5 ms·

The will to defend your country proved to be a strong factor to be considered in many modern wars.

belter 5y ago
Not only that but in close combat and urban environments being well supplied and locally supported takes priority. Sadly, this means unfortunately, that refugees have a short time window to get to safety. I see Russian troops getting to control border points of Ukraine so as to restrict incoming arms supplies.
- XorNot 5y ago
  That's a lot of troops to put in extremely well known locations which aren't that useful to overall control of the land mass though.
Friday_ 5y ago
Nah. There is math behind it. 3 to 1 attack ratio rule says there should be three times more attackers.
- risyachka 5y ago
  If the morale is very low on one side and very high on other - it can easily be 5 to 1 or more.
  - sph 5y ago
    Indeed. To me the situation is like if USA were to invade Canada. They share a similar culture, language, plenty Russians know or have lived in Ukraine or viceversa. The morale hit is enormous. Especially when these kids are told they're sent there to liberate it from the Nazi government and they see people that look, talk and shit exactly like them. How long can they follow the orders and trust the chain of command? And how long can the internal propaganda convince the Russians that their war is not a senseless massacre of cousins and friends?
- polycaster 5y ago
  Is this a founded rule or rather anecdotally?
  - Friday_ 5y ago
    It's a combat rule. Known from Sun Tzu, and later.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    It's not an exact science, 3:1, 5:1, highly dependent on morale, local conditions and so on. But defenders have an advantage assuming equal weaponry. Russia has air superiority so that definitely upsets the balance, but so far they have not been able to use that very effectively. They did not even manage to protect their troop transport airplanes all that well, two of which got downed, and that really adds up in casualties.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
I don’t know how much that will help here. Most of the time that worked, the wars were at the end of a long supply chain (see Afghanistan for USSR, Vietnam for USA, Afghanistan and Iraq for USA) and were not felt to be vital (see protests over Vietnam). In Ukraine, the war is next door to Russia and easily supplied. In addition, whatever it means to the Russian people, Putin has a lot staked personally on this war. In addition, Russia will be operating with a lot less restrictive rules of engagement (the invasion itself is a war crime, so adding other war crimes on top of it really is t going to change a whole lot of opinion for them). Rather I predict this will be like the Boer War or the US war in the Philippines where despite spirited local defenses, the resistance is ground down.
- nradov 5y ago
  The USA never had a problem delivering troops and supplies to Vietnam and Iraq. They just docked cargo ships at secure deep-water ports and unloaded. Afghanistan being landlocked was more difficult to sustain a large mechanized military force.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- woajx 5y ago
  Ya right who the fuck is going to want to go do business or work in Russia after this lunacy. They are on track to pariah state no matter what happens in Ukraine.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
agumonkey 5y ago
As an average joe I have no important information, but people need to eat, need access to water and energy. Tweets implied destruction of plants and reserves.. if this keeps going they will simply not be able to resist on their own. Then there's the logistical implication of Russia, videos of heavy (if not extreme) ballistics are floating around. I love rooting for the underdog but the line is getting thinner.
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  A territory must at least sustain itself in the long run. Russia does not have the economy to fund Ukraine. So they can’t just level it: they have the means but not the ability to hold it afterwards. Russia certainly has the means to win all the battles, they might just then find they cannot keep the spoils.
  - pelasaco 5y ago
    Not saying that you are wrong, but on Crimea Russia was able to improve the infrastructure in comparison with Ukraine
    - rich_sasha 5y ago
      In Crimea, it’s true that the local population was more willing to cooperate. A large fraction were ethnic Russians. In Ukraine, it seems there are more volunteers to fight than weapons.
  - rocqua 5y ago
    Do they want to keep Ukraine? I would guess they plan to change the government and install a puppet. Perhaps with annexing a small bit.
    - rich_sasha 5y ago
      The puppet government will need support from military/Russia police, control of cities, transport links and so on. Look how quickly the US-backed Afghan government fell when US troops retreated. Another sad possibility is that Russia just wants to cause as much death, havoc and destruction, then retreat. But that seems a lot less like an achievement.

Not only that but in close combat and urban environments being well supplied and locally supported takes priority. Sadly, this means unfortunately, that refugees have a short time window to get to safety. I see Russian troops getting to control border points of Ukraine so as to restrict incoming arms supplies.

XorNot 5y ago
That's a lot of troops to put in extremely well known locations which aren't that useful to overall control of the land mass though.

Friday_ 5y ago

Nah. There is math behind it. 3 to 1 attack ratio rule says there should be three times more attackers.

risyachka 5y ago
If the morale is very low on one side and very high on other - it can easily be 5 to 1 or more.
- sph 5y ago
  Indeed. To me the situation is like if USA were to invade Canada. They share a similar culture, language, plenty Russians know or have lived in Ukraine or viceversa. The morale hit is enormous. Especially when these kids are told they're sent there to liberate it from the Nazi government and they see people that look, talk and shit exactly like them. How long can they follow the orders and trust the chain of command? And how long can the internal propaganda convince the Russians that their war is not a senseless massacre of cousins and friends?
polycaster 5y ago
Is this a founded rule or rather anecdotally?
- Friday_ 5y ago
  It's a combat rule. Known from Sun Tzu, and later.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  It's not an exact science, 3:1, 5:1, highly dependent on morale, local conditions and so on. But defenders have an advantage assuming equal weaponry. Russia has air superiority so that definitely upsets the balance, but so far they have not been able to use that very effectively. They did not even manage to protect their troop transport airplanes all that well, two of which got downed, and that really adds up in casualties.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago

I don’t know how much that will help here. Most of the time that worked, the wars were at the end of a long supply chain (see Afghanistan for USSR, Vietnam for USA, Afghanistan and Iraq for USA) and were not felt to be vital (see protests over Vietnam). In Ukraine, the war is next door to Russia and easily supplied. In addition, whatever it means to the Russian people, Putin has a lot staked personally on this war. In addition, Russia will be operating with a lot less restrictive rules of engagement (the invasion itself is a war crime, so adding other war crimes on top of it really is t going to change a whole lot of opinion for them). Rather I predict this will be like the Boer War or the US war in the Philippines where despite spirited local defenses, the resistance is ground down.

nradov 5y ago
The USA never had a problem delivering troops and supplies to Vietnam and Iraq. They just docked cargo ships at secure deep-water ports and unloaded. Afghanistan being landlocked was more difficult to sustain a large mechanized military force.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
woajx 5y ago
Ya right who the fuck is going to want to go do business or work in Russia after this lunacy. They are on track to pariah state no matter what happens in Ukraine.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

agumonkey 5y ago

As an average joe I have no important information, but people need to eat, need access to water and energy. Tweets implied destruction of plants and reserves.. if this keeps going they will simply not be able to resist on their own. Then there's the logistical implication of Russia, videos of heavy (if not extreme) ballistics are floating around. I love rooting for the underdog but the line is getting thinner.

rich_sasha 5y ago
A territory must at least sustain itself in the long run. Russia does not have the economy to fund Ukraine. So they can’t just level it: they have the means but not the ability to hold it afterwards. Russia certainly has the means to win all the battles, they might just then find they cannot keep the spoils.
- pelasaco 5y ago
  Not saying that you are wrong, but on Crimea Russia was able to improve the infrastructure in comparison with Ukraine
  - rich_sasha 5y ago
    In Crimea, it’s true that the local population was more willing to cooperate. A large fraction were ethnic Russians. In Ukraine, it seems there are more volunteers to fight than weapons.
- rocqua 5y ago
  Do they want to keep Ukraine? I would guess they plan to change the government and install a puppet. Perhaps with annexing a small bit.
  - rich_sasha 5y ago
    The puppet government will need support from military/Russia police, control of cities, transport links and so on. Look how quickly the US-backed Afghan government fell when US troops retreated. Another sad possibility is that Russia just wants to cause as much death, havoc and destruction, then retreat. But that seems a lot less like an achievement.