5 ms·

One of Russia's biggest miscalculations was its military readiness. It's now pretty clear that their vision of how the invasion would play out has not matched r

One of Russia's biggest miscalculations was its military readiness. It's now pretty clear that their vision of how the invasion would play out has not matched reality, largely due to corruption in the armed forces. This actually feels somewhat similar to the US pullout in Afghanistan last year. In that case, the Taliban regained control of the country very quickly because many of the military assets that the allied forces were counting on simply didn't exist, they were overestimated figures for local military officials to siphon cash out of the military with. Russia seems to be in a similar boat. They're not nearly effective enough to maintain supply lines and there's a lot of reporting that many of the infantry are young conscripts that weren't told what they were about to do. This reeks of a corrupt military collapsing under its own weight.

MrMan 5y ago
I think the mission in Afghanistan was meaningless, or impossible, alternately. I dont think what happened there is a military failure but a failure to restrain ourselves and not go there in large numbers in the first place.
duxup 5y ago
With the caveat that it is early. I agree the military performance has been shocking. Russian conventional military capabilities seem dramatically poorer than anyone expected. As you note, supply lines, coordination, poor conscripts with out support/ knowing what is going on. No ability to fight at night… Really surprising.
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  Russia also spent the last decade or so drumming up how amazing their new military technology is. Invincible tanks, impenetrable air defences, all-seeing radars. That’s falling too. Interestingly, it seems like a common theme from the Cold War too.
- LaMarseillaise 5y ago
  I had been saying for years that Russian conventional military power was vastly overestimated, yet even I have been surprised at their dismal performance so far. A week ago, I assumed decisive Russian victory to be a foregone conclusion. Now a Ukrainian victory actually seems possible and perhaps even plausible. You are right to point out that it is early, though.
  - MrMan 5y ago
    not a military victory, almost surely, but a long-term insurrection is I guess a kind of political victory when the invaders finally leave.
    - philistine 5y ago
      It's already assured that when Russia controls the whole of Ukraine, it does so having suffered a severe blow to its reputation and its military forces. Aside from the nuclear weapons, I don't think anyone is scared of the might of the Russian army anymore. They don't want it to attack them, but everyone is reassessing their fear of the Russian bear.
- thr0wawayf00 5y ago
  True, it is very early. What I don't understand at this point is how Russia plans to occupy Ukraine in the long term given its military weakness. Even if Ukraine does fall, the guerilla war is gonna last for quite a while, especially now that the EU is arming Ukraine.
ModernMech 5y ago
> largely due to corruption in the armed forces. That seems to leave Putin off the hook, unless you're implying that the military is corrupt because of Putin, which I think is obvious because he corrupts everything he touches. Putin is a bully who likes to pick on smaller enemies. He did it when he was KGB, he did it against Georgia, he did it in Chechnya, he did it in Syria, and of course Crimea. Russia came out on top in those conflicts because they were punching down. They didn't need to have tactics or strategy because their only strategy was completely overpowering and overrunning their opponents, and counting on them not fighting back at all. Now Ukrainians are fighting back and Russia can't handle it. Why? Because Russia doesn't fight wars, they conduct special operations missions. They are used to rolling over their enemies and them staying down and dead. But here Ukrainians are getting back up to fight, and Russia can't deal with it because they didn't prepare for it. For instance they brought tanks into Ukraine but they didn't establish supply lines as you say. Is that due to a corrupt military, or because they didn't even comprehend they'd need to establish and defend supply lines? Their previous conflicts didn't necessitate doing so, and they didn't here either. I think the biggest problem Putin has right now he made for himself: he attacked Crimea and then used the experience to inform his opinion about how the Ukrainian military would fare. What happened was that the Ukrainians learned from Crimea and they prepared. What he's seeing right now from Ukrainians is the antibody response of his invasion in 2014.
- thr0wawayf00 5y ago
  > That seems to leave Putin off the hook, unless you're implying that the military is corrupt because of Putin, which I think is obvious because he corrupts everything he touches. By no means am I implying that Putin is off the hook for this. He's been the leader of that country for decades now. > Putin is a bully who likes to pick on smaller enemies. He did it when he was KGB, he did it against Georgia, he did it in Chechnya, he did it in Syria, and of course Crimea. Russia came out on top in those conflicts because they were punching down. This is true to an extent, but it also ignores the geopolitical influences that led him to strike those particular targets. He's been very aggressively countering western expansion in eastern Europe, which is a major reason why he chose to strike Ukraine. Ironically, this move may wind up backfiring in the long run. > For instance they brought tanks into Ukraine but they didn't establish supply lines as you say. Is that due to a corrupt military, or because they didn't even comprehend they'd need to establish and defend supply lines? Their previous conflicts didn't necessitate doing so, and they didn't here either. Yes, establishing supply lines is military strategy 101. Tanks are not exactly fuel-efficient and require lots of logistics and service to remain battle-ready. The failure of Russian armor in Ukraine feels way more like inept leadership than it does pure hubris. Surely they knew how big the country was before they decided to invade, I have a hard time seeing them being intentionally so ill-prepared as to think they wouldn't need to refuel these multi million-dollar tanks. > he attacked Crimea and then used the experience to inform his opinion about how the Ukrainian military would fare. What happened was that the Ukrainians learned from Crimea and they prepared. What he's seeing right now from Ukrainians is the antibody response of his invasion in 2014. I think is this way oversimplifies and glosses over many key facts around the geopolitics of the situation. Crimea was mostly ethnic Russian and the annexation has remained fairly popular in that part of the country. The reality is that Ukraine is a poorly segmented country that still sees major Russian support in its eastern half. It's really only the western half of Ukraine that consistently votes to join the EU and NATO. Keep in mind that Crimea happened right after president Yanukovich was removed via a coup for being a Russian sympathizer himself, so Ukraine was in a leadership transition at the time. Zelensky OTOH has rejected many offers by the Kremlin to align with Russia, which makes him far more dangerous to Putin. I think Putin surrounded himself with yes men that promised a swift and powerful invasion and failed to deliver because they're fundamentally corrupt and have no real idea how effective their military resources are. The Russian economy is much worse today than it was when Crimea was annexed, which in turn fuels corruption.
spacemanmatt 5y ago
The captured 'soldiers' have been reporting they were hoodwinked into launching attacks, and their army is up to 80% conscripted.
exabrial 5y ago
Please read this comment as pure speculation, as I don't have any more information than anyone else. I was initially surprised Russians forces haven't steamrolled Ukraine, BUT, I think that's intentional move by Russian Military leadership. Throwing your hot hand in immediately at country that recently received large shipments of [known effective] Western ATGM's... probably isn't the best move. Essentially: Putin sent green 18 year-old recruits to the slaughter to see what would happen. Ukraine repels the first wave using valuable ATGM munitions, letting Russia send experienced tank crews come later when Ukraine ammunition is spent. No matter the scenario, the real loser is again Russia. Do you think the CIA is going to let a bunch of top secret Russian armor sit on the battlefield untouched? IMHO, probably not. A lot of Russian military secrets are going to be revealed to the west.
- Exmoor 5y ago
  Perhaps, but this really seems like we're having to try real hard here. To repurpose a tired phrase, don’t ascribe to planning what can be plainly explained by incompetence. It's very difficult to imagine anyone in the Russian command planning what we're seeing here. The veterans I'm seeing comments from are baffled. Russian troops are not practicing land-war 101 here and are just walking around in the open in tightly bunched groups with their hands in their pockets.
  - exabrial 5y ago
    Fair point!
- MrMan 5y ago
  I agree with everything except the real loser is Ukraine.
- type0 5y ago
  > Do you think the CIA is going to let a bunch of top secret Russian armor sit on the battlefield untouched? IMHO, probably not. A lot of Russian military secrets are going to be revealed to the west. This is just wishful thinking, Putin isn't an idiot even if CNN tries to portrait him as such.

MrMan 5y ago

I think the mission in Afghanistan was meaningless, or impossible, alternately. I dont think what happened there is a military failure but a failure to restrain ourselves and not go there in large numbers in the first place.

duxup 5y ago

With the caveat that it is early. I agree the military performance has been shocking. Russian conventional military capabilities seem dramatically poorer than anyone expected. As you note, supply lines, coordination, poor conscripts with out support/ knowing what is going on. No ability to fight at night… Really surprising.

rich_sasha 5y ago
Russia also spent the last decade or so drumming up how amazing their new military technology is. Invincible tanks, impenetrable air defences, all-seeing radars. That’s falling too. Interestingly, it seems like a common theme from the Cold War too.
LaMarseillaise 5y ago
I had been saying for years that Russian conventional military power was vastly overestimated, yet even I have been surprised at their dismal performance so far. A week ago, I assumed decisive Russian victory to be a foregone conclusion. Now a Ukrainian victory actually seems possible and perhaps even plausible. You are right to point out that it is early, though.
- MrMan 5y ago
  not a military victory, almost surely, but a long-term insurrection is I guess a kind of political victory when the invaders finally leave.
  - philistine 5y ago
    It's already assured that when Russia controls the whole of Ukraine, it does so having suffered a severe blow to its reputation and its military forces. Aside from the nuclear weapons, I don't think anyone is scared of the might of the Russian army anymore. They don't want it to attack them, but everyone is reassessing their fear of the Russian bear.
thr0wawayf00 5y ago
True, it is very early. What I don't understand at this point is how Russia plans to occupy Ukraine in the long term given its military weakness. Even if Ukraine does fall, the guerilla war is gonna last for quite a while, especially now that the EU is arming Ukraine.

ModernMech 5y ago

> largely due to corruption in the armed forces. That seems to leave Putin off the hook, unless you're implying that the military is corrupt because of Putin, which I think is obvious because he corrupts everything he touches. Putin is a bully who likes to pick on smaller enemies. He did it when he was KGB, he did it against Georgia, he did it in Chechnya, he did it in Syria, and of course Crimea. Russia came out on top in those conflicts because they were punching down. They didn't need to have tactics or strategy because their only strategy was completely overpowering and overrunning their opponents, and counting on them not fighting back at all. Now Ukrainians are fighting back and Russia can't handle it. Why? Because Russia doesn't fight wars, they conduct special operations missions. They are used to rolling over their enemies and them staying down and dead. But here Ukrainians are getting back up to fight, and Russia can't deal with it because they didn't prepare for it. For instance they brought tanks into Ukraine but they didn't establish supply lines as you say. Is that due to a corrupt military, or because they didn't even comprehend they'd need to establish and defend supply lines? Their previous conflicts didn't necessitate doing so, and they didn't here either. I think the biggest problem Putin has right now he made for himself: he attacked Crimea and then used the experience to inform his opinion about how the Ukrainian military would fare. What happened was that the Ukrainians learned from Crimea and they prepared. What he's seeing right now from Ukrainians is the antibody response of his invasion in 2014.

thr0wawayf00 5y ago
> That seems to leave Putin off the hook, unless you're implying that the military is corrupt because of Putin, which I think is obvious because he corrupts everything he touches. By no means am I implying that Putin is off the hook for this. He's been the leader of that country for decades now. > Putin is a bully who likes to pick on smaller enemies. He did it when he was KGB, he did it against Georgia, he did it in Chechnya, he did it in Syria, and of course Crimea. Russia came out on top in those conflicts because they were punching down. This is true to an extent, but it also ignores the geopolitical influences that led him to strike those particular targets. He's been very aggressively countering western expansion in eastern Europe, which is a major reason why he chose to strike Ukraine. Ironically, this move may wind up backfiring in the long run. > For instance they brought tanks into Ukraine but they didn't establish supply lines as you say. Is that due to a corrupt military, or because they didn't even comprehend they'd need to establish and defend supply lines? Their previous conflicts didn't necessitate doing so, and they didn't here either. Yes, establishing supply lines is military strategy 101. Tanks are not exactly fuel-efficient and require lots of logistics and service to remain battle-ready. The failure of Russian armor in Ukraine feels way more like inept leadership than it does pure hubris. Surely they knew how big the country was before they decided to invade, I have a hard time seeing them being intentionally so ill-prepared as to think they wouldn't need to refuel these multi million-dollar tanks. > he attacked Crimea and then used the experience to inform his opinion about how the Ukrainian military would fare. What happened was that the Ukrainians learned from Crimea and they prepared. What he's seeing right now from Ukrainians is the antibody response of his invasion in 2014. I think is this way oversimplifies and glosses over many key facts around the geopolitics of the situation. Crimea was mostly ethnic Russian and the annexation has remained fairly popular in that part of the country. The reality is that Ukraine is a poorly segmented country that still sees major Russian support in its eastern half. It's really only the western half of Ukraine that consistently votes to join the EU and NATO. Keep in mind that Crimea happened right after president Yanukovich was removed via a coup for being a Russian sympathizer himself, so Ukraine was in a leadership transition at the time. Zelensky OTOH has rejected many offers by the Kremlin to align with Russia, which makes him far more dangerous to Putin. I think Putin surrounded himself with yes men that promised a swift and powerful invasion and failed to deliver because they're fundamentally corrupt and have no real idea how effective their military resources are. The Russian economy is much worse today than it was when Crimea was annexed, which in turn fuels corruption.

spacemanmatt 5y ago

The captured 'soldiers' have been reporting they were hoodwinked into launching attacks, and their army is up to 80% conscripted.

exabrial 5y ago

Please read this comment as pure speculation, as I don't have any more information than anyone else. I was initially surprised Russians forces haven't steamrolled Ukraine, BUT, I think that's intentional move by Russian Military leadership. Throwing your hot hand in immediately at country that recently received large shipments of [known effective] Western ATGM's... probably isn't the best move. Essentially: Putin sent green 18 year-old recruits to the slaughter to see what would happen. Ukraine repels the first wave using valuable ATGM munitions, letting Russia send experienced tank crews come later when Ukraine ammunition is spent. No matter the scenario, the real loser is again Russia. Do you think the CIA is going to let a bunch of top secret Russian armor sit on the battlefield untouched? IMHO, probably not. A lot of Russian military secrets are going to be revealed to the west.

Exmoor 5y ago
Perhaps, but this really seems like we're having to try real hard here. To repurpose a tired phrase, don’t ascribe to planning what can be plainly explained by incompetence. It's very difficult to imagine anyone in the Russian command planning what we're seeing here. The veterans I'm seeing comments from are baffled. Russian troops are not practicing land-war 101 here and are just walking around in the open in tightly bunched groups with their hands in their pockets.
- exabrial 5y ago
  Fair point!
MrMan 5y ago
I agree with everything except the real loser is Ukraine.
type0 5y ago
> Do you think the CIA is going to let a bunch of top secret Russian armor sit on the battlefield untouched? IMHO, probably not. A lot of Russian military secrets are going to be revealed to the west. This is just wishful thinking, Putin isn't an idiot even if CNN tries to portrait him as such.