Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Evolution of Eastern Ukraine War: Options and Outcomes

    Share
    avatar
    Flagship Victory

    Posts : 974
    Points : 922
    Join date : 2015-04-28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Evolution of Eastern Ukraine War: Options and Outcomes

    Post  Flagship Victory on Sun May 17, 2015 5:07 am

    What shocked me is not Putin but the Russian public. Not a single demonstration outside the Kremlin even as thousands of ethnic Russians are being massacred by indiscriminate shelling. Shocked Hezbollah intervenes to defend the Shia towns of Zahra and Noble in Syria from terrorists. Russians need to act like people of the world's biggest and most powerful state. Demonstrate. Protest. Help ethnic Russians right across the border.

    This is how you defend your people. Who helped Iraqis drive Americans out of Iraq? Iranians. Who helped Afghans drive Americans out of Afghanistan. Iranians. Russians must help ethnic Russians drive fascists out of Donbas.

    http://rt.com/news/259297-iran-khamenei-yemen-protect/

    Putin should not beg Americans for respect by allowing thousands of ethnic Russians to get massacred. Respect is earned by protecting those you should protect. Respect is not given. Respect is earned. If Russian people do not protect their own people who are right across the border, then even Chinese people will no longer respect Russians. Rather than cozying up with Poroshenko, Putin should have armed NAF who would have taken Kiev by now had it not been for Minsk and had Putin armed NAF.

    Obama arms Syrian terrorists with thousands of TOW missiles. Even though Obama is weak as far as American presidents go, he is way tougher than Putin. Putin does not even give non lethal aid to NAF. Everything NAF uses is from private donations from Russian civilians.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16339
    Points : 16970
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Evolution of Eastern Ukraine War: Options and Outcomes

    Post  GarryB on Sun May 17, 2015 9:55 am

    Crimea is back. But 99% of the work IMO goes to Strelkov. Strelkov and co took it upon themselves to capture Crimea. Putin did the official paper work. Putin never planned to take back Crimea. Had it not been for Strelkov, Ukraine today would have been a NATO country with American tanks parked right on Russia's border.

    Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest Putin won the Crimea back the way the west claims he forced them to rejoin the Russian Federation. The reality is that it would not matter what Putin did it would be the will of the Crimean people that determined their future and the actions of the nazis in Kiev probably had more to do with their decision than anything Putin has done, though his actions in pushing Russia forward and upward probably helped at the end of the day it was the decision of the Crimean people... no matter what the western media suggest.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    magnumcromagnon

    Posts : 4495
    Points : 4674
    Join date : 2013-12-05
    Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan

    Re: Evolution of Eastern Ukraine War: Options and Outcomes

    Post  magnumcromagnon on Sun May 17, 2015 3:20 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    Crimea is back. But 99% of the work IMO goes to Strelkov. Strelkov and co took it upon themselves to capture Crimea. Putin did the official paper work. Putin never planned to take back Crimea. Had it not been for Strelkov, Ukraine today would have been a NATO country with American tanks parked right on Russia's border.

    Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest Putin won the Crimea back the way the west claims he forced them to rejoin the Russian Federation. The reality is that it would not matter what Putin did it would be the will of the Crimean people that determined their future and the actions of the nazis in Kiev probably had more to do with their decision than anything Putin has done, though his actions in pushing Russia forward and upward probably helped at the end of the day it was the decision of the Crimean people... no matter what the western media suggest.

    ...To add to this the referendum was the exact same one from 1992...oh yes, that's right Crimea wanted to join Russia all the way back in 1992, a good 22 years earlier, a good 7-8 years before Putin came to power...but God forbid that I try to convey this message to my fellow Americans, who lack the elementary basics of world history and geography (unfortunately that seems to be the majority).
    avatar
    mack8

    Posts : 953
    Points : 1013
    Join date : 2013-08-02

    Re: Evolution of Eastern Ukraine War: Options and Outcomes

    Post  mack8 on Sun May 17, 2015 4:19 pm

    ...To add to this the referendum was the exact same one from 1992...oh yes, that's right Crimea wanted to join Russia all the way back in 1992, a good 22 years earlier, a good 7-8 years before Putin came to power...but God forbid that I try to convey this message to my fellow Americans, who lack the elementary basics of world history and geography (unfortunately that seems to be the majority).

    Speaking of that, i did read recently that the crimeans wanted independence or joining Russia as far back as 1991, when the USSR was disintegrating. However they have been ignored at that time as i understand it by both the US, Russia  and of course Ukraine. My question to the knowledgeable folks here is, why did that happened, why weren't they allowed to at least be independent? What kind of power games prevented that? In hindsight, that of course would have been  a far, far better choice for them, Russia etc. Not to mention that maybe, just maybe if history would have continued about the same then there could have been a bloodless integration of NOVORUSSIA into the Russian Federation in 2014, or at least gaining independence (Crimea would have been either independent or  part of the Russian Federation for more than 20 years, and probably significantly more developed than it is today).

    Thanks.
    avatar
    Flagship Victory

    Posts : 974
    Points : 922
    Join date : 2015-04-28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Evolution of Eastern Ukraine War: Options and Outcomes

    Post  Flagship Victory on Sun May 17, 2015 6:18 pm

    mack8 wrote:
    ...To add to this the referendum was the exact same one from 1992...oh yes, that's right Crimea wanted to join Russia all the way back in 1992, a good 22 years earlier, a good 7-8 years before Putin came to power...but God forbid that I try to convey this message to my fellow Americans, who lack the elementary basics of world history and geography (unfortunately that seems to be the majority).

    Speaking of that, i did read recently that the crimeans wanted independence or joining Russia as far back as 1991, when the USSR was disintegrating. However they have been ignored at that time as i understand it by both the US, Russia  and of course Ukraine. My question to the knowledgeable folks here is, why did that happened, why weren't they allowed to at least be independent? What kind of power games prevented that? In hindsight, that of course would have been  a far, far better choice for them, Russia etc. Not to mention that maybe, just maybe if history would have continued about the same then there could have been a bloodless integration of NOVORUSSIA into the Russian Federation in 2014, or at least gaining independence (Crimea would have been either independent or  part of the Russian Federation for more than 20 years, and probably significantly more developed than it is today).

    Thanks.

    Because there were Ukrainian troops in Crimea. Crimean opposition were all arrested by the Kiev government after they declared wanting to join Russia. Russia did not have the ability to fight a war with Ukraine which is a pretty big country and inherited a big portion of the USSR's weapons.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16339
    Points : 16970
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Evolution of Eastern Ukraine War: Options and Outcomes

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 18, 2015 10:51 am

    The US didn't support them because there is no oil there and they wanted to join the Russians... if they wanted to separate from the Russians the US would have given them enormous support...

    In other words for the only people with the power to make it happen it was not in their interests to make it happen.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2034
    Points : 2041
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: Evolution of Eastern Ukraine War: Options and Outcomes

    Post  Regular on Mon May 18, 2015 11:53 am

    Russia managed to do everything they wanted, IMHO. They could easily supported separatists to the point they eould waltz in Kiev. But they didn't. They had to hold them back so they wouldn't end Ukrainian army in both cauldrons.
    There are interesting facts how Russia helped separatists form their military. People were trained on Russian soil for atleast 4 months before they went back to Ukraine. That's according Zakharchenko and pictures on vk.com where seps train in Russian polygons. It explains why locals weren't joining separatist forces for few months after conflict got hot. Sep number was relative low not because local population didn't want to fight, but they were sent training.
    So yes Russia is helping, but they don't care much about human suffering, bright future of Ukraine and destruction of fascism, yada yada. What they care is to strangle Kiev so hard, leave divided country and leave it for Europe to pay the bills. And in the end Europe still has to bail failing countries in Europe who aren't even half way as bad as Ukraine. Where they will get the money for it, I don't know. Ready for Golodomor v2?
    But then again I believe if Maidan wouldn't worked out Western powers would acted same way as Russia, Western parts of Ukraine were separating back then and west was supporting their choice.

    By the way do You remember how many Russian citizens were killed on Russian soil by Ukrainian artillery? What do You think US or Israel would do to country responsible for it? And what Russia did?
    avatar
    Flagship Victory

    Posts : 974
    Points : 922
    Join date : 2015-04-28
    Location : Canada

    Re: Evolution of Eastern Ukraine War: Options and Outcomes

    Post  Flagship Victory on Mon May 18, 2015 6:32 pm

    Regular wrote:Russia managed to do everything they wanted, IMHO. They could easily supported separatists to the point they eould waltz in Kiev. But they didn't. They had to hold them back so they wouldn't end Ukrainian army in both cauldrons.
    There are interesting facts how Russia helped separatists form their military. People were trained on Russian soil for atleast 4 months before they went back to Ukraine. That's according Zakharchenko and pictures on vk.com where seps train in Russian polygons. It explains why locals weren't joining separatist forces for few months after conflict got hot. Sep number was relative low not because local population didn't want to fight, but they were sent training.
    So yes Russia is helping, but they don't care much about human suffering, bright future of Ukraine and destruction of fascism, yada yada. What they care is to strangle Kiev so hard, leave divided country and leave it for Europe to pay the bills. And in the end Europe still has to bail failing countries in Europe who aren't even half way as bad as Ukraine. Where they will get the money for it, I don't know. Ready for Golodomor v2?
    But then again I believe if Maidan wouldn't worked out Western powers would acted same way as Russia, Western parts of Ukraine were separating back then and west was supporting their choice.

    By the way do You remember how many Russian citizens were killed on Russian soil by Ukrainian artillery? What do You think US or Israel would do to country responsible for it? And what Russia did?

    If memory serves, two Russian civilians near the border with Ukraine were killed. Had it been the US, forget the government, there would have been mass demonstrations ala Baltimore and Ferguson. The US government would have been forced to act because it answers to the public, and it would have cruise missiled the responsible state, in this case that would be Ukraine.
    avatar
    Ispan

    Posts : 262
    Points : 276
    Join date : 2015-07-10
    Age : 40
    Location : Madrid

    Eastern Ukraine war: Offensive or Stalemate? Analysis of options and outcomes

    Post  Ispan on Fri Nov 13, 2015 7:30 pm

    Hello everybody,

    This started as a long letter to Khepesh, but I decided to share my ramblings with the forum for discussion. I am particularly interested in the views of Russian speaking posters that have access to Russian military forums and sites and can add some insights. Particularly valuable would be the contribution of those that are military and can check for errors or misconceptions, as I am just a self-proclaimed armchair strategist, but everybody feel free to contribute.

    Summing it up, I am exploring if the current strategical stagnation of this war is due to tactical reasons, or if the conflict has been frozen due to other reasons, and probable outcomes.

    First of all, please share your news from the frontline in the situation threads. Nothing much seems to be happening, there is some harassing fire but it seems the possible junta offensive is delayed by the rain and we cannot expect anything major until the onset of cold dry weather.

    Junta has to make a push this year before going bankrupt, and is evident they are never going to comply with Minsk agreements, the question is not if, but when. Standing idle does not seem to be an option anymore, and the bankruptcy may be the catalyst to finally attack. We know they were set to go at the end of august but were stopped at the last moment. It is unlikely that they will stop a second time.

    That being said, I have been thwarted so many times this year in predicting a renewed Ukrainian offensive that  I think more or less the situation of "neither war nor peace" will continue, with perhaps a limited offensive attack. I am coming to believe that the Ukranian army lacks the capability of launching an offensive, they were decisively defeated in 2014 and what they have left is basically cannon fodder infantry and artillery. They would like to attack but they cannot. If they had the capability they would have done so. I have cried wolf too many times. It is a strange war and somethings are beyond my understanding.  dunno

    On the opposing side, I think the Novorussians don't have enough troops but that cuts both ways, if they manage to make a breach, the whole front collapses as both sides are stretched thin. I keep repeating that the Ukranian front is in the same situation as the Germans at Normandy in 1944. When the front breaks there is nothing behind, because any movement backwards only stretches further the lines, making impossible to maintain any continuous front.

    The Ukranian inactivity and lack of conviction in their probing attacks suggest weakness. On the other hand what intrigues me is that they never used their full potential. On paper at least both sides have big maneuver armored reserves, counting hundreds of tanks. Yet if I am not mistaken, the biggest number of tanks seen fighting at a unit was a entire company, a dozen tanks at most. It is strange that they only used a force that size to try to break open the Debaltsevo pocket. As a tank officer you will be well aware of this and be puzzled that no side has used armor en masse. Instead tanks seem to have been spread among infantry units as support, and being used as mobile artillery pieces.

    To Khepesh: as a tank officer you may agree with my reasoning that what prevents mass use of armor is that they simply lack the trained officers and communications to do anything larger than company sized attack. It's not just tanks, but infantry as well. As I understand from my study of military history and tactics, the critical part is having middle ranking officers. You can train amateurs to work efficiently up to the company level. As long as it is a small force and the commander can see the terrain and forces by himself.

    The critical level is at the intermediate level, batallion and up to brigade levels. Here it is necessary to do staff work and coordinate the actions of various companies and supporting arms. It seems to me that the Ukrops are very badly led and they lack the ability to prepare a simple tactical plan, to coordinate an artillery preparation, coordination of infantry and tanks and mount a batallion scale attack to take a position, in an advance measured in hundreds of meters, let alone anything more complex involving more than one battallion or a peentration of several kilometers.

    I am very familiar with these kinds of problems and operating with an amateur army raised from scratch due to my extensive study of the Spanish Civil War, so I have reason to believe a similar situation is happening with the Ukrops and to a lesser degree with the NAF. It seems though that the Ukrops haven't the Spanish genius for improvisation, and that they are even worse off than the Spanish Reds. In our war we went from militia columns to full brigades, divisions and corps in one year of fighting.
    They didn't even had the skeleton of an army to use for cadres. From my limited knowledge, the Ukranian army is even worse off than the armies of the Russian Civil War. there was no army worth of the name before the Donbass war, so they are not lacking just colonels and majors, but they are lacking even proper sergeants.


    So maybe the reason for the inactivity of the ukrops is sheer incompetence and impotence due to organizational problems. I, for a variety of good reasons, disagree with the notion that the ukros troops are getting better training from Western countries. I haven't served in the military but I do have a good idea of what can be accomplished in a given amount of time. They can train a few infantry companies to fight better or at least not make stupid mistakes, you can train infantry lieutenants in a few months, but you can't create battallion commanders and headquarters staff as easily.

    I also have another suspicion, that as a tank officer belongs to your area of expertise. I think both sides actually field far fewer tanks and armored vehicles than the hundreds they have on paper. Most of the vehicles were very old, dating back to Soviet times, and the engines must be worn. No engine, no tank!  I suspect many tanks and other vehicles are unserviceable and the rest are kept going through cannibalization. It seems very likely both sides lack trained armor crews, and that more than anything else keeps the effective number low.

    On the Ukranian side it is quite probable they have scarcity of fuel. I think this may be that instead of 400 or 500, the Ukrops can only field a hundred tanks , and then spread all along the front.

    It also seems that afte huge losses in 2014, the ukrops are reluctant to risk their remaining tanks combat worthy tanks, wich are more precious now. If they had 400 tanks operative, it is no big deal to lose 40 or 50, but if you have only 200 left, you lose a quarter of your force.

    As a tank officer and no doubt with access to Russian military forums, I am interested in Khepesh technical assesment. Maybe both sides are holding back their tanks because they are very vulnerable to antitank weapons? It seems to me from combat footage that the tactic is to use them as mobile artillery, firing explosive shells from a range beyond infantry RPG rockets.

    You know as well as me that steel armored tanks were rendered obsolete by shaped charges. Seems the T-64 and the T-72 had composite armor in the glacis and turret front that makes them at least resistant to RPG hits, and anytime reactive armor should have made them well protected against that threat (unless hit repeated times like it happened in Grozny during the 1st Chechen War). I am sure this subject is discussed openly in tank military forums and you will be familiar with the technical specifications, so my questions are:

    1) Are the tanks completely vulnerable or their armor offers some protection?

    2) RPGs being used, have tandem charge arheads? in other words, does the reactive armor protect against them or it is useless? From videos seems the reactive armor blocks are being kept, reason I think that even if they are useless against tandem charges, they still offer a plus of protection against kinetic energy projectils from tank cannons.

    3) Are antitank missiles being used? It seems not much as most of them had expired their shelf life, as those abandoned in Slavyansk,  and stocks have been consumed already. I see lots of Rapira towed antitank guns being used, like if it were WWII, for lack of something better. There are reports that the Ukrops got a few modern antitank guided missiles from the West, Javelin antitank missiles of the "fire and forget" type wich would be vastly superior to the 1980s guided missiles I am familiar with, the MILAN and TOW and Soviet equivalents


    From some website I read that the T-64 though old, is not completely useless, there were no penetrations of the front hull and turret. It seems that most tanks have been lost due to poor tactics and poor coordination with infantry, either being destroyed by RPGs at close range fired against the sides, or in tank duels against other tanks. I think if both sides are using the old Rapira towed AT guns, wich I believe most of them are the old 100mm gun mounted in the T-54 is because these have longer range than RPGs and they can still disable tanks by shots to the hull and turret sides.

    Of course artillery has destroyed a lot of tanks, and some destroyed by mines and improvised bombs as well. But it would appear that aside from ambushes at close range by infantry armed with RPGs, specially in urban terrain, there must have been a lot of tank duels, with tanks destroying each other with armor piercing kinetic shot. I would be grateful for any confirmation for these theories from what you have read in the Russian internet. I think not only armchair generals but professional Russian soldiers are studying this war with keen interest and they are drawing conclusions more accurate than some of the drivel written by Western "experts"  

    Technical discussion aside, what I really want to know if tanks are capable at least of surviving some hits and therefore a mass armored breakthrough is possible, or if they are so vulnerable to antitank rockets that they are used as mobile fire support, and that would explain both sides reluctance to use mass armor, as the crews are aware they ride in rolling coffins and reluctant to take risks.

    I am intrigued because it seems that in the taking of the airport and the February battles the Novorussians used few tanks. It seemed like a infantry and artillery battle like the First World War (and many battles of the Second as well). I don't know if this was of a desire of keeping the precious armored reserve for decisive battles, or a reflection that tanks are so vulnerable to antitank defense that is better not to risk them.

    A lot of people make a simplistic analysis that the war has ended in a stalemate of trench warfare because neither side can break through the fortified lines of the other. I do not think is the case. There is a stalemate because neither side for one reason or another has done an all out offensive to break the front using all the forces at their disposal.

    But I want to rule out the possibility that the antitank defense is so strong that we are back to the same situation as in trench warfare. Breakthroughs by infantry alone are too difficult.

    I think the Ukranians simply cannot breakthrough because they are too weak and incompetent. I think the Novorussians could but they are so short of troops they can't hold the ground they gain, that's why the didn't keep Marinka this summer. In a continuous front all positions support each other, so any salient gained will be under fire from neighboring positions.

    Wich begs the question, why then don't break through at one point and roll the continuous front? The front is too long and is thinly held. There are no reserves behind. If it breaks, there is no other line where to stablish a front until the Dnieper river.

    Perhaps the operation is too ambitious yet for the Novorussian army, but maybe not, if they break the front is just a matter of driving to the objetives then, like in the encirclements of summer of 2014. Drive to the enemy rear, encircle them, and sit down to shoot them up as they try to get out of the pocket.


    Is the frontline too strong to break? I don't think so. Tanks were designed to break trench lines. Even if the Ukranians have made concrete bunkers, the front is not a continuous impregnable Maginot line. Front is too long, is like German lines in the Ostrfront during the winter of 1941-1942, not a continous line but a series of defensive hedgehog positions around towns linked by fire and patrols. Yes, some sectors are too densely fortified to make a breakthrough possible, like in the Donetsk sector. I am very familiar with the situation, as in the Spanish Civil War happened the same. It was a infantry artillery war with barely armored vehicles, so when the front stabilized and fortifications were done, that sector remained unmoved for the rest of the war, like it happened around Madrid, but elsewhere lines were thinly held  and breakthroughs and maneuver were still possible. In the current case a breakthrough at any point of the southern front towards Mariupol and the Dnieper is possible.

    Even if there are trenches and bunkers, tanks can get through these and shrugg off machine gun fire, mortar bombs and most of artillery barrage to open the way for infantry. A fortified position can only be held if there are antitank weapons present. There are no Antitank missiles, and nothing comparable to the pak fronts of Kursk. Artillery preparation and accompanying infantry can take care of enemy antitank teams armed with RPGs. In the worst case, instead of the tanks doing the breakthrough and infantry following, infantry assault can breach the defenses and clean a lane for the tanks to pass through and exploit.


    So really I don't think is tank vulnerability or the strenght of the defenses that is keeping both sides from breaking the stalemate. If adequately prepared and enough force concentrated, any defense line can be broken. Moreover with the extended front there are more than enough weakly defended spots where a breakthrough can be achieved, leaving aside the matter of enemy reaction to counterattack and seal the breach, of course.

    In this analysis I have left out the mines. Antitank and antipersonnel minefields would be the obvious solution to the problem of maintaining a continuous extended line of defense without enough forces. Yet it is unclear if these are being used. I think Ukraine like most of the world, went along with the ban of land mines and destroyed them. I think both sides are using directional mines (of the Claymore type) and improvised booby traps to strengthen their positions, but both sides lack the pressure land mines , both antitank and antipersonnel to lay vast belts that would need to be cleared by engineers before attacking.

    Summing it up, neither side defensive lines due to shortages of manpower, materials and lack of antitank weapons and mines have anything resembling the defense lines in the Kursk salient in 1943. Sure, some fortified towns would be very tough to break on a head on assault, but there is no need to do that, since the intervals between hedgehog positions could be easily breached and the strongpoints bypassed or enveloped.

    So either side could break the front if they decided to do it. However, for the Ukranian army this would invite total defeat if failed, as their forces seem incompetent to carry even local attacks. The Novorussian weakness may be that they don't have enough forces to concentrate for an attack without stripping the rest of the front, but I reckon that even with inferior numbers the losses suffered by the Ukranian army and the shortening of the front after eliminating the Debaltsevo salient has improved the force ratios enough to pull this off. After all, if the Ukranians are so weak that they cannot attack at all, then quiet sectors can be stripped to concentrate forces for a breakthrough.

    Perhaps Novorussian army is still not ready and more training is neccessary before passing to the offensive next year, but the Ukranian weakness is so tempting, specially if no offensive materializes this year that it begs the question why a decision in the battlefied is not sought.

    In the purely military analysis, the front can be breached with decisive consequences, military, and political.

    If it hasn't been done this year is because Ukraine would like to, but it is too weak to attack, and Novorussia isn't allowed to attack because Russia still needs Ukraine as a gas transit country (as an article in slavyangrad. org reminded me ) and complete military victory is not achievable. I think Putin got cold feet at the last moment and didn't send the army into Ukraine because he was threatened with total war.They can't support Novorussia to go and take Kiev because that would provoke US intervention and a repeat of the Korean War. So the strategy would be to keep Novorussia alive and hold until such time Germany and the USA get tired of supporting Ukraine and the regime collapses as did South Vietnam.

    I think the Kremlin is wrong and if Novorussia was allowed to defeat the Ukranian army and liberate Ukraine or at least partition it, there is nothing Germany or USA could do about it.  Our only hope is that the Ukraine regime chooses war opening the way for its total defeat and allowing Russia to dictate peace on its terms.

    ultron

    Posts : 588
    Points : 569
    Join date : 2015-09-18

    Re: Evolution of Eastern Ukraine War: Options and Outcomes

    Post  ultron on Sun Nov 15, 2015 1:34 pm

    NAF would have taken Kiev by now and restored democracy to Ukraine had they been allowed to do so.
    avatar
    Ispan

    Posts : 262
    Points : 276
    Join date : 2015-07-10
    Age : 40
    Location : Madrid

    Re: Evolution of Eastern Ukraine War: Options and Outcomes

    Post  Ispan on Sun Nov 15, 2015 3:31 pm

    Well, thanks for your reply. I thought that people click on the link, see the long post, and don't read it.

    ultron wrote:NAF would have taken Kiev by now and restored democracy to Ukraine had they been allowed to do so.

    I think at the very least they could have taken Mariupol and perhaps advanced to the Dnieper reaching Crimea.

    What you say is far fetched, yet, given the low density of troops that barely allows to maintain the current front, any breakthrough would lead to a rout, as there is no other defense line than the Dnieper. And a collapse of the Ukranian army would cause the collapse of the regime, even if the Ukranian forces managed to retreat and rally at Kiev.


    Given that is completely useless to achieve any kind of understanding or negotiated settlement with the junta, it is puzzling that the Kremlin is not backing the pro-Russian side in the civil war in order to achieve regime change or at least the partition of Ukraine.

    Given that the military option is feasible, without even recquiriring Russian military intervention, the only logical conclusion is that military victory would not achieve political goals.

    If the Novorussians scored major victories, this could provoke a repeat of the Korean War scenario, faced with total defeat of Ukraine, the Western would intervene. I think highly unlikely that NATO would send troops to back the junta, but probably what the leaders in the Kremlin fear is all out economical warfare. Isolation, trade and oil embargo would cripple the Russian economy.

    So it seems the Kremlin is hoping for a repeat of the Vietnam scenario. Win by economical attrition. Have USA and Germany spend their resources in keeping Ukraine afloat, until such time economic costs outweigh profits and the West losses interest in the country, like South Vietnam collapsed soon after the US retreat.


    I think that if not the liberation of the whole country, the partition of Ukraine and the victory of a Greater Novorussia is unavoidable. Just Germany and USA are still not ready to give up and concede defeat in Ukraine.


    Of course this might change if the Kiev regime is foolhardy or desperate enough to restart the war, hopefully suffering such a defeat that the Novorussians finally get a better bargaining position to get what they want and not what Russia wants.

    avatar
    Khepesh

    Posts : 1665
    Points : 1734
    Join date : 2015-04-22
    Location : Ахетатон и Уасет

    Re: Evolution of Eastern Ukraine War: Options and Outcomes

    Post  Khepesh on Tue Nov 17, 2015 9:57 am

    Been occupied these last days....

    Anyway, a brief answer. It is indeed a strange war, but I think that is because of the forces behind it in Kiev, let alone further back into the fog. There is the influence of the oligarchs who are looking to their profits above any form of morality, and, despite the nature of the junta, the obvious reluctance to engage in war in Donbass at the beginning. Looking dispassionately at the situation it has to be said that UA should have rolled over Slavyansk very quickly, but did not partly because of incompetance, but mostly, IMO, because they simply did not comprehend, or did not want to comprehend what was happening. UA failed militarily because they were an army of conscripts led by peacetime officers who had spent their careers more interested in socialising to advance their position and in theft of government property. Such forces will always have serious difficulties against determined men who know with certainty that they have the moral right to defend themselves and their land. As far as tanks specifically are concerned, well, anybody who has any knowledge will know it takes only a few minutes to learn how to drive it in a rudimentary fashion, to go forward, to stear, it is very easy. Also, despite the seeming complexities of the fire control systems, it does not take very long to teach anybody to lay the gun onto a target and fire at it. It requires a survey of exactly who was fighting for VSN in the early days, but it can be said that many grandads were seen in captured tanks. This is an important facet of why VSN did better than UA. These grandads had been trained, and no matter that it was years ago, the T-64 and T-72B models they found themselves in had not changed for decades and it would not have taken long to remember the old skills. So, skills, skills learned, and with Afgantsy, put into practice in war, and of course with those a little younger who had fought in Chechnya. VSN tank forces had a core of trained soldiers, some of whom had combat experience, UA had recruits and generally incompetant officers with no combat experience. While it takes a very short time to teach the absolute basics of how to drive and shoot a tank, it takes much longer to learn howto do this not only properly, but automatically so that in the stress of battle the correct actions are still carried out. It takes time to learn properly all the systems and how to maintain them, it takes time to learn how to command a tank, and for those with no experience I can say it requires considerable "multi-tasking" and is certainly not a case of jumping in turret and shouting charge! fire!. VSN had been thro all that training, most of UA were still undergoing their intital training, and I wonder before first battle how many of them had even fired on the ranges, or if they had, how much and to what degree of diligence. I suspect most had only a very basic idea of what they were doing, and even now with combat experience behind them, mostly bad of course, their morale will be bad, they will have no great confidence in their obsolete tanks or their incompetant officers. IMO, they had lost before driving into their first battle.
    avatar
    Ispan

    Posts : 262
    Points : 276
    Join date : 2015-07-10
    Age : 40
    Location : Madrid

    Re: Evolution of Eastern Ukraine War: Options and Outcomes

    Post  Ispan on Tue Nov 17, 2015 3:16 pm

    Very interesting and informative, Khepesh. Events in my life keep me away from posting here, or updating my blog, but for most of us that do not speak Russian, there is a Spanish translation of Cassad latest analysis on the chances of a Ukranian offensive, google translate would make it more readable than straight from Russian

    http://slavyangrad.es/2015/11/17/las-posibilidades-de-un-ataque-ucraniano/
    avatar
    ExBeobachter1987

    Posts : 445
    Points : 445
    Join date : 2014-11-26
    Age : 29
    Location : Western Eurasia

    Re: Evolution of Eastern Ukraine War: Options and Outcomes

    Post  ExBeobachter1987 on Fri Nov 20, 2015 10:20 am

    Ispan wrote:Junta has to make a push this year before going bankrupt, and is evident they are never going to comply with Minsk agreements, the question is not if, but when. Standing idle does not seem to be an option anymore, and the bankruptcy may be the catalyst to finally attack. We know they were set to go at the end of august but were stopped at the last moment. It is unlikely that they will stop a second time.

    The Ukrainian state won't go bankrupt thanks to its Western sponsors.

    Ispan wrote:I am coming to believe that the Ukranian army lacks the capability of launching an offensive, they were decisively defeated in 2014 and what they have left is basically cannon fodder infantry and artillery. They would like to attack but they cannot. If they had the capability they would have done so. I have cried wolf too many times. It is a strange war and somethings are beyond my understanding.  dunno

    Kiev's forces are now stronger than in 2014.
    The Ukrainian army can launch a major offensive.
    Its previous failures make Kiev more cautious.

    Ispan wrote:Perhaps Novorussian army is still not ready and more training is neccessary before passing to the offensive next year, but the Ukranian weakness is so tempting, specially if no offensive materializes this year that it begs the question why a decision in the battlefied is not sought.

    In the purely military analysis, the front can be breached with decisive consequences, military, and political.

    If it hasn't been done this year is because Ukraine would like to, but it is too weak to attack, and Novorussia isn't allowed to attack because Russia still needs Ukraine as a gas transit country (as an article in slavyangrad. org reminded me ) and complete military victory is not achievable. I think Putin got cold feet at the last moment and didn't send the army into Ukraine because he was threatened with total war.They can't support Novorussia to go and take Kiev because that would provoke US intervention and a repeat of the Korean War. So the strategy would be to keep Novorussia alive and hold until such time Germany and the USA get tired of supporting Ukraine and the regime collapses as did South Vietnam.

    I think the Kremlin is wrong and if Novorussia was allowed to defeat the Ukranian army and liberate Ukraine or at least partition it, there is nothing Germany or USA could do about it.  Our only hope is that the Ukraine regime chooses war opening the way for its total defeat and allowing Russia to dictate peace on its terms.

    There was no need to threaten the Kremlin with total war.
    The many ties of the Russian elite to the West effectively limited the Russian support for Novorussia which allowed Kiev to achieve some objectives.
    avatar
    Ispan

    Posts : 262
    Points : 276
    Join date : 2015-07-10
    Age : 40
    Location : Madrid

    Re: Evolution of Eastern Ukraine War: Options and Outcomes

    Post  Ispan on Mon Dec 07, 2015 9:50 pm

    Looks like they finally will go on the offensive

    Basurin: Kiev has amassed 238 tanks, 101 ceasefire violations over the past week (Video) - Fort Russ

    http://fortruss.blogspot.com.es/2015/12/basurin-kiev-has-amassed-238-tanks-101.html


    I did a count, it is not exact because some quantities of tanks and armored vehicles types had to be guessed.

    BMP 65
    BTR 38
    Self propelled guns SAU 44
    Rocket launchers Grad 49
    Cannon and howitzer 43
    Tanks 208


    Rounding up 100 armored vehicles, 200 tanks , 100 cannon and 50 rocket launchers

    According to Yurasumy reports


    Kiev Regime army during the 2015 summer campaign
    http://southfront.org/kiev-regime-army-during-the-2015-summer-campaign/?COLLCC=2891084585

    Kiev's Losing War of Attrition
    http://southfront.org/kievs-losing-war-of-attrition/

    Those 200 tanks must be 2/3rds of their armor mass of maneuver. In summer they had 500 of wich only 300 were operational on average.

    The enemy has deployed 1/5 of their self propelled guns, and similar proportion of their rocket launchers. This is very significant because the rockets are scarce and they were saved for major battles.

    I see that the ukropithecus continue with their bad habit of dispersing their tanks for infantry support in small groups, platoon and at most a half dozen company groups (10-15). Only one concentration spotted that could be a battallion (30 tanks)

    Of course, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Remember that in intelligence, what you don't see is as important or more than what you see. These forces would be much larger. Armored vehicles and self propelled artillery are easier to spot while on the move. I guess that the bulk of the artillery is being deployed in their emplacements, if they haven't been deployed already.

    Tomorrow will be sunny and the forecast is cloudy but dry weather under sunday. Expect that they will launch the attack as soon as the US vicepresident leaves.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Evolution of Eastern Ukraine War: Options and Outcomes

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Aug 24, 2017 12:39 pm