Russian Invasion of Ukraine - tactics and logistics

[barbos]

She lives in France/Germany and comments on their media.
She explains how MSM managed to lie without consequences.
Magical use of "disclaimers". They take ukrainian propaganda garbage and then add "Unconfirmed sources" disclaimer.

 

[Copernicus]

There’s a reason why the Third Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits billeting soldiers in the homes of Americans. Civilians expected their homes to be trashed, their valuables stolen, and their wives and daughters raped, if soldiers were given access. Only a fool would have expected anything different.

Well, that wasn't actually the original reason for the 3rd Amendment. See

Why We Have the Third Amendment—and Why It Rarely Comes Up in Court​

The reality wasn't so much that American households were forced to house British soldiers, although that myth is popular among Americans. The British sent troops to protect the colonies in the French and Indian War. Afterwards, the troops remained as a standing army in the colonies, and there was the problem of housing them. So Parliament (without colonial representation) passed the Quartering Act in 1765.

On March 24, 1765, Parliament passes the Quartering Act, outlining the locations and conditions in which British soldiers are to find room and board in the American colonies.

The Quartering Act of 1765 required the colonies to house British soldiers in barracks provided by the colonies. If the barracks were too small to house all the soldiers, then localities were to accommodate the soldiers in local inns, livery stables, ale houses, victualling houses and the houses of sellers of wine. "Should there still be soldiers without accommodation after all such publick houses were filled," the act read, "the colonies were then required to take, hire and make fit for the reception of his Majesty’s forces, such and so many uninhabited houses, outhouses, barns, or other buildings as shall be necessary."

As the language of the act makes clear, the popular image of Redcoats tossing colonists from their bedchambers in order to move in themselves was not the intent of the law; neither was it the practice. However, the New York colonial assembly disliked being commanded to provide quarter for British troops—they preferred to be asked and then to give their consent, if they were going to have soldiers in their midst at all. Thus, they refused to comply with the law, and in 1767, Parliament passed the New York Restraining Act. The Restraining Act prohibited the royal governor of New York from signing any further legislation until the assembly complied with the Quartering Act.

In New York, the governor managed to convince Parliament that the assembly had complied. In Massachusetts, where barracks already existed on an island from which soldiers had no hope of keeping the peace in a city riled by the Townshend Revenue Acts, British officers followed the Quartering Act’s injunction to quarter their soldiers in public places, not in private homes. Within these constraints, their only option was to pitch tents on Boston Common. The soldiers, living cheek by jowl with riled Patriots, were soon involved in street brawls and then the Boston Massacre of 1770, during which not only five rock-throwing colonial rioters were killed but any residual trust between Bostonians and the resident Redcoats. That breach would never be healed in the New England port city, and the British soldiers stayed in Boston until George Washington drove them out with the Continental Army in 1776.

The outrage against that Act was listed as a grievance in the 1776 Declaration of Independence.

Years later, when the Bill of Rights was being jammed down the throats of Federalists in return for ratification by southern states, there was considerable concern that a federal standing army might resort to the same practice of requiring locals to house federal troops against their wishes. So that amendment was inserted as a way of guaranteeing that housing federal troops would not be forced on states. The Second Amendment had a similar purpose--to ensure that the federal government could not simply use a standing army to do away with local militias and then refuse to defend against slave attacks or attacks by local indigenous tribes. The 2nd Amendment ensured that states could train militias for self-defense and not need to rely on a federal standing army.

 

[barbos]

Like I said before, these are just anecdotal cases which don't reflect the overall motivation of the army. You can find similar videos from the other side.

No, it's not anecdotal, these are real soldiers quitting on camera.
Ukrainian regime is running out of professional soldiers. The ones on these videos were mobilized, given AK74 and sent to fight against professional army. They can't operate any equipment beyond that AK74 . Some idiots are from territorial defense who signed up to "defend" their towns only, with small arms only, but then were sent to real war. They have no training whatsoever, some probably too old and unfit to be trained anyway.


Ukrainian "army" is close to collapsing. In fact, the only reason it has not happened yet is because they are lying to themselves and the West. Ukrainians are not aware how badly they are doing.
Having said that, ukrainian regime and their western masters are slowly changing their song preparing for capitulation. Some goverment critters report catastrophic losses in the range of 1000 soldiers per day. Even western state media leaks about talks about Ukrainian territorial concessions.

 

[barbos]

You’re claiming they have a 40-1 advantage and yet they still can’t defeat Ukraine?

Yes. I say exactly that. Russia has 40-1 advantage in artillery and still has not defeated Ukraine.

 

[barbos]

There is not much love for Ukraine and their "army" in Mariupol.

 

[bilby]

There’s a reason why the Third Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits billeting soldiers in the homes of Americans. Civilians expected their homes to be trashed, their valuables stolen, and their wives and daughters raped, if soldiers were given access. Only a fool would have expected anything different.

Well, that wasn't actually the original reason for the 3rd Amendment. See

Why We Have the Third Amendment—and Why It Rarely Comes Up in Court​

The reality wasn't so much that American households were forced to house British soldiers, although that myth is popular among Americans. The British sent troops to protect the colonies in the French and Indian War. Afterwards, the troops remained as a standing army in the colonies, and there was the problem of housing them. So Parliament (without colonial representation) passed the Quartering Act in 1765.

On March 24, 1765, Parliament passes the Quartering Act, outlining the locations and conditions in which British soldiers are to find room and board in the American colonies.

The Quartering Act of 1765 required the colonies to house British soldiers in barracks provided by the colonies. If the barracks were too small to house all the soldiers, then localities were to accommodate the soldiers in local inns, livery stables, ale houses, victualling houses and the houses of sellers of wine. "Should there still be soldiers without accommodation after all such publick houses were filled," the act read, "the colonies were then required to take, hire and make fit for the reception of his Majesty’s forces, such and so many uninhabited houses, outhouses, barns, or other buildings as shall be necessary."

As the language of the act makes clear, the popular image of Redcoats tossing colonists from their bedchambers in order to move in themselves was not the intent of the law; neither was it the practice. However, the New York colonial assembly disliked being commanded to provide quarter for British troops—they preferred to be asked and then to give their consent, if they were going to have soldiers in their midst at all. Thus, they refused to comply with the law, and in 1767, Parliament passed the New York Restraining Act. The Restraining Act prohibited the royal governor of New York from signing any further legislation until the assembly complied with the Quartering Act.

In New York, the governor managed to convince Parliament that the assembly had complied. In Massachusetts, where barracks already existed on an island from which soldiers had no hope of keeping the peace in a city riled by the Townshend Revenue Acts, British officers followed the Quartering Act’s injunction to quarter their soldiers in public places, not in private homes. Within these constraints, their only option was to pitch tents on Boston Common. The soldiers, living cheek by jowl with riled Patriots, were soon involved in street brawls and then the Boston Massacre of 1770, during which not only five rock-throwing colonial rioters were killed but any residual trust between Bostonians and the resident Redcoats. That breach would never be healed in the New England port city, and the British soldiers stayed in Boston until George Washington drove them out with the Continental Army in 1776.

The outrage against that Act was listed as a grievance in the 1776 Declaration of Independence.

Years later, when the Bill of Rights was being jammed down the throats of Federalists in return for ratification by southern states, there was considerable concern that a federal standing army might resort to the same practice of requiring locals to house federal troops against their wishes. So that amendment was inserted as a way of guaranteeing that housing federal troops would not be forced on states. The Second Amendment had a similar purpose--to ensure that the federal government could not simply use a standing army to do away with local militias and then refuse to defend against slave attacks or attacks by local indigenous tribes. The 2nd Amendment ensured that states could train militias for self-defense and not need to rely on a federal standing army.

All of which is true, but skirts around the fact that having troops quartered upon you was unpopular because most soldiers were poorly educated thugs with guns and lots of backup, who had no qualms about stealing and raping. So people weren’t happy at all about having them in their homes.

They didn’t just wanted to be asked nicely; They wanted to be able to say “no” (or words to that effect, typically ending in “… off”.

 

[SLD]

You’re claiming they have a 40-1 advantage and yet they still can’t defeat Ukraine?

Yes. I say exactly that. Russia has 40-1 advantage in artillery and still has not defeated Ukraine.

Well, with that kind of military incompetence maybe you shouldn’t have launched the war in the first place. Just a thought.

 

[barbos]

You’re claiming they have a 40-1 advantage and yet they still can’t defeat Ukraine?

Yes. I say exactly that. Russia has 40-1 advantage in artillery and still has not defeated Ukraine.

Well, with that kind of military incompetence maybe you shouldn’t have launched the war in the first place. Just a thought.

Why do you assume it is incompetence?
Russians are pretty competent at using artillery so much so, that ukrainians are not even trying to counter it, instead they hit civilian targets while using other civilians as shield.

 

[Copernicus]

Why do you assume it is incompetence?
Russians are pretty competent at using artillery so much so, that ukrainians are not even trying to counter it, instead they hit civilian targets while using other civilians as shield.

Welcome to Putin bizarro world. Russian tactics are to bottle up cities and not let civilians escape. They have deliberately targeted hospitals, schools, shelters, and those trying to escape as a terror tactic, yet the Russian public is fed this crap that Ukrainians use their own people as human shields. I suppose the idea is that is what German troops sometimes did with non-Germans in countries they had invaded. German troops didn't tend to do that with Germans. So that could be an easy sell to those in the Russian population who want to believe that their side is the good guys.

The Ukrainians are running out of artillery and missiles, so they can't effectively resist Russian artillery. It doesn't take a military genius to use overwhelming firepower, if one has it. The Ukrainians don't, and the Russians do. The Russian military has already repeatedly demonstrated its incompetence, yet barbos claims that Russia has a ridiculous 40-1 artillery advantage (because he would know?) and still cannot defeat its weaker foe. After repeated disasters with their ridiculous tank columns, they have finally learned to stop sending tanks at Ukrainian forces and hide behind long range artillery and missiles. That is their idea of military competence.

 

[Copernicus]

The Russian military will continue to pound away at Ukraine, while Ukrainians are slowly being supplied with more weapons to defend themselves. Those weapons have a long distance to travel and are subject to interdiction at choke points in the supply lines along the way from west to east. Meanwhile, the Russian economy is predictably going into slow motion collapse. Here is a warning signal from the Russian Central Bank:

Russian economy ‘won’t be as it was,’ central banker says​

ST. PETERSBURG, Russia (AP) — The head of the Russian Central Bank warned Thursday that the country’s economy faces pressure from abroad that could persist indefinitely, dampening hopes that conditions could return to what they were before Russia sent troops into Ukraine.

“It seems to me that it’s obvious to everyone that it won’t be as it was before,” Elvira Nabiullina said at a session of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, an annual showpiece gathering aimed at investors.

“External conditions have changed for a long time indeed, if not forever,” she said...

"Forever" is hyperbole. I think she just means something like "in our lifetimes". The Russian economy already had a very large revenue stream before the 2014 invasion from foreign sources via criminal activity, but now it is going to be more dependent than ever on criminal sources to sustain its standard of living. This is somewhat of a return to the Soviet era, when the underground criminal black market represented a major hidden portion of their economy. One of the reasons there is so much corruption in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia is the legacy of how things worked for decades before the collapse of the Soviet empire.

 

[Copernicus]

At the same St Petersburg conference as the Russian Central Bank representative, a CNN reporter took on Maria Zakharova, Director of the Information and Press Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Russia's chief propagandist. She is clearly hard-pressed to defend against the charge that Russia is in clear violation of international law, repeatedly trying to evade the question by attacking US actions in the past and ignoring questions about Russian advances outside of the Donbas region.

'Testy exchange': Pleitgen challenges Russian official on Putin's message​

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Like I said before, these are just anecdotal cases which don't reflect the overall motivation of the army. You can find similar videos from the other side.

No, it's not anecdotal, these are real soldiers quitting on camera.
Ukrainian regime is running out of professional soldiers. The ones on these videos were mobilized, given AK74 and sent to fight against professional army. They can't operate any equipment beyond that AK74 . Some idiots are from territorial defense who signed up to "defend" their towns only, with small arms only, but then were sent to real war. They have no training whatsoever, some probably too old and unfit to be trained anyway.

What professional army are they fighting? The Russian army certainly isn't professional.

Ukrainian "army" is close to collapsing. In fact, the only reason it has not happened yet is because they are lying to themselves and the West. Ukrainians are not aware how badly they are doing.
Having said that, ukrainian regime and their western masters are slowly changing their song preparing for capitulation. Some goverment critters report catastrophic losses in the range of 1000 soldiers per day. Even western state media leaks about talks about Ukrainian territorial concessions.

Moscow saying this doesn't make it so. If they really were close to collapsing we would see it on the battle lines.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You’re claiming they have a 40-1 advantage and yet they still can’t defeat Ukraine?

Yes. I say exactly that. Russia has 40-1 advantage in artillery and still has not defeated Ukraine.

Because they are using that artillery to flatten cities rather than against military targets. Unfortunately they aren't going to get the trip to Nuremburg they deserve.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You’re claiming they have a 40-1 advantage and yet they still can’t defeat Ukraine?

Yes. I say exactly that. Russia has 40-1 advantage in artillery and still has not defeated Ukraine.

Well, with that kind of military incompetence maybe you shouldn’t have launched the war in the first place. Just a thought.

Why do you assume it is incompetence?
Russians are pretty competent at using artillery so much so, that ukrainians are not even trying to counter it, instead they hit civilian targets while using other civilians as shield.

The civilian targets are being hit by Russian artillery, not Ukrainian.

 

[SLD]

You’re claiming they have a 40-1 advantage and yet they still can’t defeat Ukraine?

Yes. I say exactly that. Russia has 40-1 advantage in artillery and still has not defeated Ukraine.

Well, with that kind of military incompetence maybe you shouldn’t have launched the war in the first place. Just a thought.

Why do you assume it is incompetence?
Russians are pretty competent at using artillery so much so, that ukrainians are not even trying to counter it, instead they hit civilian targets while using other civilians as shield.

Because any competent military with that kind of numerical superiority would’ve defeated their enemy a LONG time ago. Your military sucks. Probably why so many senior officers are getting killed, and even fragged by their own troops.

 

[barbos]

You’re claiming they have a 40-1 advantage and yet they still can’t defeat Ukraine?

Yes. I say exactly that. Russia has 40-1 advantage in artillery and still has not defeated Ukraine.

Well, with that kind of military incompetence maybe you shouldn’t have launched the war in the first place. Just a thought.

Why do you assume it is incompetence?
Russians are pretty competent at using artillery so much so, that ukrainians are not even trying to counter it, instead they hit civilian targets while using other civilians as shield.

Because any competent military with that kind of numerical superiority would’ve defeated their enemy a LONG time ago. Your military sucks. Probably why so many senior officers are getting killed, and even fragged by their own troops.

US had 1000-0 advantage in Afghanistan and 20 years.

 

[barbos]

You’re claiming they have a 40-1 advantage and yet they still can’t defeat Ukraine?

Yes. I say exactly that. Russia has 40-1 advantage in artillery and still has not defeated Ukraine.

Well, with that kind of military incompetence maybe you shouldn’t have launched the war in the first place. Just a thought.

Why do you assume it is incompetence?
Russians are pretty competent at using artillery so much so, that ukrainians are not even trying to counter it, instead they hit civilian targets while using other civilians as shield.

The civilian targets are being hit by Russian artillery, not Ukrainian.

You are wrong. Your government is lying to you.
But if you insist, then go to Mariupol and try telling them that.

 

[barbos]

You’re claiming they have a 40-1 advantage and yet they still can’t defeat Ukraine?

Yes. I say exactly that. Russia has 40-1 advantage in artillery and still has not defeated Ukraine.

Because they are using that artillery to flatten cities rather than against military targets. Unfortunately they aren't going to get the trip to Nuremburg they deserve.

Ukro-nazis will get their Nuremburg they deserve.

 

[SLD]

You’re claiming they have a 40-1 advantage and yet they still can’t defeat Ukraine?

Yes. I say exactly that. Russia has 40-1 advantage in artillery and still has not defeated Ukraine.

Well, with that kind of military incompetence maybe you shouldn’t have launched the war in the first place. Just a thought.

Why do you assume it is incompetence?
Russians are pretty competent at using artillery so much so, that ukrainians are not even trying to counter it, instead they hit civilian targets while using other civilians as shield.

Because any competent military with that kind of numerical superiority would’ve defeated their enemy a LONG time ago. Your military sucks. Probably why so many senior officers are getting killed, and even fragged by their own troops.

US had 1000-0 advantage in Afghanistan and 20 years.

A great example. They won shortly after we left. They didn’t want us there. Learn from us: The Ukrainians don’t want you there. Leave. You are not welcome. Go home.

 

[barbos]

A great example

I know, ukrainian army use terrorist tactics with some success. Unfortunately for them, ordinary people know that Russia is there to stay.
My point was that, in a fair fight ukrainian "army" has no chance, that's why they use terrorist tactics. And why not? So far it's working for them, western media lies for them, politicians vote to send them money and weapons, which they can sell on darknet.