The War in the Ukraine

Biscuits said:

It's not just Russian strategy but also the difference in power from Ukraine and countries with barely functioning militaries like Iraq or Afghanistan.

Ukraine inherited a lot from the USSR whose armies were almost always superior to western Europe, which is why for most of the cold war why US invested in threatening with MAD, because USSR had conventional army supremacy.

In this war, Ukraine is firing 3-5k munitions a day, which is on a similar level to how much the American Axis were firing each day during the Iraq invasion.

So its doubtful if the "western" doctrine would even work at all, given that they've never fought an enemy with remotely as high firepower as Ukraine. If Saddam's army was shooting 5k shells a day at the invaders like Zelensky's army is, it'd probably have been a slaughter if the US forces just charge straight in. Charging in only worked due to highly incompetent, corrupt enemy command and very weak artillery/MLRS capability.

Click to expand...

I think we need to be objective and realistic and not fall into the same trap of underestimating the opposition as the west has done with Russia.

NATO would have absolutely wrecked Ukraine in a conventional war because the Ukrainian military is precisely what NATO has been tailor made to fight against, and in territory that is very favourable to western favoured air wars. Sure, soviet AD were also tailored against NATO, but Ukraine’s AD have not been upgraded much since soviet times while NATO TacAir have been continuously upgraded and entire new generations have enter service since.

Ukraine is a powerful conventional land army designed to fight powerful conventional land armies. They might be firing thousands of shells a day, but that artillery power would mean absolutely nothing against NATO air power.

Although Russian TacAir has been conspicuous with its absence lately in this war due to early losses to Ukraine AD, those losses were still fairly light in number and percentage and was as much a result of a lack of the right tools by the Russians as it is because of the vast soviet AD systems Ukraine inherited from the USSR. Modern NATO SEAD and DEAD capabilities would have been far harder for their soviet era gear to perform favourable against.

Would NATO have suffered losses? Undoubtedly, and probably heavier losses than since Vietnam, but would it have been enough to stop NATO from eventually gaining air dominance and then curbstomping the Ukraine army from the air? I can’t see how.

plawolf said:

I think we need to be objective and realistic and not fall into the same trap of underestimating the opposition as the west has done with Russia.

NATO would have absolutely wrecked Ukraine in a conventional war because the Ukrainian military is precisely what NATO has been tailor made to fight against, and in territory that is very favourable to western favoured air wars. Sure, soviet AD were also tailored against NATO, but Ukraine’s AD have not been upgraded much since soviet times while NATO TacAir have been continuously upgraded and entire new generations have enter service since.

Ukraine is a powerful conventional land army designed to fight powerful conventional land armies. They might be firing thousands of shells a day, but that artillery power would mean absolutely nothing against NATO air power.

Although Russian TacAir has been conspicuous with its absence lately in this war due to early losses to Ukraine AD, those losses were still fairly light in number and percentage and was as much a result of a lack of the right tools by the Russians as it is because of the vast soviet AD systems Ukraine inherited from the USSR. Modern NATO SEAD and DEAD capabilities would have been far harder for their soviet era gear to perform favourable against.

Would NATO have suffered losses? Undoubtedly, and probably heavier losses than since Vietnam, but would it have been enough to stop NATO from eventually gaining air dominance and then curbstomping the Ukraine army from the air? I can’t see how.

Click to expand...

Without any western support, Russia would also have won much earlier.

So yes Ukraine alone against NATO would be easier, maybe a more fair comparison would be Ukraine with Chinese ISR support and drones. And I'll stand by my statement that that fight would be anything but easy for NATO who simply never fought against someone with so much firepower.

"heavier losses since Vietnam" yes, that's my point. And Russia's losses so far are not heavier than what US lost in Vietnam. Russia will eventually grind down most of Ukraine's forces without losing too many men on their side, then they'll take over whichever parts of the country they claim.

Ukraine AD is old but very numerous. US SEAD would eventually start grinding them down, but even if they could do it twice as fast as Russia, it'd still take months, and meanwhile any army would struggle being on the offense against that high volume of fire.

I think the biggest lesson here both China and NATO can learn is that it's almost like a ww1 moment. We get a glimpse of how land war would look when both armies are modern, which we've never seen before.

plawolf said:

NATO would have absolutely wrecked Ukraine in a conventional war because the Ukrainian military is precisely what NATO has been tailor made to fight against, and in territory that is very favourable to western favoured air wars. Sure, soviet AD were also tailored against NATO, but Ukraine’s AD have not been upgraded much since soviet times while NATO TacAir have been continuously upgraded and entire new generations have enter service since.

Click to expand...

No chance of Iraq/Afgansitan style air superiority.

half dozen surviving BUK could spoil the party, killing best part of the NATO airforce.

If the NATO use airplanes as bomb truck then they have to make hundreds of trips with each plane.

Means if there is a leftover air defence with 5% chance of kill on each trip then in a few weeks time the losses of the NATO will be debilitating.

And for this all they need is a data stream from early warning radars, on 1-10 m wavelength.

How's NATO performance against Serbian Air Defense in 1999 ? How many Kub they can nail ?

I think the 1999's lesson are somewhat forgotten, despite its relevance today. Soviet era SAM's like Kub are proven relatively hard to suppress and even "static" S-125/SA-3 can evade NATO aircrafts. and it all happen in Serbia which like 7 times smaller than Ukraine.

The other lesson is the great scud hunt in 1990's. This is particularly important for people who wonder why Russians cant quickly nail or even find Tochka launchers. Mobile launchers are HARD target particularly when it use solid propellant missile.

IF Serbian with ancient Kub and Neva/pechora can evade NATO surveillance.. imagine what Ukraine can do with more modern Buk and even S-300PT's and about 7 times the area of Serbia. and this time they got free Western AEW support.

Well Russians have their surveillance platform etc.. but as history shown.. Mobile launchers and SAM's are hard to pick in the first place.

Russian victory parade in Kyiv.

Some people here are writing about NATO against Russia war - so far we can only see glimpses of how NATO would work on Russians. Just look at the first shot and and you should get the idea.

Janiz said:

Russian victory parade in Kyiv.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1560904746881486849

Some people here are writing about NATO against Russia war - so far we can only see glimpses of how NATO would work on Russians. Just look at the first shot and and you should get the idea.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1560925593302089731

Click to expand...

After so many daily Ukrainian victories on Twitter, I wonder why the Ukrainians have not yet deoccupied Kherson, Zaporozhye, Donbas, Crimea and why the Ukrainians have not yet reached Moscow!?

Since someone was asking if ukranians shelling ZNPP could be a NATO ploy to escalate, maybe they arent that far off. Then again, british politicians are as reliable as a used car salesman.

Janiz said:

Some people here are writing about NATO against Russia war - so far we can only see glimpses of how NATO would work on Russians. Just look at the first shot and and you should get the idea.

Click to expand...

You should also include videos of Russia striking capital cities, because you know, they can shoot back, unlike iraqui ir libyan civilians.

And looks like the dozens of Krasnopol videos we have seen before, so not that impressive. Does the US even have enough of them anyway?. They might need to save them if they keep itching for a fight with China

Also, no matter how much you simp for NATO or Ukraine, you won't be getting the Kurils back.

Janiz said:

Russian victory parade in Kyiv.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1560904746881486849

Some people here are writing about NATO against Russia war - so far we can only see glimpses of how NATO would work on Russians. Just look at the first shot and and you should get the idea.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1560925593302089731

Click to expand...

True, being able to hit a truck during wartime speaks volumes of how NATO would be able to overcome having 5000+ shells fired at them every day.

Just like a single krasnopol hitting some Ukraine convoy shows what Russians could do to NATO. If they were really trying, they could surely roll into Paris with such overwhelming power!

From Sputnik's unofficial Telegram channel:

The targets of Kiev's shelling of the Zaporozhye NPP are beginning to become clear.

Some representatives of the establishment in London and Washington started talking about the possible involvement of NATO in the conflict with Russia.

Tobias Ellwood, a member of the British Parliament, said that "any deliberate damage to the Ukrainian nuclear reactor with a possible radiation leak would be a violation of NATO Article 5."

A similar statement was made by Adam Kinzinger, a member of the US House of Representatives. In his opinion, a radiation leak that "will kill people in NATO countries" will automatically trigger Article 5 of the Alliance's charter.

Click to expand...

troops are not being mobilised yet in europe so I still think it's a ploy to force russia to end the hostilities before winter comes