians are in unfriendly territory. A lot of the people there are really motivated to help the Ukraine army. I think Ukraine knows every detail of the situation in the occupied territory, down to each outhouse and it's occupants. I think it's safe to assume that Ukraine knows everything they need to know to cause maximum damage to the supply trucks.

But all of this is pure speculation on my part.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I wouldn't be surprised if Ukraine is targetting trucks with their HIMARS and artilery. They want to make this war as expensive as possible for Russia. You get a lot of bang for your buck by wrecking supply trucks.

That was Germany's main strategy against the UK with their uboat fleet in the Atlantic. That strategy was very effective for Germany. Side note, the British troop type with the, on average, shortest lifespan in WW2 was a British merchant sailor. They were at the time comemorated and honored as the most bravest British soldiers. Often forgotten today.

Disagree--HIMARS don't have seeker heads, they aren't capable of hitting moving targets.

My weapon in Space Invaders had the same issue.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I wouldn't be surprised if Ukraine is targetting trucks with their HIMARS and artilery. They want to make this war as expensive as possible for Russia. You get a lot of bang for your buck by wrecking supply trucks.

That was Germany's main strategy against the UK with their uboat fleet in the Atlantic. That strategy was very effective for Germany. Side note, the British troop type with the, on average, shortest lifespan in WW2 was a British merchant sailor. They were at the time comemorated and honored as the most bravest British soldiers. Often forgotten today.

Disagree--HIMARS don't have seeker heads, they aren't capable of hitting moving targets.

Well if course not. HIMARS is the launcher. GMLRS are the rockets provided to Ukraine that come out of it.

 

[Jayjay]

CBR warfare aside, poorly equipped and poorly fed soldiers behind defensive fortifications is what Russia has left. The war of attrition favors Ukraine.

This war is similar to WW1 trench warfare, but also different in many ways. It's not so much about the people in the trenches than it is about artillery, drones, mines, and so on. (Wagner's insane convict rushes being a notable exception, but those are probably over now.) I doubt it would make much difference to Russia if they had slightly better rifles or more nutritious rations.

I disagree with you that the war of attrition favors Ukraine. No it doesn't. Ukraine is the smaller country. Russia can mobilize 4 or 5 times more people; obviously because it has larger population, but also because it's a more brutal regime that can force people to the front more effectively than Ukraine. If Ukraine starts sending people to the front at gunpoint, it would collapse politically. So to win the war of attrition, Ukraine needs to be at least five times more efficient in killing Russians than Russia is killing their lads. This may have been true in some limited scuffles (at some point, it was claimed that the casualty rate was 1-to-7 in Bakhmut), but not in general.

Russia also has reserves it hasn't tapped into yet: the conscripts. I think it's over 100k fresh bodies per year that Putin could feed into the meat grinder, but has so far decided not to do.

Another facet of the war of attrition is artillery. Ukraine has been able to constrict Russian artillery advantage by striking their logistics, but not enough. Russian rank and file constantly complain about not having enough shells, but if Ukraine had as much as Russia, they'd be ecstatic. As with people, Ukraine has to be several times more efficient and make the fewer shells they have count - and right now they are not. A lot depends also on how quickly Ukraine's western allies can ramp up production vs. Russia, but it seems like it's slow on both sides. Russia is at a disadvantage economically against NATO, but they're on a war production mode and can use a lot bigger slice of their GDP to make weapons and ammunition. For the west, especially Europe, it's still kind of a side project. And there's a risk that China might step in and help Russia if it looks like it's needed. China is already providing gunpowder and electronics to Russia under the table, but potentially it could do a lot more.

I think Putin's plan is to hold out until the west gets tired of the stalemate and forces Ukraine into a ceasefire. In particular, 2024 American presidential election when an isolationist republican takes over, but every country in EU also has their anti-war stooges who think Ukraine should be thrown under the bus in exchange for cheaper gas or electricity.

On the bright side, it seems American people seem to still support the war effort,:

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'd say Russia is technically in a better position to wage a war on attrition, but it is hard to be an invading force and doing it that way... back home. Without Wagner, Russia is going to lose some pop. Progress with Wagner wasn't great. I can't imagine it'd improve without them.

Russia's biggest problem isn't the fight, it is the reality that they completely and utterly lack any capacity to occupy Ukraine. Russia usually just gets a despot to do the dirty work, but the despot needs a secret police and military to enforce despotism... not seeing where that is coming from, unless Wagner comes in after they take Kyiv because Ukraine gives up.

 

[SLD]

In war one major military objective is to cut off your enemies supply lines. To starve out a geographically isolated enemy units from amunition or food. Russian supply lines in Ukraine are still wide open and unthreatened, HIMARS notwithstanding. So that's not happening. Whatever problem Russia has it's not access to weapons. What both Ukraine and Russia has a shortage of is super expensive self guiding misiles. That's not the same thing as basic firearms.

The hard part of warfare is to combine arms in such a way they support eachother for maximum effect. That's as true today as it was when Sargon of Akkad conquered Sumeria.

You're assuming an infinite ability to move those supplies. Russia doesn't have anything like that.

I think Russia does. There's nothing that stops Russian supply routes. All the routes are wide open.

Russia has a potential problem, and that is supplying Crimea if the Ukranian army manages to push to the sea of Azov. But Ukraine is nowhere near there. This offensive seems to have stalled.

I think it’s a bit premature to be so negative about the offensive. at this point Ukraine has yet to commit 80% of their forces committed to the offensive. They appear to be more concentrated on shaping the offensive than trying to achieve a large breakthrough. As pointed out above, they are trying to disrupt the supply chain, and the backfield first. That’s important obviously. A breakthrough may not come very soon. It may take several months. A fast paced breakthrough may never happen. But it’s not necessary. What’s important is to degrade Russia’s combat abilities and that is happening. They’re showing the world that Russia can’t win. That in turn results in more support from the world, and further isolates Russia. Every casualty they inflict on Russia demoralizes them more and more. Wounded coming back probably more than KIA‘s. At some point they will break. It might be next week, or next year.

Unlike Ukraine, Putin has to worry about his people and his rear, as the past week clearly demonstrated. It’s not only Prig’s forces that have been maltreated. Full Russian mobilization is virtually impossible as Putin would expose himself. He can’t rely on the Russian people to support him in this war. Stalin could because of the open brutality of the Germans, and because they were the obvious aggressor. Putin has to worry that any Army he builds could just as easily turn on him. In fact, it just happened.

Ultimately he loses. He might declare victory and get out. But for now he’s trapped. The worst case scenario is that he basically does nothing, and the conflict continues at a lower level of intensity. Both sides are just slowly bled and the conflict drags on for years as a result. It’s unlikely that Ukraine will completely drive them out while Putin remains in power. Certainly not from Crimea. But Ukraine just needs the staying power to outlast him, and eventually he will be gone - naturally or otherwise.

 

[TV and credit cards]

It's worth it to take a look at ISW's interactive map. There you can see the positioning of Russia's fortifications they have built in Ukraine. It's slow going now because Ukraine has yet to breech those fortifications. Once they do and there is a path(s) for Ukraine to come in behind those fortifications rendering many of them useless, the pace of the war should pick up some.